Charter debate begins

Now that the Consultative Committee on the 1987 Constitution has approved a draft charter, the debate on federalism and other proposed changes to the Constitution should start in earnest. The public dialogue has not  been seriously undertaken since there has been no basis for  discussion. One problem has been the issue of federalism. Many sectors of society think that this issue can be boiled down to a “yes “ or “ no” to federalism when actually there are many shades and types of federalism. The United States, Malaysia, South Africa, Australia, Germany and India are examples of countries with a federal government but government structures are very different from each other. 

As the debate begins, there are a few observations I would like to present. Federalism is not a panacea for all that is wrong in Philippine society. On the other hand, federalism is not the root of perceived evils that certain sectors say will be the consequence. For example, the issue of family dynasties in government is a separate topic. This complex problem will exist regardless of the government form. 

I have always been mystified by the fact that people do not recognize that politicians alone did not conceive the practice of family dynasties. In most of Asia, including the Philippines, the whole spectrum of society – politics, business, media, entertainment –  are actually run by family dynasties. I still cannot understand why society think we can tackle the problem of family dynasties in politics; and avoid the dominance of family dynasties in other sectors of society. Business, politics and media are all intertwined.

Fortunately, the proposed draft Charter has a provision that seeks to control family dynasties. The rule of law is the only way to control the power of family dynasties since cultural and social forces encourage family dynasties in all the sectors of Philippine society.

For those who still believe in a liberal democracy, which I do, the other question is whether a federal or unitary, i.e., highly centralized form of government, is the best defense for democracy. I have maintained that a strong central government is more susceptible to the rise of a strong one-man or woman rule. In a federal government, power is more dispersed and government closer to the people. A highly centralized government makes it easier for a potential dictator to grab complete power over the whole nation. History shows that the destiny of the Philippines has always been decided in the one and only center of power – Metro Manila. Whoever can control this center ends up controlling the whole country.

The third observation which is not only a logical but also an emotional issue. This has been described as the present situation whereby the rest of  country is shackled by Imperial Manila. In other word, Imperial Manila controls the whole of country by its monopoly on political and economic power. Those who oppose federalism must present arguments that highly centric, Metro Manila- based unitary structure is more beneficial for those living in the rest of the Philippines. 

A fourth observation is one that I have been advocating since I started writing a column. There is a need for a regional government for Metro Manila. All over world, large metropolitan areas are divided into districts; but there is a central regional government. This is true of Tokyo, Seoul. Bangkok. London, New York City and so on. Metro Manila, with over 12 million people, is divided into 27 separate governments that have required the national government to get involved in areas that should be left to a local government – like traffic, waste disposal and road maintenance. 

A fifth observation is that the debate should also  focus on the division of powers between the national government and the federal states or regions. There should be no increase in powers over the citizenry; but, only the same powers divided between the central and the regional governments. 

Finally, federalism should not only be the basis for determining changes in the present constitution. Among these other issues are foreign ownership or investments, human rights, strengthening the rule of law and our basic freedoms. Even if the substance of the proposed changes is commendable,  some of the most respected members have expressed reservations about certain provisions. I am especially waiting for the letter expressing some reservations by former Senate Present Nene  Pimentel. Here is a portion of his letter to the Commission:

“In general, I approve of the proposed recommendations of our Constitutional Committee for the adoption of the Federal Constitution for our Republic. 

The recommendations, among other things, now place the right of our people to modernize our country and develop themselves at the doorsteps of the citizens of our Republic who are residing in the proposed Federated Regions.

And with the Federated Regions benefiting not only the majority of Christians of this country, but also our Muslim brothers and sisters in the Bangsa Moro areas in Mindanao and the Indigenous People in the Cordilleras, Palawan and other parts of the country, I am confident that law and order leading to peace and development will follow as a matter of course.

And this, without sacrificing the responsibility for inclusion in the new Constitution, are the articles that assure our people actual and speedy delivery of justice. For delay in the delivery of justice is one of the most pressing problems of our land. And without justice, our living lives worthy of human beings would be impossible. Hence, I vote affirmatively for the said recommendations. “

For the sake of future generations of Filipinos let us all hope for a substantial and transparent debate on these proposed Constitutional changes.

Creative writing classes for kids and teens

Young Writers’ Hangout on July 7 & 21, August 4 & 18 (1:30pm-3pm; stand-alone sessions) at Fully Booked BGC.  For details and registration contact 0945-2273216 or [email protected].

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]