Sometime ago, President Duterte rued that the masses do not understand and support federalism. His lament is validated by a survey showing that our people are not ready to embrace it. Indeed, up to now, there is no fire in the popular belly for it.
Confusing and conflicting. For one thing, the proponents, whether in Congress or elsewhere, have presented confusing, if not conflicting, concepts and theories. They are not united on the specific principles, structures and functions.
This is why I wrote in this space on Jan. 7 that, like many of our countrymen, I am not convinced that we need federalism. Nonetheless, I am open and willing to listen, provided the specifics are laid out clearly and precisely.
In fact, I think our 30-year-old 1987 Constitution must be updated to keep up with the current needs and aspirations of our people. The question as I see it is: Should it be overhauled, or replaced, or just tweaked and tuned up?
What may need tweaking are its ultranationalistic provisions, which have been overtaken by the technological and economic realities of the 21st century.
Take technology. Information is exploding from all over the world, not just from 100-percent Filipino-owned media firms, reaching our people via platforms (like the internet) and devices (like smartphones) unknown in 1987.
Or take globalization. True, it has overwhelmed inefficient local industries and disadvantaged some agricultural products (like rice) which cannot compete with those grown in Thailand and Vietnam (but delighted consumers with lower prices).
On the other hand, the globalization of labor has benefited us. The main drivers of our economy now are the remittances of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and the higher wages paid by business process outsourcing (BPO) outfits. Without our OFWs and BPO workers, our economy would simply collapse.
To succeed in amending these Charter provisions, globalization must be explained in simple terms understood by our masses, not as economists describe it (“the free flow of goods, investments and services in a borderless world”), or as lawyers define it (“the lifting of tariffs, quotas and quantitative restrictions”).
Our masses will hardly understand such sophisticated talk. Better to say that globalization enables our people, especially the OFWs (nurses, engineers, construction workers, domestic helpers, etc.) to obtain better-paying jobs abroad, or to get BPO employment locally as if they were working in a foreign country. In this way, our masses will know how globalization helps put food on their tables, buy TV sets for their homes, and construct better houses for their families.
Extreme remedies. A good way of explaining federalism is to use parallels, like: One suffering chest pains, dizziness and difficulty of breathing is brought to a doctor (cardiologist) who will diagnose and probably ask the patient to undergo tests like electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, stress test, cardiac MRI, coronary angiography, etc.
The tests will show possible blocked arteries, defective heart valves, scarred heart tissues, or simple heartburn. Once the root cause of the symptoms is determined and the ailment diagnosed, the doctor will discuss possible remedies: medication, angioplasty, coronary bypass surgery, or heart transplant, depending on the nature and severity of the infirmity. Costs, medical facilities and doctor’s expertise are factors, too, noting that the risks of heart transplants (including tissue rejections) are far worse than bypass surgery.
Or, to use a simpler parallel: If your car refuses to start, you do not immediately order an engine overhaul. See first if the battery is dead or some electrical wires are loose. The point is: Know the root cause before rushing to the solution, taking into account the seriousness of the problem and the cost of the repair/replacement.
And so it is with federalism. It should, in my humble view, be explained in easy-to-comprehend ways, not in obtuse legalese or doctoral treatises. Discuss symptoms, diagnoses, root causes, solutions, aftereffects, and why extreme, new, disruptive, or risky remedies (comparable to heart transplants and engine overhauls) are absolutely needed.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com