No to Federalism

NO TO FEDERALISM

Editorial

PH in the grip of political dynasties

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM March 13, 2018

The 1987 Constitution is blunt about the bane posed by political dynasties. Art. II, Sec. 26 says, “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

The Consultative Committee appointed by President Duterte to review the Constitution as part of the Charter change efforts of his administration likewise thinks so.

The 20-member committee has voted to regulate political dynasties by prohibiting relatives of incumbent officials up to the second degree of consanguinity (relations by blood) and affinity (relations by law) to run for public office.

The committee’s consensus is that the “extent of the domination by political dynasties … have led to bad governance, created monopoly of political and economic power, bastardized democracy, stunted socioeconomic development, and contributed to poverty.”

However, the committee’s proposals are merely that — recommendatory. Congress as a constituent assembly may choose to ignore the committee’s action points altogether — as it has ignored the various antipolitical dynasty bills filed over the decades, all of them eventually moldering and dying in the self-serving legislative mill that remains caught in the unyielding grip of the Philippines’ sprawling dynastic families.

Overweening self-entitlement is what drives these families to think that they have a natural right to public office.

Take Imee Marcos, who hinted recently about seeking a seat in the Senate, saying her family had discussed the matter because her brother Bongbong’s election protest was taking some time to resolve: “Napag-usapan na ito sa pamilya namin dahil itong protesta ni Bongbong is taking forever.”

The efforts of the late dictator’s heirs to put the Marcos scion and namesake in the vice president’s post having failed so far, they think it’s expected of them to have that imagined slot reserved for them in national politics filled up by another blood member.

The sense of entitlement is acute: Heaven forbid that a political slot be ceded to anyone else; if the son can’t hack it, then the daughter must step up.

According to a study by Prof. Rolando Simbulan of the University of the Philippines, that dynamic happens across much of the country, with 73 of the 81 provinces of the Philippines under dynastic control.

Another study — by Dean Ronald Mendoza et al. of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Government — as cited by Inquirer columnist Cielito Habito, highlighted the particular insidiousness of the Philippine experience: “Cross-country comparisons suggest that the Philippines has been unusually more prone to political dynasties than other countries … with 75 percent of lawmakers belonging to dynasties as of 2013. In the United States, the figure was 6 percent, while it was 10 percent in Argentina and Greece, 22 percent in Ireland, 24 percent in India, 33 percent in Japan, 40 percent in Mexico, and 42 percent in Thailand.”

Leveling the playing field and ensuring more equitable representation in political life are crucial to a healthy republic, but the framers of the 1987 Constitution fell short in enshrining that principle by leaving the crucial task to lawmakers — the very products of that very rotten system.

True to form, the political heirs have only used their family perches to strengthen and expand their hold on power.

As the Ateneo study pointed out, in the 8th Congress (1987-1992), 62 percent of legislators had relatives in elective positions; that number went up to 66 percent by the 12th Congress (1998-2001), and 75 percent in the 14th Congress.

Even the party-list system, designed to democratize representation in Congress, has been hijacked, with one of every four sectoral representatives (14 of 56) now also coming from dynastic backgrounds.

Any whole-scale amendment of the Constitution must start with one basic but radical scalpel work on the system: the long-delayed ban on political dynasties.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/111702/ph-grip-political-dynasties#ixzz5B6WK6a60

Right Institutions, Wrong Leaders

By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM December 18, 2017

When the Duterte administration finally relinquishes power, a postmortem analysis of its reign will reveal this major blunder: It failed to understand that the country’s problems lie, not in our institutions, but in the leaders who misuse these institutions.

This foretelling of the future arises because President Duterte insists on pushing for a shift to federalism, in advocating the abandonment of the lowest-bid policy in government procurement, and in making it very easy for any president henceforth to wield the fearsome powers of martial law.

It took a mere half-day last week for the President to obtain an overwhelming 240-27 vote in congressional approval for a yearlong extension of martial law in Mindanao, notwithstanding the government’s declaration of “total victory” in Marawi City.

In one fell swoop, the bitter lessons of martial rule under Ferdinand Marcos were forgotten. With a muted whimper, the constitutional gains that were achieved and that imposed strict requirements on any resort to martial law all came tumbling down.

With the ease by which martial law has been extended in Mindanao, despite the complete cessation of hostilities in Marawi, what would now stop the President from declaring martial law in the whole country on grounds that the New People’s Army conducts military operations in many provinces nationwide?

The Constitution sufficiently provides for a legislative veto against casual resort to martial law, but this power is useless under a docile Congress. We have the right institution but we have the wrong leaders.

The President has also declared that he wants Congress to abolish the law requiring government contracts to be awarded to the lowest bidder. The President complains that this lowest-bid policy enables corrupt officials to manipulate the bidding process. He says the correct policy should be for the government to “buy the best” goods and services.

But a policy to “buy the best” is not at all in conflict with a lowest-bid policy. There’s only the need to ensure that the bid documents will clearly specify superior quality, and that the lowest bid for such quality items will win the bid.

The reason that the government gets inferior-quality products under the lowest-bid rule is this: Bidding officials rig the process. However, the same corrupt officials will manipulate a “buy the best” bidding process. A “buy the best” policy will be even more prone to corruption because such a standard is subjective and debatable. We have the right institutional policy on public bidding, but we have the wrong officials in charge of our bidding processes.

Finally, the President insists on changing our unitary form of government to one that is a federation of regions. The President complains that revenues and economic growth are monopolized by imperial Manila, to the detriment of the provinces. He also advocates federalism for Muslim Mindanao as a means of putting an end to the Moro secessionist movement.

In reality, many impoverished provinces are virtually subsidized by the national government because the internal revenue allotments they receive are more than their own revenue collections. What has been detrimental to the provinces is the deeply entrenched corruption by local political dynasties. A shift to a federal government will only further strengthen—politically and economically—these dynasties which are the real curse of the provinces.

With regard to Muslim Mindanao, there are the existing political structures and bureaucratic institutions of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The President gets virtually anything he wants when he bamboozles and curses his way. Why can’t he just crank up the ARMM by shaming and removing the corrupt officials in its ranks, overhauling its agencies, infusing billions of pesos in its programs, and supporting principled people who will succeed in its leadership?

We have the right institutions but we have the wrong leaders. Change our leaders, not our institutions.

Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/109556/right-institutions-wrong-leaders#ixzz51lHARP4F

Charter change proposal: Ban ‘butterflies,’ dynasties

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:20 AM March 18, 2018

BAGUIO CITY — Changes to the 1987 Constitution must include prohibitions on political turncoatism and dynasties so that political parties will be “guided by principles, not by personalities,” Senate Minority Leader Francis Pangilinan said on Friday.

Pangilinan chaired a regional consultative hearing organized by the Senate at the University of the Cordilleras (UC) here on Charter change (Cha-cha) proposals to pave the way for the creation of a federal system of government.

The Liberal Party president said so-called political butterflies should be banned because they existed only for their own interests.

He also favored Charter proposals requiring state subsidies for political parties and the retention of the country’s multiparty system.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/976120/charter-change-proposal-ban-butterflies-dynasties#ixzz5Atq1LIxn

Filipinos are very poorly prepared to build, defend, and practice democracy. Philippine society has not yet crossed over into modernity. It is trapped in a sort of pre-modern elitism, feudalism, and corruption. Filipinos are “liberals in law, tribal in life.” (Raul Pangalangan)

Switching to a federal or parliamentary structure promotes fiefdoms and secession, the latter the very problem this radical constitutional change seeks to solve. A federal or parliamentary structure will aggravate existing divisions based on geography, language, history, and culture, sowing seeds of ethnic conflict. In this respect, federalism will not inhibit the Bangsamoro secession but rather incite it.

The tendency of an archipelagic political group is to break up, e.g. ancient Greece. Island groups disintegrate, politically. I wouldn't encourage this tendency through a federal or parliamentary structure. We want to maintain archipelagic integrity because in this dangerous world, size matters. We don’t want to become smaller. Look at how weak Brunei is.

The problem is not the existing political structure but rather it is how this structure is being used by the elites. Federalism is a system that reinforces the existence and use of private armies. It entrenches dynasties in power, supports corruption, and co-opts plunder.

It is not necessary to change the charter to reform massively corrupt political dynasties and a weak political party system fatally crippled by endemic turncoatism. They are the two principal defects bedeviling the Philippine political system, undermining democracy and enabling plunder. The proper, effective reforms can be enacted and implemented by the existing legislature WITHOUT charter change.

Two types of laws must be passed and implemented:

- ANTI-DYNASTY LAW

We need this law. We do not need more Ampatuan fiefdoms. An anti-dynasty law is like antitrust regulation in the private sector. The anti-dynasty law seeks to open public office to equal opportunity and to fair competition. A more competitive political environment promotes products and services of better quality (read: better government services) and lower prices (read: less corruption).

See: http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/08/20/15/why-philippines-needs-anti-dynasty-law

- ANTI-POLITICAL TURNCOATISM LAW

See, for example: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2015/04/11/senators-want-end-turncoatism-ph-politics-402027

Persons and groups who are pushing for a federal or parliamentary structure are elites who want to maintain their own fiefdoms and not subject themselves to term limits in the legislature. They do not have the interest of the polity in mind.

Besides, federalism is inconsistent with our long history so that the population is not in fact clamoring for it. It is the politicians in power who are pushing the federalism agenda.

Instituting federalism to solve the Bangsamoro secession is needless and unwarranted. Federalism for the sake of peace with one secessionist political group while the rest of the country is largely content with one central unitary government, is overkill. It is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The Philippine people need to instill in themselves and in the coming generations the values and principles of democracy. We need to strengthen and build democratic institutions. Our advancement and economic development as a nation depends on good governance and democracy. The peace and order, and development problems of this nation will not be solved through the actions and policies of a criminal, massively corrupt, fascist government.