Federalism: Massacre of the LGUs?

ANY form of dictatorship is undemocratic. The draft Constitution of the Consultative Committee contains other undemocratic provisions.

Here are some of them. First, the people are perpetually deprived of and forever banned from exercising their right to amend or revise the Constitution in respect of “the democratic and republic character of the government in a federal structure, its indissolubility and permanence (Section 4, Article XXI). In the language of this section, these “shall not be subject to amendment or revision.” Yet, Section 1 of Article XI of the draft Constitution provides that the Federal Congress may, by law, create, abolish, merge, divide ther and determine their constituents, political subdivisions, subject to the ratification by the people in a referendum held for the purpose in the affected political subdivisions. Where is now the underlying principle that in a democratic and republic state sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from the people? (Sec. 1, Article II of our present Constitution). We should be reminded of what George Washington said in his Farewell address in 1796: “The basis for our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.”

Second, it creates an elitist democracy, an element that in itself weakens democracy, which could easily be pampered and strengthened by old and new political dynasties in the new 18 federated regions. The new provisions on regulations and control of political parties and the abolition of the party-list system under the present Constitution coupled with the very narrow concepts of political dynasties would in fact be the prescriptions for political elitism. The poor would have no chance for political leadership against these political parties. The poor would remain under the clutches of politicians. The Democracy Fund would only be a screen to cover up elitism.

More elitist is the requirement in Section 4(c) of Article VIII that the President and the Vice President shall be elected as a team. A vote for the President shall be counted for the candidate for Vice President. It follows then that a vote for the running mate Vice President will not be counted as a vote for the candidate for President. This requirement prevents one from running either as President or Vice President as an independent candidate. The candidate for President may choose who his/her Vice Presidential candidate be.

Then, too, only those with college degrees or its equivalents can run for President, Vice president, or senators and representatives in the Federal Congress. Those who do not these degrees because of poverty or another other cause would never have a chance of being elected as such. This is undemocratic, and even anti-poor. Yet we would never have the assurance that the college degree holder would be a good president, vice president, senator, or representative. We had a president who was a brilliant lawyer, bar topnotcher, yet his regime was one of corruption, oppression, and injustice under martial law, the worst ever for our country. He was ousted by the People Power revolt, and brought to Hawaii which he thought was Paoay, but whose remains were allowed by the Supreme Court to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. We had ap who was a holder of a master’s degree in economics but who was prosecuted for graft and corruption and plunder, was arrested and detained in a hospital, but was thereafter absolved by the same Supreme Court.

The draft Consultative Committee Constitution is anti-Filipino or antiPhilippines. First, it adopts the system of government that destroys the unity and solidarity of the Filipino people; that is not suited for the Philippines and the Filipino people and has never been tried and tested in our country; and is evolved in anomalous violation of how federal states and governments are evolved. Second, while Article II on National Territory takes the trouble to expand the territory by its long definition, it deliberately did not mention by name the West Philippines Sea. Yet, it specifically mentions by name the Philippine Rise (which is the Benham Rise). Why not clearly specifically mention the West Philippine Sea? Because of the administration’s fear of or love for China? I had earlier mentioned the Philippines becoming a province or colony of China. But let me elaborate further. If you recall in a gathering of Chinese businessmen on 19 February 2018, at the Manila Hotel, the President mentioned of the Philippines being a province of China. Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque tried to cushion the impact of the President’s statement by saying that it was only a President’s joke. But we know for a historic fact that China does not consider serious pronouncements as jokes, especially if it is in her favor. We know too that Chinese leaders, especially its President now – President Xi, whom our president admires much – do not joke on state affairs or matters.

I have spoken of several indicators why the Philippines is getting closer to be a colony or province of China. Just consider a few: One, almost twice weekly our national broadsheets put in one or two full-page ads pictures of Chinese President Xi showcasing his programs and the progress of Chinese and its world leadership. Two, it was reported that just recently on two occasions, a Chinese military plane landed in Davao City. Three, China has reclaimed parts of our West Philippine Sea. Four, the President has already visited China and met President Xi thrice. Five, the Palace has mentioned China-Philippines co-ownership of the West Philippine Sea. Six, in one of the President’s visits to China, China provided a 13.8-billion assistance to the Philippines and the construction for free of two bridges across the Pasig River. Seven, a few days after the President’s trip to China, Chinese military aircraft landed at our Panganiban reef in our West Philippine Sea. Eight, China unveiled a monument to its island-building in the West Philippine Sea. Nine, China has deployed missiles on the Panganiban, Zamora, and Kagitingan reefs in the West Philippine Sea. Ten, after his last trip to China the President made an offer of 60-40 sharing with China for the joint exploration plan for the West Philippine Sea. Eleven, and to our shock, the front page of the Manila Bulletin issue of 6 July 2018 has this article: “President to seek China’s help if war breaks out in Mindanao.”

The draft Consultative Committee Constitution is anti-people. Consider its Declaration of Principles alone. It does not contain anymore the guarantee of “full respect for human rights” enshrined in Section 11 of Article II of our present Constitution.

While the draft tries to expand the Bill of Rights (Article III) by stressing that the rights enumerated therein are now “demandable against the State and non-State actors,” it forgot that it has provided in Section 3 of its Article XX (General Provisions) that “The Federal Republic may not be sued without its consent.” It as well forgot that these rights are demandable even without so providing. For example, Article 32 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that any public officer or employee or any private individual who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any manner impedes or impairs the rights and liberties of another person is liable to the latter for damages.

Further, the Bill of Rights actually diminishes the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure. It now authorizes, in addition to the search warrant, a so-called “surveillance warrant” [Sec. 5 (b), Article III]. It also did not abolish the death penalty [Sec. 22 (a), Article III]. It should have done so because the Philippines is a state-party to the Second Protocol of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This protocol abolishes the death penalty. Section 2 of Article II of the draft Constitution itself provides that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.”

The Bill of Rights in the draft Constitution further diminishes the right of the people in respect of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by adding, as I earlier indicated, “lawless violence” as a ground of the suspension of the writ. In this regard, “lawless violence” is now inscribed in the Bill of Rights. “Lawless violence” was not a ground for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in our Constitutions of 1935, 1973, and 1987.

Section 4 of the draft Constitution provides:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or lawless violence, when the public safety requires it. Even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data and other protective writs may still be resorted to unless prejudicial to public order.”