What sort of change is coming?

Ian Alfredo Magno

SECTION 4, Article VII of the 1987 Consitution states that  “The President… shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election…”

By virtue hereof, His Excellency Rodrigo “Digong” Roa Duterte assumed office in Malacañan as the 16th President of the Philippine Republic, just a couple of days ago. Regardless, he still prefers to be called “Mayor.” Such a non-conventional attitude towards the highest post in government has seemingly inspired a milieu of change across the social spectrum, even as the electoral campaign was at its initial swing in 2015. Dubbed as the reluctant candidate, Digong apparently struck a sentimental chord in the hearts of many when he refused the bid to the presidency, for lack of funds and machinery.  Such drama roused the curiosity and natural inkling of Filipinos towards an underdog.  And the rest was history.

The sharp end of his campaign baton, however, was a solid message, stiff and strong – Change is Coming!  Indeed, crude and untailored, with sporadic exclamations of Pu%@ng #*, yet still the brand remained unscathed – Change is Coming.

What then is this “change” many people talk about?  With so many institutions (and lives) at stake, the fate of this country hangs in a delicate balance called “change.”  Lest one be accused of leaping straight into that Duterte bandwagon with utmost blind faith, one needs to demarcate the issues for the sake of clarity.

Better yet, ask “Is this promise for keeps, or just another spectacle in the polls?”

During a press conference at Royal Mandaya Hotel in Davao on May 10, 2016, then incoming President Duterte announced the three-point agenda which he would push under his administration namely: (1) battle against drugs, criminality and corruption, (2) forging peace agreements with rebel groups, and (3)   the shift towards a federal system of government from a unitary set-up.

It needs no stressing, however, that even prior to his formal assumption to office, in just a short span since his proclamation as winner in the recent presidential elections, a record high number of drug personalities were arrested, surrendered or fatally neutralized.

Meanwhile, on June 17, 2016, leaders of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) had a discussion with the then President-elect in a meeting they described as “meeting of a brother to a brother” at the Hotel Elena, Davao City.  In the same light, Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) founder Jose Maria Sison’s rumored visit to Manila next month will mark the end of his nearly 30 years exile. This has raised hopes for finally ending the 47-year insurgency which has claimed an estimated count of 30,000 lives since the ’60s.

These indications, by far, dish out “proof of life” of Digong’s promise to battle criminality and to forge lasting peace, which are two of his three-point agenda. We have yet to see proof of life, so to speak, of the third and equally important, if not the most critical, framework in his portfolio – that is the change towards a parliamentary federal form of government from the current unitary Democratic Republican structure.

Section 1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.  Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

In a nutshell, a republic is a system of government which derives its power from the people who elect their representatives from among themselves, rather than via heredity or divine right.  Further, a democratic system is distinguished by its four (4) major characteristics, all of which have been enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, namely:

1) free and fair elections as embodied in Sections 1 and 2, Article V of the Constitution, as supplanted by the Omnibus Elections Code;

2) active participation of the people as embodied in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, particularly the Initiative power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution;

3) protection of human rights as embodied in Article III of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights;

4) rule of law as embodied in Section 5, Article II thereof, to wit: “The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.”

Truly, the 1987 Constitution is a masterpiece insofar as it is a bulwark of the essentials of democracy. Nevertheless, the Philippines today is different from the Philippines 30 years ago.  Times have changed, as you might say – thus, the plight of a ballooning population, overwhelming sophistication of commercial activities, and the inevitable influx of global players right at our doorstep.  Competitive edge is no longer a choice, but a necessity. Therefore, economic liberalization and decentralization of capital are among the compelling reasons for a Charter Change. In an undated statement, Sen. Panfilo Lacson opined that, “The 1987 Constitution is too nationalistic to a fault.  It is not responsive to the needs of the times.”

In this respect, the Duterte administration is gearing towards a parliamentary federal type of government.

The key feature of a parliamentary system, where the head of government is called the Prime Minister, is the “fusion” of the executive and the legislature.  The Prime Minister is the leader of the House (legislature) and, at the same time, the leader of the Council of Ministers (executive).  The principle of separation of powers is not that obvious in a parliamentary setting.  To a substantial extent, this allows the departments, chiefly the executive and legislative, to work in close, intimate contact with each other.  More often than not, therefore, the programs and policies of the parliamentary cabinet are backed by a majority vote in the legislature.  On hindsight, it is way faster than the usual rigor of passing a bill in the House of Representatives via three readings, to be forwarded thereafter to the Senate for concurrence where it shall again undergo three readings, prior to its transmission to the President for approval – or veto, which Congress could override by a vote of 2/3, with both houses voting jointly (Section 27 item 1, Article VI 1987 Constitution).

During an interview with an Asian magazine, Duterte said he intends to combine this parliamentary set-up under a federalist system of government.  To recall, long before his formal declaration to vie for the presidential post in 2015, the Duterte bandwagon was all about selling the idea of federalism.  After being proclaimed PDP-Laban standard bearer, Duterte revealed he had no ambition to run for president, but was constrained to do so when PDP-Laban leaders urged him to run and push for federalism, saying “Kinausap ako to carry the torch of federalism, I will build a nationwide consensus for federalism.”

Succinctly, federalism is one system where sovereignty is constitutionally shared between a central government and the regional governments. The central government typically limits itself on highly national concerns such as justice, defense, monetary authority, and foreign affairs, more or less; while the rest are devolved to the regional governments to wit: health, education and social services, trade and local economy, among others.

One major flaw in the present unitary set-up, which federalism aims to address, is its highly centralized administration.  Plainly, the larger and more diverse a unit, the more difficult it is to manage via a centralized structure.  Conversely, when the size of government is reduced into manageable units, the greater the involvement at the local level, and the more efficient administration would be.  Moreover, in his campaign sortie in Antipolo, Rizal last March 7, 2016 then presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte said that the problem with the current unitary form of government is the unfair distribution of funds between the local government and national government.  He further said, “Nothing short of federalism will bring peace to Mindanao.”

In the Philippines, where ethnic diversity is integral, a centralized structure just could not keep up with the swelling demands of a growing population.  Symbolic of such failure is the bumper-to-bumper traffic in overcrowded Metro Manila. To illustrate: on a daily basis, thousands of people from the provinces flock in the dilapidated metropolis to seek jobs, attend to prime universities, conduct of nationalized examinations, central office meetings, go to work, facilitate retirement processing, embassy interviews, nationalized processing of overseas employment, etc. etc. Unquestionably, there is no other viable option but to dispense such influx back to the regions and provinces.  Yet foremost, the proper conditions must be set. Hence, federalism.

Quite amusing though, the long shadow of this giant leap towards federalism is easily outshined by the President’s iron-clad stance against criminality, which is also vital for an efficient federal government (or any government for that matter).

Duterte has come, but Duterte will go. In a matter of six years or so, Duterte would step down as soon as the electorate inaugurates the next President, in the same manner when His Excellency Rodrigo Roa Duterte was inaugurated days ago. Yet, the fareaching implications of federalism are likely to remain for the longest time hereafter. Admittedly, therefore, federalism is bigger than the tough-talking persona of President Duterte; for here lays the aspirations of peace and quality of life for generations to come. Apparently, it seems, federalism is the tall order in his three-point agenda; and it is the measure by which, perhaps, this administration will be gauged in the history books of our grandchildren’s children.

Fareaching implications indeed – don’t blink, maybe, Federalism is coming.

(This column is dedicated to the memory of the late Butch Bagabuyo who was himself a staunch advocate of federalism. Lawyer Ian Alfredo T. Magno is an associate, Atty. Francis U. Ku & Associates, and is deputy legal officer at Philhealth.)