Dreaming of federalism: Weekend readings

As what Hyatt 10 said GMA is using Charter change initiatives to evade persistent questions about her credibility and trustworthiness. Let us keep ourselves focus to the CORE. What bring about this distracting and nuisance topic of Charter Change – IT’S THE CHEATING, LYING and STEALING initiated and perpetuated by GMA, ang pekeng pangulo.

As much as I would like to, i am not going to comment anything regarding con-ass or cha-cha, to do so would be like being “fished-in” by GMAs media diversionary tactics.

Why not concentrate more on compiling and researching more evidince to strengthen the impeachment effort. If justice is already served we are ready to discuss charter change.

We can can do more service by documenting more paper trail and other incriminating documents. The Garci tape is only a tip of the iceberg. Let us coordinate with pinoys abroad to locate the whereabouts of Garci or to report of any sightings (ala UFO) etc….

For a starter, I would like to share here a piece first published in the moribund Pinoy-rin.net and inq7.net on April 10, 2001.The artcile, originally titled “Federalism: A constituional response to secession” is now contained in my book BUILD or PERISH! (UST Publishing, 2005).
_______________________

A constitutional response to secession

by Abe N. Margallo

The last time our constitution underwent an overhaul was in 1986 after the Marcos regime was ended following a dramatic wave of people’s power led by Cory Aquino.

Foremost among the changes introduced were the limitation of the presidential term of office to six years without re?election, the abolition of death penalty, and, more prominently, the premium put on human rights and on the Philippines as a “welfare state” where the state is called upon to act as Parens Patriae. That was the temper of the times in response to the political, economic, and societal malaise that so afflicted the country.

During the 1973 constitutional revision and shift to a hybrid parliamentary system under the shadow of martial law, President Marcos cited seven threats to the Republic: Communist revolutionaries; rightist coup; secessionist movement in the south; private armies and political warlords; the criminal elements who take advantage of the situation; the oligarchy who sought to maintain the status quo; and foreign interventionists.

In expounding on the limits of his martial law powers, Marcos conceded, “martial rule could not, in the long run, secure the Philippine Republic unless the social inequities and old habits which precipitated the military necessity were stamped out.”

The Mindanao conflict has generated a recent rumbling to amend the charter with a number of senators proposing the adoption of a federal system of government as a constitutional option to solve the Mindanao problem. I find this issue as deserving a full debate.

To dismiss it as nothing less than an attempt to “balkanize” the country, as former senator Raul Roco once put it, glosses over the merits of federalism that has sustained for more than 200 years the existence and integrity of the United States, the most prosperous and the strongest nation of the world.

It is apposite to take note that this proposal to adopt federalism appears to follow the historical trend towards fuller autonomy for local governments. All that the 1935 Charter provided on the subject of local autonomy was to limit the executive authority to the exercise of “general supervision” over local governments, thereby denying the executive the more pervasive power of “control.” On the other hand, the 1973 Constitution declared as one of its fundamental principles that: “The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio, to ensure their fullest development as self?reliant communities.” That was not all.

The 1973 Constitution in fact devoted an entire article (Article XI) to local government mandating therein the enactment of a local government code. The present Constitution further expanded the 1973 provisions likewise in a separate article dedicated to local government while creating in addition “the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures.” Consistent however with the “unitary” form of government, the present Constitution provides that “(a)ll powers, functions, and responsibilities not granted by this Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions shall be vested in the national government.”

In certain federal forms of government such as that of the United States, powers not granted by the constitution to the national government are deemed reserved to the states. The fundamental difference lies there. However, it is not “balkanization” contrary to how Senator Raul Roco views it.5 It is autonomy in its truest sense.

The one fundamental principles of federalism that could have a mollifying effect on the secessionist movement in Mindanao would be the concept of shared or dual sovereignty.

What this means is that states are sovereign, separate and independent in relation to each other and the national government. As such the people of the states, functioning as “laboratories of democracy,” are free, subject only to restrictions in the constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized statues enacted by the national legislature, to define and experiment the moral, political, cultural and legal structure of their lives and to meet the needs of the people according to their own desires and creativity.

Under this concept, for instance, interstates relations are handled much like foreign affairs, i.e., states can negotiate and enter into treaties with other states. The states may also decide to adopt for its local government units such as the municipalities, the mayor?council governments, commission governments, council?manager governments, the barangay governments or similar and other forms of governance that reflect the distinctive nature of the constituents.

“Policy borrowing” is one of the important features of federalism. According to this practice, the states are free to develop and experiment their own educational, law enforcement and economic development policies, or to borrow from the several approaches employed in different states to address the same problems. States learn from the successes or failures of those programs, thus helping to ease administration.

The other significant trend in federalism today is the “devolution” of administrative control over programs from the national to state and local governments. Devolution is empowerment not separatism. The decentralized decision?making process provides greater proximity to the people, compelling governments to be more responsive to the concerns of the citizenry.

There is also evidence supporting the finding that fiscal decentralization reduces corruption, a salutary effect of federalism that only those who benefit from corrupt practices could possibly abjure.

Arguably, a perfect constitution is not a warrant to solve the ills that scourge a society. There is thus no guarantee that federalism will work for the indigenous people, the Christians, or the Muslims in Mindanao. For, except possibly for the concept of shared or dual sovereignty, the other benefits of federalism as above discussed might well be approximated even under the present unitary system.

The Russian constitution, for example, is an excellent piece of document that enshrines the fundamental aspirations of a people. But so far it has not also served as a flattering measure of the nation’s political stability and economic growth. Both in form and in substance, the Philippine Constitution is equally commendable. Nevertheless, even the U.S. Constitution, without the passion and commitment of the founding fathers and the succeeding generations to build and secure a just and tranquil society based on the ideals they believed in, and to safeguard that society against those people intent to trifle with it, would have become just another empty shibboleth.

American society, as any other, has had its own share of great debilitating crises such as sectional loyalty and hardened class lines. But its collective will has refused to hand down its great legacy in a pauper’s will by simply reinventing the basic blueprint of its society without being so framed and indulged in by the forthright action, driven by the voice of their conscience, of independent individuals dedicated to its ideals. That collective will is being put to test once more by the widening gap between the needy and the affluent in its society as well as in the global village its influence holds sway. But, then, there are certain faceless people who are out there, picking up the cudgels again.

Ideals committed into actions will allow a constitution to endure the test of times and the various frailties of human society.

korek ka jan tol

impeachement muna bago yang chacha. concentrate more on impeachement please. calling the attention of all congressmen be it minority or majority. lalo n gma allies. people are all watching you. now that signatories are published in this blog we have the idea of who these conressmen are. kung may balak pa kayo sa 2007 election magisep isep na kayo. for sure this chacha will take more years before it will push through. malabo sa senado at hinde pa masyadong welcome sa tao. ang perception ng tao sa ngayon ay impeachement muna. gigil na gigil na mga tao. kahit pa magtuloy tuloy si aroyo d ba sabi nya till 2010 ang term nya? tagal pa noon. lalong maghihirap pilipinas kasi ayaw na nga ng tao sa kanya. sabi popularity contest ang surveys? but of course madam president. tao nagdadala sa gobyerno. ano ka ba pag di ka na sinoportahan ng tao wala ng kwenta kahit anong gawin mo walang epekto. goverment are the people not you mrs aroyo. no to chaha for the moment. impeach gma now!

Gma has stated that peop;e power is over. I don’t believe so. People of the country are very much interested to get rid of the corrupt administration we have at present and obviously led by our president. The only reason she is surviving is because of the military who is in her pocket and as corrupt as she is.The administration with the military do not care about the people of the Philippines and only advance their cheating, stealing, and keeping their power at whoever expense and sufferings.

Let the congressmen handle both impeachment and Charter Change. Let them maximize their brains which weren’t really used in the past years…para rin sulit ang pagamit ng taxes na binayad natin (which were partly used to pay for their salaries). To ensure that there are no biases, there should be a body of credible intellectuals from the private sector who shall review their work…

Sorry off topic.

Abe,
I am one of the co-founders for pinoy-rin. i just wanted to relay to you a message from Deanie Ocampo, she wants to get your contact info. Please contact me at edijamco2@yahoo.com thanks.

Abe, just one response to the insightful comments you wrote in 2001. First, it may be necessary to revise and update the argument that federalism is necessary to prevent Mindanao separatism. While the belief that Mindanao has had been always at the wrong end of all deals vis-a-vis Manila has spread to even the so-called Christian provinces, there is really no potent force to bring this sentiment to the next phase: active political (and perhaps military) push for separation. The MILF is all ready to talk peace, the MNLF is virtually a spent force, while the Americans have contained the Abu Sayyaf. The Muslim politicians shout to high heavens about separtism and preserving the Muslim identity, but at the ground, they are working closely with Manila to try to craft some form of lasting peace in Mindanao (while pushing for their own interest). I saw this last April as I watch Gov. Ben Loong of Jolo assert the need to preserve Moro identity but also discussing development plans with Jess Dureza and aid with the US-AID people.

Hence, one of the premises that prompted calls for federalism — Mindanao secession — is not there anymore and this perhaps may make the discussions of the alternative much “better” and even manageable.

We are thinking of including a panel on federalism/parliamentarism in the upcoming conference of the Philippine Political Science Association (in Bohol!) and I would like to propose to my colleagues that we invite you as well as Prof. Mojares.

P.S. But a note of caution: American federalism was built on a history of a bloody civil war, and over two hundred years of local state power (up to 1901, the Secretary of State was really just that — a secretary). It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that the federal state began to assert its control over Congress. The Russian constitution was also a compromise document where the “Republics” agreed to remain with the “Russian” commonweath. And already Ukraine and Lithuania are trying to break away and join NATO and the European Union.

Salud

Walang anumang uring gobyerno na alam kong naging masama sa kapakanan ng mga tao, kahit pa ang komunismo, masama ito dahil ayaw nila na pati pagakain nila ay kontrol ng gobyerno, hindi ka puwedeng magmay-ari ng maraming bagay, mabuti lang ito para sa mga namumuno, dahil sila ang nakikinabang…subalit kung ipatutupad ito ng talagang nakapaloob sa tunay na layunin ay mabuti ito… Ang demokrasya, republika, etc… Maligaya ba ang mga mamamayan dito, di ba hindi rin? may maganda kang bahay nanakawan ka, pag minamalas ka pinatay ka pa,, nahuli ang nanloob, ang pumatay , ika nga , kaso, anak pala ni Senador, adik kasi, kaya malakas ang loob… .. minsan si meyor pa pala ang may kagagawan, ang negosyo sino ang mas higit na nakikinabang di ba yung may mga koneksiyon, ngayon alin ang sinasabi nating maganda,,,, Lahat ng ito ay maganda…. Ang hindi maganda ay ang mga namumuno,,, kaya kahit na anong sistema ng gobyerno ang ihain natin sa sambayanang Pilipino, parehas din ito,, dahil ang mga nagpapatupad ay hindi parehas…… Sa papel lang maganda ang uri o sistema ng pamahalaan… Sige subukan natin, pero huwag na tayong umasa na naroon ang kaginhawan, hindi totoo yon, ang totoo kung handa ng magbago ang mga namumuno, yan kahit anong sistema ng gobyerno pupuwede, subalit kung iyon at iyon pa rin amg mga taong uugit dito ay nag-aaksaya lamang tayo ng panahon, salapi, at pagod… huwag na lang…. Gumuhit na lang tayo sa lupa… o kung sino ang lumagpas sa guhit, taya…. hehehehe…

don’t wanna pop your bubbles, folks for federalism. but in an interview i saw on tv. i forgot who, pointed out that the national govt would get left holding the bag as far as our huge international debt is concerned. Good point. if somebody knows an answer, i wanna hear it.
As they say, the devil is in the details.

The problem with trying to keep up with a blog discussion, for an OFW, is that you don’t have the luxury of time to further expound your insights on the matter. What you can do, at best, is to provide a slice of reaction countering the gist of a previous blog entry.

In my case, I reacted to Mr. Margallos’s 4 year old comment (almost a derision) on Raul Roco’s observation that federalism will “balkanize” our country. Mr. Margallo, instead, enjoined us not to gloss over the merits of federalism as it propped up the existence and integrity of superpower USA.

Such a comment is not only a callous disregard of an accurate political observation but a dangerous endorsement of a totally incompatible alternative. Dangerous, because it simplifies a complex historical process (the interaction between the states and the federal government and the dynamics vis a vis the pursuit of their versions of national interest) and it overlooks the pitfalls.

To counter, I noted two pivotal events in US history where the foundation of federalism: the autonomy of member states, was put into the test. I mentioned the American civil war and World War II where I posited that autonomy of states resulted in divisions and bloody confrontations and that the centralization of resources (including decision making) resulted in victory in a two front war and pump primed their economy to unprecedented heights.

I should have also included the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s where the
black movement was spared from being decimated by white supremacists (supported by the local state apparatus, Gov. Wallace of Alabama was the poster boy) by the intervention of a national agency: the FBI, as well as the army and the national guard.

I should also have included the recently concluded US presidential elections where losing candidate John Kerry, during his concession phone call, mentioned to Dubya Bush that the US is a greatly divided nation. How can’t it be? The numerically (population-wise) and economically inferior red states are the ones calling the shots in shaping the nation’s interests (even values) instead of the numerically and economically superior blue states.

I should have included a dozen more cases or so (the disproportionate allocation of Homeland Security funding for the states etc.) but then this is just a counter posit to an earlier position, and not a stale mentioning of a timeline on how federalism evolved (more like mutated) in the United States.

I second the question of Garcigwen, paano ang hatian ng pambansang pagkakautang?

At bakit naman pagkadamidami– eleven(?) mini states. E di pagkaliitliit naman bawat isa. Talagang maliliit ang ating pag-iisip. Di na lang kaya sandaang microscopic states para naman talo natin ang US sa dami hehe.

The Whew! and the hehe theories

by Abe N. Margallo

The Universal Theory hypothesized by Philippine Inquirer editorialist and political hardballer John Nery (please refer to John’s blog in http://www.Newsstand.blogs.com) appears to jibe with my Plaza Miranda Theory by which I liken the political rumblings now going on to campaign activities in a run-up to an “un-election” process we call impeachment in a presidential system, an equivalent to the no-confidence vote in a parliamentary system (a not-so-irrelevant comparative analysis now). Everyone at this juncture seems to understand that impeachment is a political process couched in constitutional and legal formalities.

At the other extreme is the Numbers Game Theory, or the Miriam Defensor-Santiago, and now the Joker Arroyo Theory (Joker believes the critical application of the theory is in the House of Representatives, i.e., produce the magic 79 there).

The Dubya Theory (George W’s presidency was ultimately a 5-4 decision, remember, hence it may also be called the Black Robe Theory), can just be another numbers game (or “courtroom politics” as the more pragmatic ones would label it), but this time couched in arcane language; so one fitting substitute for it could be Numbers-Language Theory. (NB: Legal standoff in the actual operation of the Numbers Game Theory in the House may trigger early the application of the Black Robe Theory – and please refer to the expanded certiorari jurisdiction notes above.)

My earlier comments here may now carry the Hoarding Theory label stretching Marxian formulation (P.N. Abinales, please help), that People Power practitioners are “hoarding” the power, probably in the notion of “civil disobedience”; therefore the “inaction” is basically “action,” meaning, consciously or unconsciously, they don’t want to get involved in “alienated” politics, “alienation” being a state of powerlessness, (thus talking about cha-cha – or the merits of federalism or parliamentary system – at this point will work to diminish their “power of inaction”).

One dimension of the Hoarding Theory, as I have implied, could be the Anxiety Theory, the anxiousness about who will replace GMA and the much wide-and-long-ranging “what can be”?”

The Put-up or Shut-up Theory (specifically addressed to the “middle forces”) that high-profile political pundit Mario Taguiwalo has postulated has its counterpart in the Sloth Theory (something I’ve picked up recently from our awesome “street” historian, Pedro), perhaps a sub-set of the trite Ningas Gugon Theory or what Randy David has once suggested as The (Lack of) Follow-Through Theory.

Now, I’m beginning to be intrigued by Mario T’s Chaos Theory (he has started incubating it in Newsstand).

Does anyone have any idea about the Whew! Theory? Hehe.

——
KIMOSABE27 please be patient then. Thanks.

[…] Federalism advocates like Jose Abueva have repeatedly emphasized the “disadvantages of a traditional highly centralized unitary system and the probable advantages of changing it with a federal system to improve governance at the national, regional, and local levels.” (Read Abueva’s proposal here.) […]