 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Abueva�s Can of Worms By Antonio C. Abaya Written August 09, 2005 For the Standard Today, August 11 issue Watching former UP President Jose Abueva on television and reading him in print, extolling the virtues of federalism and how it is going to solve our problems, what strikes me most about him is not an air of scholarly erudition, which he does not really display, but more of the naivete of an absent-minded professor in the unfamiliar role of a snake-oil salesman trying to sell a cure-all. I had written in my article �Federalism No Panacea� (July 26, 2005) that geography and history argue against a federal union for a country like the Philippines.. I brought out the fact that the Philippines, like Japan and Indonesia, is an archipelagic country made up thousands of islands. There were/are good practical reasons why both Japan and Indonesia chose to become unitary states, not federal unions: islands or groups of islands are more vulnerable than contiguous land masses to centrifugal forces that will cause them to �flee from the center� (the meaning of the word �centrifugal�), and choose to become independent states at the prompting of the noisiest local rabble-rouser. My friend Tonypet Araneta, who also frowns on federalism, emailed to add Greece to the list of archipelagic countries, and it, too, is a unitary state, not a federal union. But, like most unitary states, Greece uses the parliamentary, not presidential, system of government. The fact is Professor Abueva, for all his erudition, cannot name one single archipelagic country that chose to become a federal union. The closest would be Malaysia. But, as I pointed out in my article, what became Malaysia was already a collection of functioning quasi-states ruled by local sovereigns even before the British came to colonize it. So a federal union was a logical choice at independence. Besides, the bulk of Malaysia�s population live and have lived in Peninsular Malaysia, which cannot be considered an archipelago. The smaller part of Malaysia that is on the island of Kalimantan or Borneo are sparsely populated enclaves peopled by different ethnic minorities but rich in natural resources, which was probably the main reason they were incorporated into the Malaysian federal union. For all his erudition, Professor Abueva also does not explain why, as I pointed out in my article, the Philippine Republic that was born out of the Revolution of 1896 established a unitary state, not a federal union. Or why, when these islands came under American colonial rule after 1898, the American colonial administrators retained the unitary polity and did nothing to move it towards a federal union, even though their own historical experience since 1776 was based on the bedrock of federalism. Even the Philippine Commonwealth that the Americans established in 1935 was a unitary state, not a federal union. The Americans knew all there was to know about federalism since that was their only historical experience as a nation, yet in the 48 years that they had total political control of this country, they did not try to convince us of its supposed superiority over the unitary state. (By contrast, Professor Abueva�s federal utopia is only a theoretical construct dreamt up in an academic ivory tower, without any empirical record of success.) There must have been a practical reason for this, and that practical reason is geography. Federalists cannot even peddle federalism as a response to the growth in population. Otherwise, why did Japan, Indonesia, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Turkey, China, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, etc � all unitary states � choose not to switch to federal unions when their populations grew? Could it be that the Filipino revolutionaries of 1896 and the American colonial rulers after 1898, aware of our unique geography, had more practical commonsense than do ivory-tower professors peddling theoretically concocted snake-oil cure-alls? Professor Abueva is unwittingly opening a can of worms that he would be hard put to close even after the worms have crawled out and away. Not only will federalism in the Philippines strengthen family dynasties and feudalism in the provinces, it will also embolden calls for independence by regional rabble-rousers with grievances against Imperial Manila, real or imagined. While most of those who reacted to my article were supportive, the sole contrary one has to be reprinted here, even in part, to give Abueva and his federalists an idea of the potential disaster they are naively promoting. The email from Erineo Cabahug (a Cebuano name) of the Bronx, New York, will be reprinted in whole in www.tapatt.org. Below are excerpts from it: �Dear Mr. Abaya. I do agree that Federalism is no panacea for the Philippines. It is just a temporary remedy for the inevitable. To my mind, historical and economic facts point toward the inevitability of independence, especially for Mindanao. �Mindanao independence was once purely a concern of our Muslim brothers. However, many Christians are now entertaining, if not embracing, the idea. They have seen how the Philippines has been mismanaged, on one hand, and how Muslim countries like Malaysia have progressed, on the other hand.� (There is a non-sequitur here. Malaysia may have progressed, but most other Muslim countries have not: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, etc. Saudi Arabia and the five Gulf mini-states (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates) are filthy rich because of their oil, but they can hardly be called progressive. ACA.) (Malaysia�s economic progress has more to do with the entrepreneurial spirit of its ethnic Chinese citizens who make up a whopping 31% of its population�and less or nothing to do with its being predominantly Muslim or the Malaysian state being a federal union. The less-than-successful Muslim countries named above have no significant ethnic Chinese presence in their populations.) �Christians now realize that, like Malaysia, Mindanao can become a pluralistic society of Muslims and other religious and ethnic groups There is a growing realization that, whether they like it or not, they share common aspirations with their Muslim brothers because Mindanao is their home.� (You may sing that tune now, but will you still sing it if the Islamists win total control of Mindanao � plus Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Palawan � as they have in the past said they want to? After all, the Christians in Mindanao are mere descendants of 19th and 20th century immigrants from Cebu, Bohol, Panay and Ilocos. They were not original Mindanao inhabitants. (How do you know the Islamists really consider Christians their brothers? In the two [of 13] Malaysian states - Kelantan and Terengganu - controlled by Islamists, sharia law is now imposed on everyone, including non-Muslims. That seems to be their idea of brotherhood. How would you like to live under sharia law? ACA) �In half a century, Mindanao was stripped of natural resources which were barely touched, even by foreign colonizers, for 400 years. So rapacious was the central government that Mindanao barely has anything to show for it, except denuded forests.� (Mindanao was untouched for 400 years because Islam is a religion of �submission,� which is the meaning of the word �islam.� The conquest and harnessing of nature to raise standards of living is a Christian concept that came with Christian immigrants from the Visayas and Luzon, not necessarily or solely from the central government in Manila. Your ancestors, and mine, are not entirely blameless for the rape of Mindanao. If they had their way, the Islamists will not spare your relatives, or mine. ACA) �They have also seen how nothing has been done to promote indigenous cultures, languages and religions, including their own Cebuano, Boholano, Ilonggo or Ilocano heritage. They have seen that the central government in Manila only coined slogans like �Nationalism� or �Patriotism� for its own selfish ends. Manila never had genuine concern for Maranaos, Tausugs, or even Cebuanos and Karay-as.� (There used to be a Cebuano film industry, but it died a natural death, not because Imperial Manila arrogantly snuffed it out, but because not enough people paid good money to watch its films, even in Cebuano-speaking areas. The dominance of Tagalog-based Pilipino is the natural outgrowth of Tagalog economic dominance, especially in radio, TV and the movies. It is not due to any demonic desire to impose it on others through the school system. I can barely recall anything of pure Tagalog that I learned in grade and high schools. ACA). (The crocodile tears over linguistic imperialism leave me totally cold. My brothers and sisters and I grew up in a tri-lingual family. Our father, who was from Laguna, spoke to us in Tagalog. Our mother, who was from Cagayan de Oro, spoke to us in Cebuano or Bisaya. When one or more of us was abroad for school or holiday, we corresponded with each other in English. In addition, my wife, who is from Zamboanga City, can speak Chavacano and is proud of it, but does not do so at home since nobody else in our household can. We do not have any linguistic chips on our shoulders. ACA). Reader Cabahug�s letter, which will appear in full in www.tapatt.org., confirms my worst fears about federalism and is the best argument against it. I may dwell on his economic and historical reasons for Mindanao independence in a future column. With my mother from Cagayan de Oro and my wife from Zamboanga, I am more than 50% Mindanaoan, so I should sympathize with the outpourings of Reader Cabahug and swallow the federalist snake-oil of Professor Abueva. But I do not, because my loyalty is to the Republic of the Philippines and the more universal Republic of Commonsense. ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Abueva�s Can of Worms� Dear Tony, To me, the more basic feature of what Pepe Abueva is proposing is the creation of a new level of local government, namely the REGION, which will be the first local government layer, next to the national government. As long as there are only a handful of regions, say 10-15, then each region will have far more clout than the present provinces/chartered cities vis-a-vis the national government; this in itself should weaken the relative power of "imperial Manila." A separate issue is on how much power would be devolved from the national government to the regions. If there would be no new powers aside from those already presently held by the provinces/cities, then the system is still basically unitary -- the system only deserves the term "federal" if each regional unit gets to have more special powers -- say as much as a Malaysian state. Mahar Mangahas, [email protected] August 11, 2005 MY REPLY. Then Pepe Abueva should push for greater local autonomy, not federalism. Spain and Italy have autonomous regions without opting for federalism. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Clarity of thought and writing, Tony, is one great asset you have over other columnists - nay, other so called Filipino leaders. Why, I would vote for you in a heartbeat if you were to run for president of the Philippine Republic. Honest. I hope others benefit from reading you columns...regularly. Tony Joaquin, [email protected] Daly City, California, August 11, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Thank you for discussing my letter in your article. Your opinion is respected but I strongly disagree with the paranoia regarding our Muslim brothers. That is the old "divide and rule" mentality fostered by the Spanish and American colonialists and conveniently carried on by the Manila elite. Besides, it is up to the Christians in Mindanao to make that judgment call. Your claims to being more than 50% Mindanaon do not make you one. You have to have grown up and lived in Mindanao to be a Mindanaon. I must submit that there will be many Christians who will still respond in a pavlovian fashion to living side by side with Muslims. It is not easy to cast away a mindset that was indoctrinated for more than 400 years. However, many are already accepting the idea of coexistence and many more will come to embrace it in due time. The fact of the matter is that the Philippine government in Manila is in dire straits, politically and economically. With a debt burden so ruinous that 90% of government revenue goes to debt servicing, it will only be a matter of time before it self-destructs. With the kind of debt trap that the Philippines is caught in, there will eventually be no funds to feed, educate, or even defend itself. Poverty, mismanagement and internal turmoil will take their toll and the present "soft" state will become a putrid one. History has shown that the Philippines can be counted on to be its own worst enemy. And laws of nature point to the fact that rotten fruit will fall and disintegrate from their own weight. In the meantime, the people of Mindanao simply wait and observe. They are discerning enough to know that they cannot hurry nature. They know that time is on their side and, in the end, things will fall into their own natural place. I am very confident that Muslims, Christians and Lumads in Mindanao will be able to live in harmony and prosperity in the future. There is growing awareness that they were all placed into the same boat by circumstances, not of their own making. They will have to cooperate with each other in order not to sink into the abyss, avoiding the same fate as the Philippines. It is fortunate that Mindanaons have the luxury of time. Time to study, time to analyze, and time to form their own alternative government. The Philippines has had its time. But it has squandered all its opportunities, and it will soon be the time of reckoning. Time and history, and even the Judaeo-Christian God, are not likely to be kind to the Philippines. Thank you very much for your time and have a good day. Erineo Cabahug, [email protected] The Bronx, New York, August 11, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Reaction re: "Or why, when these islands came under American colonial rule after 1898, the American colonial administrators retained the unitary polity and did nothing to move it towards a federal union, even though their own historical experience since 1776 was based on the bedrock of federalism." Mr. Abaya, It was most logical for the American colonial administrators to retain the unitary polity simply because the Philippine Archipelago was meant to be treated as one "colonized state" instead of 7,000 or so separate states depending on whether it is high tide or low tide. That approach is confirmed when reference is made to how the Americans treated the Islands of Hawaii and the Islands of Guam, exactly how they treated the Philippine Archipelago! Reaction re: "Even the Philippine Commonwealth that the Americans established in 1935 was a unitary state, not a federal union. The Americans knew all there was to know about federalism since that was their only historical experience as a nation, yet in the 48 years that they had total political control of this country, they did not try to convince us of its supposed superiority over the unitary state." Mr. Abaya, it was most logical for the Americans to establish the Philippine Commonwealth as a unitary state to ensure the highest degree of control over the natural resources of the entire Philippine Archipelago while dealing with just one government entity, instead of dealing with 7,000 or so separate states depending on whether it is high tide or low tide. Reaction re: "Could it be that the Filipino revolutionaries of 1896 and the American colonial rulers after 1898, aware of our unique geography, had more practical commonsense than do ivory-tower professors peddling theoretically concocted snake-oil cure-alls?" That conclusion is incontrovertibly irrefutable. Even in the case of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, it has been shown that actual hands-on experience in political dynamics is required for one to gain the intellectual acuity not only to create a political theory, but more importantly on how to implement the political theory created. This has been proven by the failure of the CCP-NPA to achieve the success attained by their models Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Jose Ma. Sison and all others of his political allies and affiliates will never succeed like their idols, simply because they never had actual hands-on experience in political governance that approximate those of their models! Reaction re: "Not only will federalism in the Philippines strengthen family dynasties and feudalism in the provinces, it will also embolden calls for independence by regional rabble-rousers with grievances against Imperial Manila, real or imagined." Mr. Abaya, if you will scrutinize very closely the political histories of those in and outside of Congress who are vigorously supporting and defending the proposed Federal and Parliamentary form of government for the Philippines, you will not be surprised to bare for all Filipinos that they belong to past and present family dynasties and fiefdoms in the provinces, extending way back to the Spanish times. Also, we are already experiencing the "emboldened calls for independence by regional rabble-rousers with grievances against Imperial Manila, real or imagined". Even the late dictator Ferdinand Edralin Marcos had to reconsider and decided to terminate his experiment with the Parliamentary form of government when he realized fast enough that he was committing political suicide, since ultimately he will lose total control over the Philippine Archipelago had he pursued to maintain the Parliamentary form of government even under his dictatorship! Mr. Abaya, I hope that you will be at the forefront in hammering onto the stubborn heads of the majority of the estimated 85 million Filipinos that adopting Federalism and Parliamentary form of government will ensure the death of the Philippine Republic, and the guaranteed one-way trip to Hell, politically and economically, for the "MASA" who are being hoodwinked by the promises of the proponents, both at the national and local levels. Joseph Midar, [email protected] August 11, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Damn right! And again, strong leadership of the calibre of Lee Kuan Yew, Park Chung Hee, and our own Ramon Magsaysay , and to go global, of Winston Churchill, who all led by example, is crucial. Tom and Ruth de Guzman, [email protected] August 11, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I am for federalism. I find in it the potential refuge to save the vanishing diverse culture of our diverse people which had come under severe attack by foreign influence. Culture is the mark and strength of a people We have slowly lost to oblivion our songs and dances, crafts and folk arts, our food, the wisdom of our folklores; even our languages (dialects) are starting to deteriorate. If we have autonomous republics for each of the major groups - Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Bikol, Ilonggos, Sugbuanons, each group could restore the golden age of their arts and literature and enshrine in their own separate educational system the cultivation of the group's cultural heritage, thus strengthening the foundation of the race. You mention the Malolos Republic. When it was proclaimed, only Luzon was practically held by the army of Aguinaldo, thus leading the way to a unitary system of government. After its inauguration, Aguinado sent military expeditions to the Visayas and Mindanao to drive the Spaniards out and placed those territories under the control of the Malolos government. However, in some parts of Ilocos, Bicol, Marinduque, Panay and Negros the Spaniards had already fled when the expeditions arrived and the people had established their own government - "The Federated States of the Visayas", in the case of Panay and Negros. Instead of being absorbed into the Malolos Republic, the Visayan republic "adhered" to the Malolos Republic, meaning, the Visayan government recognized the supreme authority of Aguinaldo, but kept their own republic. Similar action was taken by Marinduque, and I believe, also by Mang Belong Abaya (any relation to your?) of a portion of Ilocos. To me, this was clearly a case of federalism. Federalism has unique advantages. For instance, tax collections will likely improve - income tax by the federal government, business and property taxes by the state. Public officials and their performance will be closer to the scrutiny of the tax paying public and therefore the operation of check and balance may be more effective. Corruption, election anomalies, political dynasties or any form of disturbance or breaking of the law that the head of the state will tolerate will be the concern of the federal government. But the real case for federalism is the lingering division among our people. Let us face it, regionalism, fuelled by mistrust, is still with us. I still recall my father who hailed from Batangas explain to me why the Tagalogs call the Macabebes "dugong aso". The fact is the word "Pilipino" is just a convenient term to refer to the people living in this part of the world. But in reality there is only the "Tagalog", the "Ilonggo", the "Sugbuanon", the "Ilocano" or the "Bikol". So, why not make each one govern its own? Virgilio C Leynes, [email protected] August 11, 2005 MY REPLY. So what would your policy be if and when a federated state or group of states declare independence and opt to secede? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You may wish to add that a federal form of government can only last if the federal government is strong. In such a situation, "Imperial Manila" will still be lording it over the state government. Where is the cure? I fully agree with your view (not necessarily on the parliamentary form of government) that federalism is not a cure to the ills in the Philippines. This proposal will only perpetuate the crab mentality and the "kanya-kanya" attitude so manifested today by our political leaders. Arnel Serrano, [email protected] California, August 12, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir: If we go for a unitary government, I would like to make the following suggestions: 1. That the capital be moved to a more central location, preferably in the Visayas. Either Cebu or Bacolod will be fine. I think Manila has hijacked too many prerogatives for itself. It would also be a powerful symbol of unity among the major regional groups if Manila were to cede the seat of government to a geographical center. It would be an act of altruism that will reverberate and encourage the other regions to unite for the good of all. 2. That English be the primary language of instruction because it is more practical and useful. It would be preferable that Tagalog not be imposed outside the Tagalog regions, while the different regions can be given the option to promote their own languages or dialects. 3. I would like to see a clearer definition of the scope of the executive, legislative and judicial functions. I do not like seeing the Supreme Court constantly meddling in economic or legislative issues, as has been happening under this constitution. 4. I would prefer a unicameral legislature. But should a bicameral system be the one adapted, the upper house should be elected according to regions and not at large. I think that a stronger and more united republic can arise if Manila sets the example. But it first has to make some sacrifices and sincerely reach out to the different regions. Carl Cid S.M. Inting, [email protected] Cebu City, August 12, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I am really truly amazed how many of these academics can spin out their theories without regard for reality. Ross Tipon, [email protected] Baguio City, August 12, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Commonsense seems to be a commodity in short supply in our country. I have been waiting for either or both SWS and Pulse to show us how many of our countrymen in the provinces (from where most of our electorate are derived ) understand Parliamentarianism and Federalism. Excellent essay, Tony! Dick Powell, [email protected] August 12, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir: Your articles show that you know the topic of Federalism very well. That is why I will not argue about its merits. However, in the face of facts, I have to say that unitarianism hasn't served our country well. Look at the mess we are in. We were once 2nd to Japan in Asia and now we are among the laggards. We are consumed by political debates which produce much noise, but very few results that uplift the citizenry. We have high unemployment and low productivity, and the dubious distinction of being the world's No. 1 debtor, in relation to GNP. And now we stand to be economically incinerated in the face of a scorching energy crisis. I do not like to sound pessimistic, but I have never seen our country in such grave danger of an economic and political meltdown. When the very real dangers of terrorism are factored in, we have a very combustible situation indeed. In the meantime, our political leaders continue wrangling over their self-centered agendas, oblivious to the pleas of the citizenry to do something to improve everyone's lives. Regarding federalism, I am naturally inclined to favor it because I would like to see more development and progress in my region. Despite your able defense of unitarianism, I feel that too much power and wealth is centered in Manila. I hope to see some form of decentralization which would empower the provinces and clip the powers of the central government. Besides my own feelings about this issue, I also see that the younger generation is now being enticed by the allure of independence. My generation never considered this, but it seems to be capturing the imagination of a generation that is hungry for hope. For the good of everyone, I hope we can stop all the useless political infighting and get our act together for peace, progress and prosperity. Juan Deiparine, [email protected] Davao City, August 12, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww There are many who are now reasonably alarmed over the erosion of confidence and faith that people have for the institutions of our country, an erosion that is precipitated by the recent crisis of government and the incessant recriminations that it has produced. That no person�s credibility has been spared who has participated in what is left of our political life (in throes) is given by a sense of a lack of alternative to the status quo. This is apparently the reason we are unable to act on our values, even as they shout at us. Was it not only yesterday that we demanded honesty as the highest measure of leadership? I am afraid a greater thing is at stake than impugning our institutions and their personalities. Even a loss of faith in these can be beneficial, if they give way to what is often referred to as a �constructive destruction�, a waning of the old for the new to rise. Far graver is a loss of faith in truth itself, or the confidence in its ability to be found. The very edifice of our modern civilization is founded on no less than this value: the capacity to discern the truth, and therefore to act according to it. It�s loss opens up only a world ruled by superstition and absurd if not Machiavellian relativism. That our country is slowly regressing to such a world is not a wild observation. Accusations have been hurled between opposing parties without regard to their validation. Like Gatling guns, the more shots the likelier the hit. Every time witnesses rise, their characters are shoot down, and what they have to say eventually gets buried in mud. What constitute evidence are no more than objects of legal tussles, rather than common criteria for establishing factuality. Or are there no more facts? Hearsay can be fact if it is given sufficient air. Journalistic standards no longer safeguard it either, media being more concerned with reporting it first (verifying it last). Did she or did she not cheat? Was it or was it not spliced? Is he or is he not Pidal? It is becoming impossible to arrive at answers except through our guts. We quickly make a stand more on the basis of partisan lines and other parochial affiliations, rather than on a universal value such as truth. Maybe there is no room for truth anymore in our politics. Sound bites maybe, propaganda maybe, smoke-screens maybe, spin-doctors maybe, but not old-fashioned solid truth. And if not in our collective life, why should there be any in our private one. Already, the relativist is vindicated. Already, I am hollowed-out. How are we going to even start thinking about the good, if we cannot even make out what is true? Bernardo Vidal, [email protected] August 14, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww That was a home run for you on ex UP President Jose Abueva. I still prefer a one Philippines. It is my dream as a Filipino citizen to roam our archipelago freely without restrictions [except maybe for safety and security reasons] as one country, the Philippines. Roger L. Madrigal, [email protected] August 14, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished of email sent to various egroups) Lately, there seems to be a near plethora of excellent articles by such political columnists as Antonio Abaya. My problem with these articles is that by the end of the first paragraph, I am sold. And the article continues eloquently to cover the supporting points. And when I'm just about moved to jump up and yell "Yeah!", the article ends. Bitin. No call for action. Leaves me emotionally drained. I don't know if the columnists, Abaya in particular, still consider themselves as mainstream journalists bound by tenets of neutrality and objectivity. To me, they sound much more like advocacy journalists. And with their talent and resources, they should be. And I admire and respect them for being so .But as advocacy journalists, neutrality no longer applies. A closing call for action does. So now, when these articles present themselves, I skip to the end to check for any call for action. Kung wala, I skip it. Nakakapagod emotionally. Unhealthy. Bob Dominguez, [email protected] August 15, 2005 MY REPLY. Sorry to lose you as a reader. But I have been calling for a revolutionary government since 2002 (see my articles in www.tapatt.org), to replace our trapo governments, which I have characterized many times as morally bankrupt and incapable of cleansing and regenerating themselves. But because I am neither a rabble-rouser nor an organizer, this is the closest I can get to a call for action. Someone else will have to do that part. Perhaps you? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony. I do agree on your observations and conclusions regarding the wisdom of federalism versus the unitary form of government. Even with a unitary form of government the people themselves are fractious; how much more with federalism. The geography per se will not sustain both economic and political life for the smaller provinces or islands under the proposed form of government. Who ever thought these small provinces will survive must be hallucinating or high on PCP! Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, [email protected] New York City wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Philippine Constitutions � from Gen. Aguinaldo to Gen. Ramos By Antonio S. Araneta During the 197l Constitutional Convention I happened to be seated beside former Central Bank Governor Miguel Cuaderno. He was a man worthy of respect. As a lawyer, a monetary economist, he had argued forcibly on issues of exchange decontrol with my uncle Salvador Araneta. Moreover he was a former delegate to the 1935 Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Bataan. That convention had taken place a good thirty five years ago but here he was back again, so to speak, on the saddle of another constitutional convention . He was retired, he was in his 7O�s and more than twice my age. Initially I shied away from him as he was much older but one day he opened up to me and said that when he was a young clerk he served as a stenographer to my grandfather Gregorio Araneta y Soriano who served as the first Secretary of Justice and the first Secretary of Finance, two disciplines dear to Cuaderno�s heart. He related several stories about my grandfather and thus I found myself befriending him. One day I asked him why he had to run for delegate and what he wanted in this convention. His terse reply was �I want a parliamentary form of government. That is all I want in this convention.� I, who had so many items for amendment in my agenda, was surprised. �Is that all you want,?� I queried.� Yes, I want a parliamentary form of government because it provides �immediate accountability� instead of the periodic accountability that we now have which is a source of massive corruption among many of our politicians.� He cited examples of the benefits of a parliamentary government but what I remember vividly was his comment on the Vietnam war which was raging then. The Vietnam War was a controversial issue in the United States at that time, 1971, and vastly unpopular, too. Likewise many political activists in the Philippines were opposed to the American war in Vietnam and he probably knew that I was among those who opposed it. Commenting on the Vietnam war, Governor Cuaderno emphasized, �If America had a parliamentary government that American involvement in the Vietnam war would have ended a long time ago.� When martial law was declared by President Marcos, events overtook the Constitutional Convention and a forced parliamentary form of government was drafted but which allowed Pres Marcos, in its transitory provisions, to continue in office. Eventually a figurehead Prime Minister was chosen in the person of Cesar Virata but Pres Marcos remained the strongman rather than the ceremonial head of state. More important , there was no provision for immediate accountability. It was a sham parliamentary democracy. Recently, Fidel Ramos, our former President , proposed an amendment of the Philippine Constitution to provide a parliamentary form of government instead of its present presidential system. When he was criticized from several quarters that he advocated this change of system in order to allow himself to run for office again, as the present Constitution bars him from running again, he dared Congress to pass a law banning all former Presidents, ie. Aquino, Estrada and himself from running for any positilon in the new government. To this date his critics, principally Senator Miriam D Santiago have not accepted the challenge. Jose de Venecia, Speaker of the House of Representatives also proposes a parliamentary form of government. He and his colleagues in Congress are also, like Ramos, suspected of advocating this system to enable themselves to sit in as members of the new Parliament and then run for higher office. Many of the senators object to this proposal because it would deny them the chance of running for President and also feel that it would allow the members of the lower house to become the chief executives one day. The public, while generally in favor of a constructive charter change, would prefer an election for a constitutional convention rather than a constituent assembly because of the belief that the latter mode would allow the incumbent members of Congress to perpetuate themselves. As a former member of the 1971 Constitutional Convention representing Manila I know that, even if a special election for a new convention were held nationwide, the end result will be the election of a majority of former politicians, whether former congressmen, senators or even presidents. It happened in 1971 when so much effort was made, unsuccessfully, by civic groups to have a sovereign constitutional convention bereft of political dynasties I submit the following data which was prepared in 1971 . (from Constitutional Conventions of the Philippines, by AS Araneta, published 1971) Former politicians and relatives of the incumbent politicians were elected. (see box �Concon families�) Nevertheless, a sizable number of those elected delegates in that convention were independent minded individuals and opposed the extension of political power for President Marcos who was on his second and last term. Together with Delegate Cuaderno, the former Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines and a former delegate to he 1935 Constitutional Convention, many of us advocated for a parliamentary form of government. But we were accused and suspected of being unwitting tools of Pres. Marcos who would use the parliamentary form of government as a way to extend his power. When Pres Marcos declared martial law in September 1972, many of us delegates were arrested. Some of those delegates in the Convention (and other politicians as well), who had expressed opposition to the incumbent administration of Marcos thereafter changed their opposition to cooperation.. Finally when the draft of the Constitution was finished, under the martial law dispensation, it was proposed that the incumbent delegates who signed the final draft would be allowed to sit in the new body. In addition some delegates who were opposed were told that if they signed the draft they would not be arrested. Some of them signed the draft. Under martial law a plebiscite to ratify the draft was held and the public was asked to decide which provisions to ratify. Under the atmosphere of martial law, the draft of the new constitution was approved but the provision enabling the incumbent delegates to sit in the new assembly, was rejected. A neat double cross transpired, some people thought.. Once again, the nation is naturally suspicions of the intent of the politicians who advocate charter change. Fidel Ramos, under whose administration the economy of this country surged forward, has set a noble example by challenging Congress to pass a law all former disqualifying all former Presidents from running for the new assemblty-- should it ever be created. Speaker Jose de Venecia can follow his example. . A man like him who, with his entire family, has suffered the tragic pain of losing a loved one, probably knows the value of personal sacrifice. Speaker de Venecia can take the cue and, like Fidel Ramos, also challenge his colleagues, in Congress and in the Senate, to pass a similar law disqualifying all of them from running for the new assembly, Otherwise, I am afraid the new constitutional draft that they may prepare, will be rejected in the plebiscite. In the Malolos convention in 1898 , General Emilio Aguinaldo had dictatorial powers and the country was in a military and revolutionary state. He had no problem having the draft finished, approved and accepted. When the American colonial government took over with superior force of arms it deposed the Aguinaldo government and the Malolos Constitution. After tutoring the Filipinos in the American way of life, the Constitutional Convention of 1935 came into being and, with the help of the might of the American colonial government, a new Constitution patterned after the American one, was ratified. The wartime Constitution headed by the Japanese occupation government with Jose P. Laurel as president, also was enforced with the might of the Imperial Japanese occupation force. The 1973 Constitution, due to certain transitory provisions which made people suspect that it was rigged for Pres. Marcos, would have been rejected by the nation-- had martial law not been declared. The results of the earlier 1971 senatorial election demonstrated that public opinion had turned against the Marcos administration as the opposition handily won in those elections. Martial Law was declared in September 1972 and, as said, with the might of the armed forces, opposition members were detained and a martial law situation existed. The constitution was rushed to completion and a plebiscite was held in the atmosphere of martial law. The result was predictable as the people cowered in fear. In 1987 the new constitution drafted by the appointed delegates of Pres. Cory Aquino rode on the crest of the popularity Pres. Aquino enjoyed after having been instrumental in deposing the dictatorship. There was, at that time, a revolutionary situation, a successful military coup but with Cory Aquino at the helm and Gen Fidel Ramos close by. The old National Assembly was dissolved and only Pres. Aquino with the help of Gen. Fidel Ramos and the military backed peoples power revolt ruled the land. The new Constitution was, predictably, approved. At present no military or revolutionary situation exists. Under these circumstances the people will reject what already appears to be a self-serving constitutional amendment. And the veteran legislator Lorenzo Teves related recently the series of constitutional amendments that were proposed by Congress after the last war and practically all except the controversial parity rights amendment in 1946, were rejected. Fine soldiers indeed were Fidel Valdez Ramos and the late Bonifacio Honasan Gillego, a delegate to the 1971 convention, who did not sign the 1973 draft and had to flee in exile during the Marcos years. Good soldiers we know have to lay down their lives to make that supreme sacrifice for the homeland.. Many of our soldiers regularly give up their lives. And some do so without hesitation, as Rizal said, �otras te dan sus vidas sin dudas sin pesar.� Cannot our politicians make a sacrifice as well? Perhaps not as our soldiers do. They could make a smaller sacrifice. They could rule themselves out of the future assembly�period. Perhaps by that gesture the people will gain their confidence and the draft of the new Constitution will be seen in a kinder light. Otherwise it will be one costly political exercise that will most probably be rejected by the people and- again- at the people�s expense. Antonio Sebastian Araneta, [email protected] August 15, 2005 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |