With the rising cry for constitutional changes, advocates have come forward more forcefully for “government with revolutionary powers” for Duterte to have it done. It has become clear that it is being blocked by the establishment using the excuse that it is not necessary or popular.
Former President and now Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has come forward to urge Duterte and allies to start “Cha-cha.” This was the old acronym used by opponents to deride constitutional change during her administration. Today her proposal is for a “presidency with a federal system” which was not her original position. I was told then she was for parliamentary federal and the deal between a committee she had created and the Palace. The committee would work hard for a federal system and Arroyo would push for a parliamentary government. So much for that alleged deal.
Recently she told advocates it is time to push for constitutional change with Duterte’s strong mandate to overhaul our system of government.
“Before he ran for President, he (Duterte) burst into the national scene advocating federalism. His landslide victory shows that the public response to Charter change is positive,” Arroyo said.
Arroyo acknowledged that suspicions of term extensions were the biggest stumbling blocks in her own bid to amend the Constitution, which, she said, the current proponents should avoid.
“In sum, the proponents should stress to the public that elections would not be cancelled, and that even in a parliamentary system, they would still vote for the president. They should avoid semantic arguments on whether the proposal was parliamentary with a president or presidential with a unicameral congress,” Arroyo said.
Arroyo noted that prior to her term, the Philippines missed the boat for Charter change twice: first during the time of President Fidel Ramos with the “Pirma” signature drive and second during the term of President Joseph Estrada, who formed a preparatory commission on constitutional reform and launched the “Constitutional Correction for Development” or Concord campaign.
Arroyo said she and her allies failed despite various initiatives to pursue Charter change, namely: people’s initiative or signature drive, a constituent assembly with Congress convening in joint session to amend the Charter, and a constitutional convention in which voters elect delegates.
Arroyo can add a strong voice to the campaign in Congress. She has her constituents in and out of the legislative body. But would it work if she did?
This column does not think so. Members of Congress itself have become the adversary of constitutional change having benefited from the presidential unitary government. We are being misled to think that it can be done. And this through any of the ways mandated by the 1987 Constitution. As congressman who was a friend said, “The 1987 Constitution change in the hands of the elite makes it impossible.” And we learned that through the years it was attempted.
The 2016 election of President Digong with a strong campaign for a new constitution altogether changed that. At the heart of the new constitution would be federalism that would give autonomous states with political power. That will eventually bring peace in Mindanao. Duterte was sincere and he was from Mindanao. That was probably what former president Fidel V. Ramos meant when he said “that the next president should come from Mindanao.”
President Digong has made the first moves for peace in Mindanao by organizing The Bangsamoro Transition Commission (BTC). It convened in Cotabato to adopt its internal rules and set up the committees so they can begin crafting the draft Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL).
The 21-member Commission will decide what issues to take to be submitted to Congress. It is not about federalism.
It will then submit this draft to President Rodrigo Duterte before submitting it to Congress in time for Duterte’s second State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 24.
Whether that can be done remains to be seem. Transitions of government are easier said than done. The advocates are pinning their hopes on Duterte himself. It will test his commitment and determination for a new social and political order.
He is a clever strategist and it will not be easy to predict his next moves. I am sure he understands the difficulties of amending a constitution or worse craft and entirely new constitution for a new order of society. At the moment, there is no hope but to set up government with revolutionary powers.
For those pinning their hopes on Duterte to declare a government with revolutionary powers for a new constitution reflecting economic liberalization, evolving federalism and parliamentary government here is a lesson from Peter Koropkin.
“To overturn a government – is for a revolutionary middle-class man everything; for us it is only the beginning of the social revolution. The machine of the State once out of gear, the hierarchy of functionaries disorganized and not knowing in what direction to take a step, the soldiers having lost confidence in their officers – in a word, the whole army of defenders of the capital once routed – then it is that the grand work of destruction of all the institutions which serve to perpetuate economic and political slavery will become ours. The possibility of acting freely being attained, what will revolutionists do next?”
Kropotkin was writing about revolutionary government in another country at another period. It may have happened in the French revolution but it is different in the Philippine period of 2017. I have faith that a solution would be found by Duterte to break the impasse between a reluctant elite and people wanting change. It may be difficult even impossible as Kropotkin writes but there can always be a first time especially because of the particular political conditions in the Philippines today.
For one I would not call it a revolutionary government or government with revolutionary powers. These terms are strong when all that is wanted is a government which would bypass the mandates of a failed Congress.
It used crowdsourcing through social media but the new Constitution will be written by a panel of constitutionalists into a document that would undergo a referendum. There should be no vested interests in its making. It would spell out what should be the relations between government and sovereign citizens.