A house divided
Despite left and right campaigns meant to spread awareness about federalism, it appears that more work is still needed for its advocates to convince Central Visayas residents that changing the charter (Cha-cha) to accommodate a federal form of government is indeed the way to go.
At the Central Visayas leg of the Senate’s public hearings on the proposal to change the Constitution, majority of those present expressed opposition to federalism achieved by way of altering the mother law of the land.
Instead, they contended that a scheme similar to federalism can still be arrived at by merely amending a particular law – the Local Government Code – not the entire Constitution altogether.
Among the groups that were not sold to the idea of changing the charter to pave the way for a federal government were the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Cebu, Akbayan, Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), Patanom MultiPurpose Cooperative of Farmers, Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP), and some lawyers from the academe.
Former chief justice Hilario Davide Jr., one of those who drafted the present 1987 Constitution, branded Chacha’s proponents as “blinds leading the blind” for rallying something even without familiarizing the law.
Davide cited a survey that found out only 27 percent of the Filipinos know the presence of the Constitution. Those who have read and understood its contents can be way lesser than this percentage, he added.
Instead of a Chacha, Davide recommended strengthening the Local Government Code and fully implementing the 1987 Constitution, saying there are still provisions left unfulfilled.
In another light, some anti-Cha-cha advocates believe that “federalism” is being used by some politicians as a front to insert or remove certain provisions in the Constitution to serve their vested interests.
“Maraming pinasok na provisions na walang kinalaman sa federalismo,” said human rights lawyer and activist Neri Colmenares, citing full ownership of lands by foreigners and extension of political reign as examples.
Neri said the Constitution is not the reason why some Filipinos are still living in poverty. It’s the system on the ground, like farmers not having their own lands to till, that makes Filipinos poor.
He said Filipinos can have as many Cha-chas but still be poor if the system is the same.
Davide shared the same sentiments, saying the contents of the proposed Cha-cha are beyond federalism and have been used to overshadow other issues, such as those involving national security and territorial threats.
“It is for politicians to seek for power and to acquire,” he said.
For Davide, federalism is an idea that remains in the imagination of its proponents.
‘DANGEROUS’ PROVISIONS
So far, there are three charter change movements seeking to either have a federal-presidential government or a federal-parliamentary system.
To note, the current Constitution has weathered two failed amendment attempts in the past and remains unchanged for about 31 years now.
Colmenares remarked that what is happening at present is the “worst Cha-cha” owing to “dangerous provisions” it contains.
For their part, farmers have also raised concern over Cha-cha as some economic provisions intended to protect Filipinos from foreign corporations have been reportedly deleted.
Colmenares said Section 3 of the present Constitution was also proposed to be deleted by PDP-Laban, the party of President Duterte,
which was supposed to provide “full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized.”
Furthermore, the protection to fishermen on offshore fishing grounds against foreign intrusion was also removed.
WHY GO FEDERAL
“Basically there is no need to amend the Constitution, but if we need to amend the Constitution, it should be through a constitutional convention (Con-Con),” said Senator Franklin Drilon, who synthesized the dominating points presented by the representatives from different sectors.
Con-Con is one of three modes allowed to amend the Constitution, the other two being constitutional assembly (Con-Ass) and a people’s initiative.
If Con-Con is picked, a body separate from Congress will be elected or appointed to change the Constitution. Under Con-Ass, the power to change the Constitution rests on the Congress.
A people’s initiative, on the other hand, can be used to amend only portions, not the whole, of the Constitution.
The hearing that Cebu hosted yesterday was the second in a series of four hearings to be conducted outside Metro Manila in line with the move to change the charter. The first one was held in Cagayan de Oro last February 22.
“The issue of charter change must go outside walls of the Senate. It is an issue that concerns each and every Filipino, not just the politicians,” said Senator Kiko Pangilinan, who chaired yesterday’s hearing.
Pangilinan said he observed that the people in Central Visayas still somewhat distrust the legislators based on their statements, which can be a reason why most did not choose a Con-Ass.
Pangilinan highlighted that information dissemination is “critical” because many still do not have a deep understanding of federalism as a subject matter.
In Cebu, there have been such campaigns.
In January this year, for example, the Duterte administration launched its National Alliance of Movement for Federalism Inc. (NamFed) in the province’s sixth district.
The following month, mayors from the Visayas and Mindanao showed their support for federalism before some 5,000 municipal and barangay leaders during the launching of the Cebuano Movement for Federalism (CemFed) in the City of Naga, southern Cebu.
At the hearing yesterday inside the Capitol’s Social Hall, only a handful out of the 40 representatives given time to share their thoughts expressed support to Cha-cha, including Cebu Movement for Federalism, former governor Lito Osmeña, and the Department of the Interior and Local Governance-7.
Tuburan Mayor Democrito Diamante, representing the CemFed, said there is a need to shift to federalism to devolve power and resources to the grassroots.
DILG-7 Director Rene Burdeos, for his part, said the Philippines has to come up with its own version of federalism because there is no “one size, fits all” system of government.
“We do not see federalism as the cure-all for the problems,” he said.
Though he claimed to be pro-federalism, Burdeos said it’s unnecessary to come up with an entirely new Constitution.
“The 1987 Constitution has many good provisions that need not be changed. Thus, we have taken a surgical approach in amending the fundamental law concentrating only on provisions that could enshrine federalism into the Constitution,” he said.