It has been proposed that instead of having a republican style of government, we must adapt a federal system to achieve peace and economic stability in the Philippines. But how does the Filipinos respond to these calls by legislators and seasoned politicians to amend the 31 year old Constitution? Will they embrace these big change in our political system?
The 1987 Philippine Constitution and the signatories from the Constitutional Commission of 1986. Photo courtesy of Jamela Alindogan/Al Jazeera.
Prior to the election of Rodrigo Roa Duterte as the President of the Philippines, there had been proposals made by different Filipino diplomats and politicians alike to amend (change a part of the Constitution) or revise (change the entire Constitution) that would convert the present republican system to a federal form.
The first president himself, Emilio Aguinaldo and diplomat Apolinario Mabini were the first proponents of this system of government and dividing the country into three (3) states namely: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. It was followed then by University of the Philippines (UP) Professor Jose Abueva and by former Senate President Aquilino "Nene" Q. Pimentel, Jr. in 2001. Pimentel, Jr. then filed in the Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 which adopts a federal presidential system of government. He divided the country into 11 states and 1 federal administrative region (NCR). Pimentel, Jr. also asserted in the joint resolution that the Senators shall be elected from the states. The Pimentel, Jr. form of federal government likely resembles the United States (US) form of the federal government.
The states under the proposed federal form of government as stated in Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 filed by former Senate President Nene Pimentel. Photo courtesy of PhilStar.
The House of Representatives adopted the Joint Resolution No. 10 by filing the House Concurrent Resolution No. 15 by Congressman Monico Puentevella (Bacolod City). But unlike the Pimentel draft, Puentevella included the option of holding a constitutional convention and excluded the People's Initiative mode. Former House Speaker Prospero Nograles also expressed his interest to federalism in the Philippines.
Current House Speaker and former DOTC (now DOTr) Secretary Pantaleon Alvarez visions for a federal Philippines with 14 states: 7 in Luzon, 2 in Visayas and 5 in Mindanao. But Filipinos are reserved with his proposal to have a "no term limit" for politicians which would subject them of corruption and abuse of authority.
The House Sub-Committee 1 has submitted a proposal to divide the country into 5 states. Each states to be led by a premiere as its executive head will have a State Assembly according to the proposal. The proposal has been hit by massive criticism due to general lumping and a lack of representation. According to the proposal, politicians will have 'more than' two consecutive terms, making them eligible to run for office with "no term limit".
For now, the people is still clueless on what would be the outcome of this measures to change the 1987 Constitution. There are so many things to be considered as to the model that the Filipinos would accept in this federal system. They are also not open with the idea of abolishing the Office of the Vice President and creating new offices that would be of such a waste of resources and time especially that millions of Filipinos are suffering from poverty.
The proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution as drafted by PDP- Laban.
If I would be asked about this Constitutional amendment or revision, I would suggest that instead of adopting the federal form of government, why if they espouse the semi-presidential form of government? I think it would be more effective and there are more checks and balances in the three branches of government.
According to Wikipedia, a semi-presidential system is a system of government in which a president exists alongside a prime minister and a cabinet, with the latter two being responsible to the legislature of a state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of state, who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead, and from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence.
There are two separate subtypes of semi-presidentialism: premier-presidentialism and president-parliamentarism.
Under the premier-presidential system, the prime minister and cabinet are exclusively accountable to parliament. The president chooses the prime minister and cabinet, but only the parliament may remove them from office with a vote of no confidence. The president does not have the right to dismiss the prime minister or the cabinet. However, in some cases, the president can circumvent this limitation by exercising the discretionary power of dissolving the assembly, which forces the prime minister and cabinet to step down.
Under the president-parliamentary system, the prime minister and cabinet are dually accountable to the president and the assembly majority. The president chooses the prime minister and the cabinet but must have the support of the parliament majority for his choice. In order to remove a prime minister or the whole cabinet from power, the president can dismiss them or the assembly can remove them by a vote of no confidence. This form of semi-presidentialism is much closer to pure presidentialism.
In the two sub types, I am rooting for the premier-presidential system since that the head of government (Prime Minister) and the Cabinet are both accountable to the head of state (President) and to the Assembly (now Congress). But instead of creating a new office of the Prime Minister, I would suggest that the head of government must be the Vice President. For years, the Vice President has been only a "spare tire" of the President. That must be corrected in order to give the Vice President a bigger role in governance. That way, the government can save the people's taxes. I do not also agree of the US style of nominating the Vice President by a Presidential candidate. That would not reflect the true voice of the electorate. I want to keep, too, the legislature's structure as bicameral: the Senate as elected by the majority of the electorate to represent the interest of the Filipinos in lawmaking and the House of Representatives elected both in their legislative districts and party-list represented. The Commission on Appointments (CA) must not be composed of Senate members but by party-list appointees so as the interests of the different sectors in the country may be addressed by the ad interim Cabinet appointees similar as what the Judiciary's Judical and Bar Council (JBC) looks like.
The Seal of the Vice President of the Philippines and the Quezon City Reception House Grand Staircase. Instead of creating the Office of the Prime Minister and abolishing OVP, the Executive Office (Executive Secretary) and the OVP can be fused into one as the head of government.
The Seal of the Commission on Appointments. CA must be structured like JBC, but is composed of appointees from the party-lists.
The Seal of the Senate of the Philippines. Congress must be bicameral in structure and Senate to be elected by the majority of the Filipinos than by states or regions.
The Seal of the House of Representatives of the Philippines. Congress must be bicameral in structure and HOR to be elected by legislative districts and party-list representation.
Our country must be like France - a country with a form of government that is striving and working efficiently in instituting the reforms and programs for the benefit of the people. I hope that our legislators would consider this proposal because the Filipino people deserve no less from our government.
The official logo of the French government.
Comments