THIS is the continuation of my discussions of the federalism issue. Robin Padilla wants to adopt it as if it is the panacea to the country’s multifaceted problems. These are excerpts from my second book,” BUMPS Fifty Years of Dictatorship and Democracy in the Philippines (1972-2022).”
‘DIGONG CONSTITUTION’
THEN Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez wanted to break the Philippines into 18 region-states to form a federal republic. But to realize this objective, he wanted to impose upon us a dictator to keep the 18 regions states together and defy any centrifugal tendencies among them. Moreover, it was not exactly clear why the transition would take ten years. Alvarez did not, would not, and could not say in concrete and even in broad terms details of his proposed transition. He neither discussed what could be expected to achieve during the transition period.
Likewise, he did not and could not discuss any political alternatives just in case the transition became rocky or chaotic. Alvarez hardly justified why the current officials would remain in their posts for the next ten years. At this point, it was widely feared the transition would lead not to a federal state, but to a dictatorship that could only lead the country to chaos and disaster.
Given our experience with the Marcos dictatorship, Alvarez’s ten year transition proposal would give flesh to what British parliamentarian Lord Action said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is feared that about 200 political families would get more entrenched in power defeating the purpose of democratizing political power in the country. Definitely, what Alvarez has provided is a recipe for national suicide.
‘CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.’ This was not the only moves to impose authoritarianism in the country. In 2017, Duterte formed a 22-man consultative committee that drafted a new constitution that called for a shift to a federal form government. The Committee composed of handpicked people with no direct mandate from the Filipino people claimed that the new constitution it drafted in four or three months would empower the poor peripheries of the country especially Mindanao and end what it called “Imperial Manila,” which creates more than a third of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The Consultative Committee sought to draft a constitution for Duterte, claiming that by ensuring autonomy under a federal system, the agricultural Visayas and Mindanao would develop to close the gap with the more developed Luzon. Moreover, it proposed the country to be broken down into eighteen regions, with their own regional assemblies and executive agencies. The senators would no longer be elected through nationwide elections, it said. Instead, they would hail from individual region-states. The new federal House of Representatives will be composed of 400 members to replace the current House of Representatives. It proposed that the members would be selected based on geographic representation and proportional representation for marginalized groups, or the party list group system.
It did not generate nationwide interest. Coming from a Committee, of which most members came from Mindanao, the so-called “Duterte Constitution,” or “Digong Constitution,” as it was condescendingly called, was widely ignored. In a few months, it was forgotten and treated as a mere footnote in Philippine political history. This is being discussed merely for the sole purpose of documentation.
NO REPLY. When Christian Monsod, a former Comelec chairman and member of the 50-man commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, read his paper at the Senate public hearing in 2018, at least two members of the 22-man commission that drafted the proposed “Digong Constitution,” could not provide any rebuttal. They were obviously unprepared, or shell-shocked too. Mr. Monsod’s discussions on the political and economic dimensions of the proposed shift to the federal system were profound, clearly showing the vast expanse of his experience and wisdom. A Committee member could not refute any single point in Mr. Monsods paper.
These are several points in Mr. Monsod’s papers:
• Amending the 1987 Constitution is not right at this time. The Philippine economy has been improving under the 1987 Constitution. Instead of amending the Constitution, it would be better for the current government to initiate moves to ensure the distribution of the economic gains to the poor and downtrodden. After all, the key themes of the 1987 Constitution are social justice and human rights, according to Mr. Monsod.
• Changing the current unitary setup to a federal system under a president who is not reputed for good governance does not make sense. He is “dangerous with power,” Mr. Monsod said. Moreover, the proposed changes, as contained in the transitory provisions could lead to a return to authoritarianism.
• While the Marcos dictatorship succeeded in creating a “culture of corruption,” the incumbent president is cultivating what he described a “culture of violence. “
• The Filipino people should be wary of the proposed shift to federal system because the transitory provisions provides it would be “indissoluble.” Wala ng balikan sa unitary government. It would be a permanent setup.
• With the weakening of the constitutional principle of checks and balance and softening of democratic institutions like the Supreme Court, CHR, etc., a looming dictatorship by the incumbent president is being observed.
• The Consultative Committee that drafted the proposed federal shift has hardly provided a road map to make it acceptable for our people.
Incidentally, Akbayan Party List Rep. Tom Villarin warned in the same forum the Filipino people of what he considered were unacceptable provisions of the “Digong Constitution”:
• Open the Phl economy to foreign ownership by delegating nationalization requirements to Congress;
• Restrict representation of the marginalized by requiring college degrees for party list representatives, aside from district reps, senators, president, and vice president.
• Imposes a haphazard federal set up with vague and strange provisions and an equalization fund subject to political patronage.
• Entrenches judicial authoritarianism by transferring power to decide impeachment cases to the Judiciary and making the Judiciary an integral part of the Legislative processes.
• Institutionalizes a Duterte dictatorship by expanding emergency powers, limiting basic rights, allowing Duterte to run as transition president to head the Transition Commission, which will exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers and canceling the 2019 midterm elections.
In his paper, Christian Monsod said: “We should be very careful about a sweeping overhaul of our constitutional system with a president who has proven to be dangerous with power, especially if the transition also extends the terms of incumbent politicians and an otherwise banned president is allowed to run for reelection under the new Constitution. And also because the [proposed] constitution bans any future revision or amendment of it’s ‘federal setup’ which is declared ‘indissoluble’ and ‘permanent’ and at par with the words ‘democratic’ and ‘representative.’ In other words, we will be stuck forever with federalism if we adopt it with all its uncertainties and the risk of unintended.”
Then, Sen. Francis Panglinan warned in the same Senate hearing: “One of the concerns of Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on the draft constitution is the provision that gives the President the power to declare martial law because of because ‘lawless violence.'” His remarks galvanized the perception that what was being proposed would lead to a new experiment in authoritarianism.
***
WEIRD CHARTER
BY all means, the so-called “Digong Constitution” has been drafted without any documented details of its proceedings. From all indications, its members did not meet at all and that they were just asked to sign a final product. They did not perform the documentation of its official proceedings, which was duly signed by any of its officials. Furthermore, it could be surmised that the draft charter was created by another set of unknown and unidentified legal researchers, whose inclination was to support the federal shift.
Because of the absence of official documents on its proceedings and dynamics, it lacked talks on worthwhile topics that had bearing on the evolution of constitutional knowledge. For instance, the suggested “Digong Constitution” did not have any discussions the West Philippine Sea, of which a part was virtually surrendered by Duterte to China without any semblance of a fight despite the 2016 victory of the Philippines at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Permanent Arbitral Commission in The Hague.
It was weird there were no discussions of the spate of EJKs and human rights violations during that time. It was most unnatural that the charges of humanity which the group of then Sen. Sonny Trillanes had filed against Duterte and his cohorts before the ICC was not amply ventilated. The charges are now in the stage of “formal investigation” by the ICC.
TWO HALVES OF FEDERALISM. The issue of adopting a federal system has two halves. The first half involves the creation of 18 federated states to be under the Federal Government of the Philippines. The second half is the installation of a dictator, most likely Rodrigo Duterte, to keep the 18 federated states together. Why break an already united country into 18 federated states and install a dictator to keep the 18 federated states together?
It did not make sense. Why make a mentally challenged leader in Duterte as the next dictator? Why postpone the 2019 elections and extend the term of the lawmakers, who would agree to the proposed constitutional amendments? We could only say that the Mindanao bullies were a different breed. It could be said that all attempts by Duterte to reimpose authoritarianism in this country have failed. They did not make sense. They were very provincial and parochial. Their proposals lacked the vision based on conviction.
***
HINDSIGHT
IN hindsight, which is always 20/20, the theme of authoritarianism always stages a comeback. But to the eternal misfortune of its adherents, it did not win as many factors hinder such comeback. In the end, the adherence to democracy is always present to frustrate attempts to reimpose an authoritarian regime.
Moreover, authoritarian believers always came out with specific formulae to push their nebulous and unacceptable agenda. This trend will continue in every administration. It pays to be vigilant.
