Is federalism dead?

failures are merely alibis perpetrated by the main opponents of Charter change and federalism: the oligarchy and the traditional politicians out to maintain the status quo.

’ s election campaign with federalism as one of the

- tive to the electorate. The intricacies of federalism as a system was not much understood but the slogan capturing the idea of freedom from the clutches of “Imperial Manila” struck the right chord. Although its impetus was the demand for the Mindanawnons to extricate themselves from the political and economic dominance by the center, this is also true for the Visayans, the Bicolanos and even the Tagalogs; provinces, islands and areas in the periphery of the epicenter of the political universe – Metro Manila.

What has been left out in the debate today is the more important issues of how federalism can bring about a better life for the citizenry. In short, This column will not go into the specif- my articles ( October 27 and November 3, 2016 on “Social market economy”).

What is urgently needed now is the full attention of DU30 to set up the 25-man Consultative Commission (ConCom) that will help guide him on a clear path toward federalism. This band of experts will provide the president the arguments he needs to steer the debate towards the advantages of a shift from the unitary system we have now to a federalparliamentary government. But more importantly, the bureaucracy needs to be harnessed to elucidate and educate the citizenry on how this new paradigm can advance social justice, alleviate poverty and hunger; eliminate corruption; and make their lives better. This should be the core of the citizens’ education and debate and the Deegong has to reset the mode for the political conversation.

At the same time, he needs to reconcile the steps leading towards federalism, either through a “simple parliamentary unicameral form” called “ ” ambivalent on the role of the future retention of the Senate, although regionally elected; Speaker Alvarez,

’ s ’ t afford discordant voices in his own political party and among his allies.

The outcome from the 25- man ConCom should be the position of DU30 and presented to the constituencies in palatable dishes. It would be dangerous and selfserving to allow exclusive input by the two houses of Congress

’ s learn from the lesson of the “anti- dynasty” 1987 constitutional provision that couldn’t pass muster, since 1987.

The Senate and House can dis- regard the Constituent Assembly mode (Con-ass) and pass a law for a constitutional convention (Con-con) with a twist. Allow both elective and DU30 appointees to sit in as delegates to revise the 1987 Constitution. The argument for this is simple: those running for Con-con delegates would be mostly politicians and relatives out to carve out or defend their own political turf. Allow a percentage of presidential appointed experts to the mix. The Con-con can thus be created simultaneous with the barangay elections in May 2018. They have a year within which to revise the Constitution; and by May of 2019, call for a plebiscite simultaneous with the mid-term elections in May only for a year up to May 2020, and subsequently constituted (or a transitory provision can be written role of those elected in 2019; please refer to my column of Jan 18, 2018, “The Centrist proposals”).