Get Real
Nonsense
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:06:00 08/16/2008
Filed Under: Mindanao peace process, Charter change, Constitution
MANILA, Philippines—One would think that the controversial “Memorandum of Agreement,” or MOA, between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Republic of the Philippines had enough problems on its own with the widely differing opinions it has generated, ranging from its innocuousness (“it is just a piece of paper”) to its being a sellout of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Moreover, there are questions such as why that MOA never directly adverted to the Constitution, or why the people in the areas claimed as ancestral domains are expected to agree or disagree, in a plebiscite, to be part of an entity whose structure and framework are still amorphous, subject to future “comprehensive negotiations.”
But not content with having to resolve those problems and issues, Press Secretary Jess Dureza—until two months ago the government’s chief negotiator with the MILF (which means that former AFP chief of staff Hermogenes Esperon’s being made the scapegoat by critics is unfair)—is using the MOA as a launching pad for forcing federalism down our throats. The structural message is: if we want peace, we have to change the Constitution, and the major change required is federalism.
What is noteworthy is that in the last attempt at Charter change, the life-and-death issue was a parliamentary system, with its advocates claiming it was the magic bullet that would solve all our ills. That was nonsense. As far as I can see, the parliamentary system would only consolidate political power in the hands of local dynasties and national officials who would be free of any term limits.
This time, Charter change puts federalism as the life-and-death issue, with the P word (parliamentary), so vital before, not even mentioned. And because federalism could spell the difference between “life and death” (peace or war), time again is of the essence. That is why the matter should be handled by our dear legislators in a constituent assembly, rather than in a constitutional convention. And President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who just two years ago made only token comments about federalism and was obsessed with establishing a parliamentary system—an idea to which she had been previously lukewarm, if memory serves me right—is now currently obsessed with federalism.
But which type of federalism are Ms Arroyo, Dureza et al. talking about? And what is federalism in the first place?
Let’s take these one by one, and see whether the described shoe will fit the Philippine foot.
Federalism is described as a system “where final decisions are dispersed among local governments representing specific and sometimes overlapping geographical areas. These governmental units have, as constituents, people of different social, political, moral and economic persuasions.”
Now come the questions: But doesn’t our Constitution provide that the territorial and political subdivisions—provinces, cities, municipalities and “barangay” [villages or neighborhood districts]—shall enjoy local autonomy? (Article X, Local Government) Didn’t Congress already enact a local government code to this effect? Don’t our local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenues? Are they not entitled to a just share in the national taxes, which should be automatically released to them? Are they not entitled to an “equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth” within their respective areas?
What does federalism add to this equation that is not already in the Constitution or can be provided by law?
Then there’s the matter of “people of different social, political, moral and economic persuasions.” Gee! Wonder what the difference is between a Batangueño and a Novo Ecijano, a Cebuano and a Pangasinense, except their dialects? Do they have different social, political, moral and economic persuasions? Now if we’re talking about Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, differences do exist—but our Constitution, in the same Article X, recognizes that and provides for autonomous regions.
But here’s the kicker about federalism, as far as I am concerned. As per the “Primer on Federalism” issued by Jose Abueva, one of its most ardent advocates, federalism “developed as a response to the need to link separate political communities together in order to pursue effectively objectives that each could not obtain on its own, but without subsuming their respective identities”—as in the United States, where already existing, independent states, decided to unite. Notice, they started off separately, and ended up united. In our case, we started united, and now we want to separate? As Dr. Amelou Benitez Reyes of Philippine Women’s University observes, “That doesn’t make sense”— i.e., nonsense.
Nevertheless, let us assume for the moment (but only for the moment) that a federal system is the way to go. That brings up the question of which type of federalism we are talking about, because according to the Abueva primer, federal systems can be categorized as cooperative (e.g., United States, Venezuela), competitive (Pakistan, United Kingdom), coercive (Nigeria), or permissive (Malaysia, Mexico), depending on the distribution of powers and functions between the federal and state governments.
As of now, I have yet to hear from the politicians advocating federalism which type they are thinking about. Yet Abueva’s primer is explicit: The type of federalism suited for the Philippines can be determined only through discussion, consultation and debate among our people. It is a process that is envisioned, in his other writings, to take 10 years. But which Ms Arroyo and Dureza want to telescope to—10 months?
Nonsense.
|
