‘Federalism not the answer’ – 11 Charter framers
age-old socioeconomic problems, framers
In a statement, 11 members of the - tion “is an imperfect document and can be
“At this important juncture in our history, there now seems to be a rush to amend the Constitution on the premise that federalism provides the best possible - verting the Congress into a Constituent Assembly has been proposed as the best
“Before we move further into uncharted be: Do we need a new Constitution at this time? Is federalism the answer to address
The framers said the “undiscerning haste” to craft a new constitution through Congress convened as a Constituent Assembly “will further distract if not deviate from the issues that should remain as our priorities” such as solving massive poverty
and deep inequality, eliminating political dynasties, and addressing the blatant disregard for the rule of law.
“Today, our country confronts critical challenges. The principal problems we face are massive poverty and the deep inequality that divides our people. We continue to face the existence of political dynasties that breeds the politics of patronage and personalities. We need to address the blatant disregard for the rule of law and the right to life, and, our inability to ‘ think Filipino’ as one people bound by a common destiny striving for a just peace throughout the land. These concerns are urgent and must be our priorities,” they said.
The Charter framers stressed that the Constitution is not the problem, but “part of the solution.”
“Do we need to shift to federalism to address the concentration of political and economic power now in the hands of urban- based decision makers particularly those in the National Capital Region? The Constitution already provides local government units ‘ the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges….’ consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy in section 5, Art X. They are “entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas” in section 7 as well as ‘ the power to group themselves, consolidate, or contribute their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law’ in Section 13,” they said.
They added that the Local Government Code of 1991 “can be amended and improved to further decentralize power, to allocate resources more fairly and distribute wealth more equitably without having to amend the Constitution.”
A federal type of government, they argued, would “create an enlarged and bloated bureaucracy” and “reinforce the power of political dynasties and landed elites or existing dominant groups.”
“Federalism, if combined with a parliamentary system, would certainly falter and fail without sound and stable political parties distinguished by distinct platforms of government without the benefit of a consistent credible electoral system and the support of competent civil servants within the bureaucracy,” the framers said.
“We have instead witnessed the formation of vehicles of political convenience driven by the allure of personal gain or interest, which does not provide our people with real choices,” they added.
“What the country needs most at this time is to deepen our democracy, make our economy more just and inclusive, and ensure that the basic rights of all are respected and a just peace prevails in the land. A new Constitution is not the answer; and neither is federalism; much less through a process such as a constitutional assembly. If we do not trust the process, how can we trust the outcome?”
The statement was signed by Felicitas Aquino- Arroyo, Adolfo Azcuna, Bishop Teodoro Bacani, Florangel Rosario Braid, Hilario Davide Jr, Edmundo Garcia, Commission on Human Rights chief Jose Luis Martin Gascon, Christian Monsod, Ricardo Romulo, Jaime Tadeo, and Bernardo Villegas.
Davide told a Senate inquiry last week the 1987 Charter was the “best in the world” and that federalism would be a “leap to hell.”