A ‘distinctly Filipino’ federal system

I agree with former Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s statement that the consultative committee to review the 1987 Constitution should put together a ‘distinctly Filipino’ federalism. It should come up with “an architectural design” that meets the needs of the Philippines. One of these if not the most important is the conflict in Mindanao. The federal constitution could be a parliamentary, presidential or hybrid (parliamentary and presidential) form of government.

“There are different models for the structure available off the shelf but there is no model that will perfectly fit the Philippines,” he said in his speech at the first en banc session of the Con-com at the Philippine International Convention Center in Pasay City.

My concern is that while we may not want to just “imitate other models of government,” the fact is we have already preempted the debate on whether we are better off following the French model or the British model. In my opinion the French model is an accommodation for elements of our society that are not ready for the British model. The primary objection si that we do not have a party system and that is the strength of the British model. Moreover, the French system retains the essential character of having a president and that is important to Filipinos. The British system has the monarchy that symbolically unites the country. I recently watched the series that was shown in Netflix on the Crown. I thought it was an outdated form of government especially because some monarchs behave badly and the British has taken this with a stiff upper lip.

“If we are to have a homogenous position, it is that we should not plagiarize any federal model, for our model should be distinctly Filipino as it cannot be impassive to our past and indifferent to the present,” he added.

CJ Puno echoes the stand taken by President Rodrigo Duterte without whom we will not be able to change our Constitution. He said he wanted the Philippines to adopt the French model of federalism, where there is a prime minister and a president.

Puno may want the Philippines to have a “cooperative” federalism, not competitive but this position cannot be challenged unless the change has taken place. 

There is also the different economic and social capabilities of regions. He said that a great number of regions would be ready to “take full steps” to federalism, while others would be able to take only “baby steps” and would need a lot of “handholding.”

“The sense and essence of cooperative federalism is co-active and collaborative efforts of each state to achieve the common goal of all,” he added.

“Cutthroat, unfair and unforgiving competition that could threaten the sustainability of constituent states ought to be prohibited and should invite the intervention of the federal government,” he added. While I respect his views, there are bigger problems other than whether it should be cooperative or competitive. More important is how we handle competition and we will not know the difficulties it will bring and the solutions needed when it happens.

Recently I received a letter from former Congressman Victor Ortega who was chairman of committee hearings on constitutional amendments in Congress.

“I carry with me the ‘institutional’ memory of the 1973 and many other hearings of the committee in Congress. He came to the conclusion that the 1987 Constitution will not be amended because under the 1987 Constitution it cannot it be amended.” Like you, I would like to contribute to the new Constitution and I wish it would happen in my lifetime. Given the present political conditions the President will need strong rule to overcome those who will not cooperate with the effort.

With the rising cry for constitutional changes, advocates have come forward more forcefully for “government with revolutionary powers” for Duterte to have it done. It has become clear that it is being blocked by the establishment using the excuse that it is not necessary or popular.

A congressman who was a friend said, “The 1987 Constitution change in the hands of the elite makes it impossible.” And we learned that through the years it was attempted.

The 2016 election of President Digong with a strong campaign for a new constitution altogether changed that. 

For those pinning their hopes on Duterte to declare a government with revolutionary powers for a new constitution reflecting economic liberalization, evolving federalism and parliamentary government another writer takes his lesson from Peter Koropkin.

“To overturn a government – is for a revolutionary middleclass man everything; for us it is only the beginning of the social revolution. The machine of the State once out of gear, the hierarchy of functionaries disorganized and not knowing in what direction to take a step, the soldiers having lost confidence in their officers – in a word, the whole army of defenders of the capital once routed – then it is that the grand work of destruction of all the institutions which serve to perpetuate economic and political slavery will become ours. The possibility of acting freely being attained, what will revolutionists do next?”

Kropotkin may have been writing about revolutionary government in another country at another period. It may have happened in the French revolution but it is no different in the Philippine period of 2017. 

I have faith that a solution would be found by Duterte to break the impasse between a reluctant elite and people wanting change. It may be difficult even impossible as Kropotkin writes but there can always be a first time especially because of the particular political conditions in the Philippines today.