Bicam rejects ban on dynasties
It’s toothless, discriminatory as it applies only to party-list lawmakers
The Bicameral Conference Committee rejected the provision banning political dynasties under the proposed Bangsamoro government.
Senators Francis Escudero and Franklin Drilon confirmed this Monday afternoon as the 29-member committee started working to reconcile the Senate and House
versions of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL).
“It applies only to party-list representatives and not to the other members of parliament or other officials of the Bangsamoro. It is, therefore, selective, discriminatory, and ineffective per the Bicam,” Escudero, a member of the Senate bicam panel, said in a text message.
Drilon, who pushed for the provision in the Senate-approved bill, said members of the bicameral panel “strongly opposed” the anti-dynasty provision. He said he yielded to his fellow lawmakers, admitting that the provision was “useless.”
“As a form of protest, I did not argue anymore and push for its adoption because the provision, as crafted, is useless. It is a much weaker provision than that provided in the SK (Sangguniang Kabataan) law. Such provision will not really curb dynastic behaviors. In fact, it is a hypocritical provision, toothless to address the ill effects of dynasties. We might as well do away with it,” Drilon said.
“What we need is a strong regulation of dynasties applicable to all public officers. I already signed a committee report regulating it,” he said.
Senate Bill 1717 prohibits a party representative from being related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to a district representative or another party representative in the same Parliament. There is no counterpart provision in the House Bill 6475.
The Senate's proposal was earlier protested by the Bangsamoro Transition Commission (BTC), which crafted the draft BBL.
The Bicameral Conference Committee is still discussing other provisions of the proposed BBL.
So far, the bicameral panel already reached an agreement on the first four provisions that included the Preamble and the territory, according to Lanao del Sur Rep. Mauyag Papandayan Jr., chairman of the House Committee on Muslim Affairs.
Controversial provision Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri said the panel deferred discussion on the territories of the proposed Bangsamoro Autonomous Region as concerns were raised over the differing provisions of the two chamber's bills.
Zubiri, head of the Senate contingent, said members of the House bicameral panel warned that the Upper Chamber's proposal to include the 39 barangays (villages) of North Cotabato and six municipalities of Lanao del Norte in the proposed Bangsamoro territory would be “unconstitutional.”
SB 1717 also added the North Cotabato villages and Lanao del Norte municipalities in the proposed Bangsamoro region without the permission, through a plebiscite, of their mother province. HB 6475 did not have such a provision.
The Bangsamoro Transition Commission (BTC), which submitted the draft BBL, supposedly favors the House provision over the Senate's in this particular subject. Zubiri, however, said the Senate contingent can defend its constitutionality.
Aside from the core territories of the proposed Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, the two Congress houses would also have to debate on their differences in their proposed territorial waters.
Power-sharing
Zubiri said the Senate panel will stick to its guns on clearly defining the powers of the proposed Bangsamoro government.
“We should only be discussing powers granted to the Bangsamoro government. Because in the ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) law, Republic Act 9054, it is also very clear -- [the] powers of the ARMM government. The powers of the national government are not defined there,” Zubiri said.
The House of Representatives approved the BTC proposal defining the reserved powers of the national government, the exclusive powers of the Bangsamoro government, and the concurrent powers of the two governments. The Senate removed such provisions in their approved bill.
“We feel, and our lawyers in the [Senate] panel, feel that we should not define clearly the powers of national government because there would be confusion. Does that mean that what is not there can be interpreted as allowed to be done by the ARMM government? That would be difficult. Under our Constitution, powers that are not defined there is reserved to central government,” Zubiri explained.
He added that defining powers of the government “would also pose a constitutional challenge.”
Zubiri, on the other hand, assured the BTC that it can propose additional powers for the Bangsamoro government, especially if these were granted already by the RA 9054.
Tax-sharing, block grant While lawmakers disagreed on certain provisions, Zubri reported that they are united in maintaining the contents of the ARMM law.
Zubiri said they agreed in a caucus before the bicameral meeting that they will retain the provisions of the RA 9054 in the proposed BBL so that it would not be “diminished” from the current ARMM.
Particularly, they will restore the 75-25 percent sharing between the Bangsamoro government and central government on the taxes collected from the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region.
Senators approved a 50-50 sharing, while the House granted the BTC proposal of a 75-25 sharing.
“We should not diminish in any effect provisions of the ARMM law. These are already clearly indicated in the original ARMM law and we’re willing to restore in this version,” Zubiri said.
“We will accept the House version. The Senate panel will tend to accept the House version,” Zubiri said.
Apart from the wealth-sharing, Zubiri said the bicam has allowed the unconditional release of the block grant for the Bangsamoro region.
While the two houses agreed on a five-percent annual block grant, the Senate proposed a qualification on the block grant stating that when the national government incurs an unmanageable public sector deficit, the President of the Philippines is authorized, upon the recommendation of the Department of Finance and Department of Budget and Management, to adjust or suspend the block grant. The House version does not contain such a condition.
The BTC, Zubiri said, wanted to remove the conditions.
“We agreed that we should not impede the release of the block grant. Because there have been certain amendments that states that the block grant is subject to review and therefore before it is automatically appropriated it is reviewed. The problem there is, who reviews? If COA (Commission on Audit) reviews, we all know that COA takes several years before they actually come up with a finding. So, this will actually impede the release of the block grant,” Zubiri said.
Zubiri assured to keep the accountability and transparency measures in the proposed BBL. (With a report from Ben R. Rosario)