I am for federalism, and I am for rewriting the Constitution. Transitioning from a unitary state into a federation requires more than an amendment of the fundamental law. It requires nothing short of a revision, a reorienting of the entire organization of the body-politic. And now that we are in earnest about making the Philippines a federal republic, the search for models begins.
Models are useful, but really, there is no canonical form of a federal state according to which we must hew this novelty in our national life. Malaysia’s federation is largely dependent (except for four of the states) on traditional sultanates that held sway over parts of Malaysia. That kind of historical antecedent, we did not necessarily have. More unique yet is the indigenous if quaint system of a “revolving kingship”—the symbolic head of state is one of the nine hereditary sultans, each having a turn at the kingship! Spain likewise provides another interesting model: autonomous communities and autonomous cities. Canada is itself a third example—yet markedly different from other federal states, but a practical—and, thus far, working—response to the aspirations of the Quebecois for autonomy. At one time, they cried: “Secession!” It is an example of what is many times called “asymmetrical federalism” where one or the other region enjoys vastly ampler powers and greater autonomy than do others!
That alone says a lot about the homework we must be doing, we who advocate the shift to federalism. In this respect, no size fits all! But I have not yet advanced my reasons for supporting federalism. First, our unitary system has created this gangrenous ulceration called “Manila.” “Imperial Manila” was what it used to be called—in derision, but there is nothing imperial about Manila now: the ubiquitous snarl where once there were thoroughfares, open, stinking cesspools where once esteros flowed that provided water and transport for “my Manila” about which Nick Joaquin penned many a lyrical line, and the insalubrious squatter areas (I refuse to mask the ugliness of it all by referring to “informal settlers”) that no government has ever had the political will to dismantle, after having safely but resolutely relocated the residents, or sent them back to the provinces. And that is just one more thing: Millions crawl around Manila and prowl about because, in our unitary republic, that is where the “happenings” will be found.
The well-intentioned talks with Muslim Mindanao led to the crafting of such tentative documents as the MOA-AD, that the Supreme Court scuttled, and the draft BBL, for which PNoy had hoped to win the Nobel Prize, with the assistance of the Deles-Ferrer duo but that was afflicted with so many congenital infirmities that, in its case, abortion was perfectly justified! But crafting a solution for Muslim Mindanao is engaging in patch-work, much like the way we repair our highways. The Cordillera People’s Liberation Army might be only a dim memory now, but the aspirations of the Filipinos of our highlands are by no means extinct. And so many parts of the Philippines have had the sore experience of being outside the sweep of Manila’s vision and affections. But that is because we have had a State with Manila from which all grace and favor flowed!
The United Kingdom is a federation of sorts: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have separate legislatures, separate executive structures, distinct judiciaries even, such that a transaction between an English entrepreneur and his Scottish counterpart that is perfected in London but performed for the most part in Edinburgh triggers a genuine conflicts case! This is a federal kingdom forged by history, for Scotland and Wales did have separate thrones and Scots and Englishmen have not always been the most congenial of friends.
But the crucial chapter in the constitution of a federal state will be the distribution of governmental powers. Which powers will be reserved to the national government? Which powers will be devolved to the regions (or will we call them states—which they never were)? What should transform the Philippines into a truly federal state is real state power exercised by the regions, and only the minimum of necessary power retained by the national government. That tepid version of decentralization that reserves for Manila all the same the final determination of matters will not be enough. It will not be worth the trouble of rewriting our Constitution. In fact, I propose that we go all the way even in regard to our laws and to the judiciary. While a civil code—and the other codes we have—may yet serve as a uniform model, each region should still legislate its own codes, particularly so where cultural, ethnic and historical differences make this a solution to long-festering gripes and grievances. It will, I predict, help in no small measure inspeed up the process of the judicial resolution of disputes if our present national courts were confined in their jurisdiction to truly “federal matters.” Quite predictably, that will give rise to thorny jurisdictional issues on national and regional competence—but we have always been experts at weaving our way through knotty problems!
As for political dynasties making fiefdoms out of regions, whether you have a federal republic or not, dynasties will importune themselves. But it will certainly help to re-write the constitutional proscription: defining within the fundamental law what a dynasty is, so that we may not await the pleasure of Congress that apparently takes no pleasure in outlawing the informal rule by which it is presently composed!
Like all good research, rewriting the provisions of our Constitution to allow for a federal republic should start with scholarly, in-depth and exhaustive studies of existing forms of federation, then identifying the historical and cultural particularities of our country with which constitution-writing must deal, and the openness to entertain different models, look for their faults, and, in Popperian fashion, to replace them with better ones! And the issue of federalism has to be distinguished from the proposal to go parliamentary—because the two do not necessarily come together. The latter issue involves Mayor Digong having to decide whether he wants to be a king, like Bhumibol—morally ascendant but politically neutered, or a ceremonial president—like India’s, whose key function is receiving ceremonial salutes, shaking hands with kings and princes, and having to endure garlands and leis around his neck, or a president like one that France has who can always blame a Prime Minister for his faults while he wields real power, or carry on with the American model—with the very possibility that Donald Trump will still set a new, if discordant chord for a powerful presidency! But that is a different issue altogether.
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@yahoo.com