A bumpy road to federalism

The vehicle for federalism has started to roll forward and the road ahead may be full of challenges. The push for federalism should not come as a surprise because then candidate Rodrigo Duterte made it the centerpiece of his campaign. That was before the war on drugs gained more public attention.

There were two recent developments that bode well for the proposed shift to a federal form of government. One was the appointment this week by President Duterte of the members of a body he created to review the Constitution.

The other one was the meeting between House and Senate leaders who decided to set aside their standoff, in the meantime, on the process of revising the charter. They would now rather focus on identifying constitutional amendments that will be presented to the people.

It can be recalled that House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez had declared that the House will go ahead to form as a constituent assembly if the Senate will not participate in Alvarez’ own foolish version of a joint voting.

I have always been in favor of a slow but steady transition to a federal form of government. My main argument in supporting the shift is that it will make the state governments more accountable to the people and in tune with the people’s needs and aspirations.

That the proposed changes could be risky to our democracy is not a plausible excuse to settle for the status quo. That we should wait for the right people to change the Constitution is a wait in vain. In governance, there are no right people. But there are people who could do right.

So the challenge ahead is how to form a national consensus on federalism. This requires a process that must be conducted judiciously and in a principled manner. Revising the constitution to give way to a federal form of government opens a new chapter in the history of our nation. There will be major differences. But if the process is skillfully steered, the Duterte administration might just be able to pull this through.

One of the major contentious points is the income or lack thereof of some state governments which will suffer from their own financial independence. In the first decade or two of a federal form of government, it will indeed be a fatal error to treat each state equally. Other states will need some form of subsidy or support in order to survive the initial stages of the shift. That is why I support former chief justice Reynato Puno’s idea of an evolving federalism. “One that is unhurried by any pressure,” Puno has said.

Another fear is the possible proliferation of fiefdoms that may come with the greater autonomy under a federal setup. But don’t we have these fiefdoms already? To say that it will worsen is I think a jab at the intelligence and character of the local people whom we expect to hold their state governments more accountable.

I said earlier that the process must be done judiciously and in a principled manner. By this I mean that in the process of revising the Constitution, we must all focus on how to solve the problems that the shift to federalism aims to solve.

There is no room for shortsighted political concessions in the process of revising the charter. Neither is there room for mistrust. We must learn to focus on the common interests we all want to advance, rather than be bogged down holding on to our respective positions.

Debate must yield to principles and objective criteria, not the pressures of political interests or the uncompromising stance of those who wish to take advantage of the process to score a political victory.

If we are not mindful of all these at this stage, then the proposal to shift to a federal form of government is already doomed and wasted. And if by some master stroke of political charm, trickery, or intimidation this administration can still manage to pull it through, it will just leave a wake of uncertainty and instability for future generations.