As I see it, incoming President Rodrigo Duterte’s timeline so far has this feature: Three to six months into his term, he will have reduced criminality and corruption in the country by a substantial amount. Please, Mr. Duterte, tell us how we are to measure the success (or failure) of such an effort. What will constitute “substantial”? The number of shoot-to-kill orders carried out? The increase in the number of cases filed against government officials and employees? The crime rates (which ones?) reduced by 25 percent, or 50 percent, or 10 percent? The jailing of Jojo Binay (you promised he would be the first one you would go after, remember)?
Then we have a second feature: Within two years, he will submit his federalism proposal to either a plebiscite or a referendum.
Duterte explains that within this period, he will create a commission (Commission to Study Federalism?), whose main task (quoting from newspaper reports, which may be dangerous) would be to start the discussion on how the country could effect the shift to a federal form of government. After that, he would call for a constitutional convention (obviously through Congress, because the latter is the only one who can call it, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members).
So, Reader, Duterte does not have a specific proposal in mind. The commission will package it, from scratch.
Frankly, I don’t think he will be able to achieve either of these two promises/proposals within his projected timeline. But his first promise, from all the analyses I read, is what got him elected. I don’t think people voted for him because of federalism. What does he hope to achieve by it?
Well, he asserts that nothing short of federalism could solve our Moro problem. The Moros don’t seem to think so. They think that the Bangsamoro Basic Law does not need constitutional change. He also asserts that our presidential, unitary form of government has led to unequal distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, he gives us no evidence to back his statement. I know of no study or research that does.
But hold on. How did “presidential” get into the picture? We can have a federal and presidential government at the same time (e.g., the United States). So does that mean he ultimately wants a federal, parliamentary form of government, as opposed to our current unitary, presidential? If so, why hasn’t he said it out loud? Is the parliamentary form of government his actual objective, and he is only hiding behind federalism? Is he using the parliamentary promise to keep Congress in line (they want it so badly)? Please, Mr. Duterte, say it isn’t so. I can see benefits to federalism, although it also has its costs. But a parliamentary form of government will mean no more term limits, more political dynasties, and more chances to keep feudalism alive and well. In other words, it will mean the triumph of trapos and their kin, the buwayas who have impoverished our country.
Reader, if you are now thoroughly confused with the words “parliamentary,” “presidential,” “federal” and “unitary,” let me try to dispel the confusion.
Presidential vs. parliamentary has to do with the horizontal sharing of power in a country: We all know what a presidential system is. In a parliamentary system, the legislators also are the executives. The head of government (there are exceptions) is generally chosen among the legislators, and so is the Cabinet. Hence my dismay. There are other features, too, but now is not the time to bring them up. It helps me to think of presidential vs. parliamentary as forms of government.
Federal vs. unitary has to do with the vertical division of power, between the national (or central) and the state/local governments. In a unitary system, the central government holds all (or most) of the power, and in a federal system, power is divided between central and local governments. It helps me to think of federal vs. unitary as systems of government.
The federal system is based on the principle of subsidiarity, which is basically the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary (that is, a supporting, rather than a subordinate) function, with the central performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, categorizes our present system as a “mitigated unitarism” since 1987 because the new Constitution gives the local government some powers, such as the power of local taxation and the encouragement of local autonomy. It even authorized two autonomous regions.
Reader, changing to a federal system is not so easy. Aside from dividing powers vertically, it will require the very ticklish problem of dividing our country into states. What will be the basis? Language and culture? Economic viability? Obviously, geographic contiguity is a must. Will we have three states (Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao), or five, or seven, or 11, or 15, or 80? Think of politicians trying to keep their power. I guess the Duterte commission is expected to thresh out all of that.
Do we have to go this route? There are quarters who say that the Constitution does not have to be amended, only the Local Government Code, and some laws, assuming that the main objective is more autonomy, and devolved powers and resources to the local government units. Now if there are other objectives like staying in power indefinitely, that’s something else. In the meantime, while all these discussions are going on, who will be minding the store? Or will we go back to being the “sick man of Asia”?