Recall that when he was considering a run for the presidency, he declined to be drafted several times. Was it a way for him to gauge the public’s sentiment in support of his candidacy? We know he eventually decided to run, and many said he had already made up his mind long before then. Is he working off the same playbook here? Is he gauging the public’s appetite once again, this time in favour of federalism?
Hi, I’m Doy Santos, and on this edition of The Cusp, we’re going to look at the push for federalism, and answer the question, Is Federalism fizzling out, or is it just getting started?
Right after the midterm election, Sen. Bong Go, a close confidante of Duterte quoted him as saying it would be difficult to get federalism adopted due to the lack of support from congress and voters in general.
He was referring to a set of surveys conducted a year ago, that seemed to indicate poor support for charter change and for federalism. The one by Pulse Asia, back in June of 2018 in particular, showed that only about 3 in 10 were in favour of a shift to a federal state, with about 6 in 10 not in favor, and 1 in 10 undecided.
But of course that was then. Things might have changed by now. Of the 6 in 10 that rejected a shift to federalism, however, a little less than 3 in 10 were open to a change “sometime in the future.” If you add that to the 3 in 10 who were in favour of that shift, and 1 in 10 undecided, then it could mean that up to 70% of Filipinos might back the shift to federalism now or in the future.
This depends in part on whether they gain a better handle on the issue, with only about 3 in 10 saying they had sufficient knowledge of federalism. Clearly, the public needs to be better educated first, because a plurality are either undecided or are open to it, sometime in the future.
Recall that back in 2018, the then speaker Pantaleon Alvarez was making a lot of noise about charter change. In February of that year, he said that the timetable for shifting to a new constitution was before the 2019 elections. He even floated the idea of postponing the midterms if it was not accomplished by then.
All this may have caused Filipinos to shun charter change and federalism at that time. In fact support for it seemed to wane from March to June that year based on the surveys. Recall as well that in 2018, the introduction of new excise taxes under the TRAIN Law, coincided with oil embargoes in Venezuela and Iran, along with mismanagement of the NFA’s rice importation program, causing inflation to rise for most of that year. The BSP also raised policy rates by 175 basis points constricting the flow of money into the economy.
All this would have caused Filipinos to want the government to prioritise dealing with inflation first, before turning to charter change. When Speaker GMA succeeded Alvarez in July 2018, she worked on rice tariffication to liberalise its importation, and other measures identified by Duterte in his SONA, such as universal healthcare. In fact, within 6 months of assuming the speakership, GMA who was on her last term in congress could claim that the lower house had passed all 15 of Duterte’s priority measures. The two I just mentioned were eventually signed into law.
The rice tariffication act came into effect early in 2019. This helped ease inflation, just as the price of oil, cooking gas and electricity came down. The one time effect of TRAIN had also passed. By the midterm polls in May this year, Pres. Duterte’s popularity had soared once again. This resulted in the routing of the opposition candidates in the senate, and an increase of his ruling party in the house, as well as in local seats.
So the question now is why would the president back away from pressing home the advantage by refusing to take up the cudgels for federalism? The simple answer to that is, he probably isn’t.
Speaking before a group of incoming local officials the President lamented his inability to curb corruption under the 1987 constitution and exhorted them to fix the current set-up through charter change, even if they opposed federalism. He referred to the partylist system that is open to manipulation by rich individuals as needing change, for instance. This came about because of some Supreme Court rulings.
Congress could override these judicial reviews by enacting a superseding law that would remove the ambiguity over who can stand as a sectoral representative. That person ought to come from the sector, for instance, such that rich billionaires could not represent security guards or workers.
While we are at it, why not also lift the cap on the number of seats a sectoral party can claim? Make it truly proportional representation, to avoid micro parties with very slim votes (of less than 2%) from entering congress, simply because the quota of 20% for sectoral reps hasn’t been filled, due to the fact, we’ve put a cap for any single party.
This would encourage micro parties to coalesce so we wouldn’t have such a large field. There were close to 200 of these partylist groups at the last election. It’s simply too hard for voters to sift through them. These reforms can be done even without charter change.
In addition to fixing the partylist system, did Duterte also mean introducing other political and electoral reforms?
Like the separate election of the vice president for instance, which introduces potential instability when the VP is a member of the opposition, as in the present case. It opens up the executive branch to destabilisation on the part of the opposition forces, on the one hand, and the pointlessness of the VP when the president chooses not to assign a cabinet role to the person occupying it, for whatever reason. This requires charter change, as the constitution says the VP is to be elected directly by the people, in the same manner as the president.
Another area that the president cited was in decentralising power from Imperial Manila. This, he said needed to be addressed to allow for peace in Mindanao. He expressed dismay over the slow devolution of power to the Bangsamoro Autonomous regional government. The president earlier said that unless federalism was enacted, there would never be peace in the south.
Of course, there are other options open to congress, that would achieve federalism in all aspects, short of calling it such. The research fellow Michael Yusingco of the Ateneo Policy Center, offers a solution. He writes,
Local autonomy is a mandatory prescription of the 1987 Constitution. As per the framers, local autonomy under the charter means “a kind of maximum decentralization, short of federalization”...Article X has provisions that actually exhibit features of a federal system, giving support to the observation by federalism scholars that we already have a quasi-federal set-up under the current charter.
It has been claimed by Paul Hutchcroft, professor at ANU that the Philippines is already more decentralised than federalist Malaysia next door. I would agree in the sense that we have adopted a form of fiscal federalism through the vehicle known as internal revenue allotments, or IRA in the budget.
The SC has already ruled that by 2022 the splitting of revenues by the government between national and LGUs must include all forms of taxes, like value added and excise taxes, customs and duties, not just income taxes. This would increase the vertical fiscal equalisation and address imbalances in the way that devolved functions like health is funded.
The other way to improve this form of fiscal federalism through legislation is by introducing horizontal fiscal equalisation. This means not only addressing imbalances in the way national and LGU spending is financed, it would mean creating a mechanism by which poorer LGUs could receive a top-up to compensate for the fact that either they are weaker in terms of revenue collection, because they are less endowed with natural resources or suffer other forms of disadvantage, or have a higher cost of delivering services due to poor geography, a sparse, but dispersed population or have simply have greater needs.
This can be done by changing the way the IRA is split among LGUs. Currently it is based on population (50%), land area (25%) and equal sharing (25%). The determination of the formula could be assigned to an intergovernmental body that would decide on the best formula for lifting LGUs that are falling behind up to the same standard of service delivery as the richer ones. The formula could be revised on an ongoing basis. The Australian Commonwealth Grants Commission provides a good institutional model for this. The EU and other federal countries have similar approaches.
Another way to improve local autonomy would be to strengthen the role that the current Regional Development Councils, comprised of provincial governors play in regional development planning and governance. The only thing that cannot be done without charter change is to establish regional governments with elected parliaments that would take over the role of these RDCs.
A simple insertion of one word in the constitution could allow for regional autonomy with accountable, elected governing bodies. Article X, Section 1 reads,
The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.
By simply inserting the word “regions” before provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays in the definition of political and territorial subdivisions would allow for an amendment to the Local Government Code, or enactment of a regional government code, that would create the framework for autonomous regional governments, which would be supported by raising the IRA to 50% of all revenue collected, including royalties on natural resource extraction, as proposed by the ruling party. Again, this would create a federal state, without calling it such.
It would also represent the smoothest, least disruptive way to get to federalism, without overhauling the entire constitution. We could work on incremental changes, amendments to the current constitution, without overhauling our entire system, in one go. This might be a better way. Congress could deliberate on these proposed constitutional amendments separately, and pass them with a super majority. There would be no need to convene a constituent assembly wherein anything and everything could be proposed.
So again, in summary, there are several fixes that we can perform to the 1987 constitution, that would address imbalances and grievances, legitimately raised by proponents. These are:
Fix the way the President and VP are elected. Not separately, but in unison, as a tandem. To do away with the inherent instability and wastefulness of resources under the current set-up.
Return the party-list system back to its original intent, which was to give a voice to marginalised sectors in society. This can be done through legislation alone with a simple majority in Congress.
Improve the distribution of the internal revenue allotments. Make it more equitable and balanced, and delegate the decision on how to do that to an intergovernmental body. This again may be done through an act of Congress, not as a form of charter change.
Strengthen the role of existing regional development councils, again by legislation, and make regional governance more accountable and representative of the people through bodies elected by the people. The latter will require a minor constitutional edit, by naming regions as a form of political as well as territorial subdvisions of the country, followed by amendments to the Local Government Code, under which an additional 10% IRA to regions could cover their cost.
Defining clearly the roles of each layer of government, the powers and authority they have and the fiscal rules that govern their operation through the codes and laws that are adopted and implemented.
Finally, let me say this. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. It shouldn’t matter whether we adopt the name federal republic of the Philippines or not. The fact is, through these minor changes, the Philippines can become a de-facto federalist state.
In this manner, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, for local autonomy would be met. It doesn’t matter what label we put on it. This will be a uniquely Filipino invention. It satisfies the intent of the proponents of constitutional change in the ruling party, which is to evolve our own institutions, and not simply import them from abroad.
It remains to be seen whether the administration and its allies in both houses goes for such a mode for improving governance in this country. Like I said, it might be less contentious and less disruptive to do it this way. As shown by surveys, the public is open to the idea of constitutional changes, even federalism being adopted, either now or at some time in the future. Let’s hope that in the next three years, the electorate become better acquainted with the issues involved, and that some of these changes would be discussed, and a consensus arrived at, to enhance the stability, accountability and responsiveness of our government, to better meet the needs of our people. After all, that’s what this whole exercise should be all about.
Well, that’s it. I hope you enjoyed our show today. This has been another edition of The Cusp. I’m Doy Santos. Thank you for listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment