Atty. Neri Javier Colmenares
(transcript of speech)[1]
“Cha Cha Forum of peoples organizations, priests, religious sector and NGOs”
St. John Vianey Hall, San Sebastian Cathedral
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
March 16, 2018
Introduction
Maayong hapon sa inyo. I am glad to be back here at the Cathedral, having frequented this place when I was the Visayas Chairman of the Student Catholic Action during my student days. I hope my critique of the current chacha could help enlighten us on the move to shift to federalism, especially since I am a probinsyano and not a part of what Pres. Duterte calls the “imperial Manila”.
No Constitution is immutable as constitutional reforms are always needed to address the genuine and developing needs of the people. However, efforts at amending the Philippine Constitution have always been attended by the imposition of self-serving political agenda, such as lifting of term limits, the dilution of people’s rights, and further opening up the country to neoliberal economics by completely eliminating “protectionist” provisions in the Constitution. While constitutional reforms are important, charter change must be intended “for the better” and not “for the worse”. The current moves at charter change is the “worst cha-cha” ever.
To strengthen the justification for charter change, the presidential form of government has been blamed as the root of the country’s poverty and underdevelopment. Initial charter change attempts proposed the installation of a parliamentary form of government, usually pushed by the leaders of the House of Representatives, whose chances of becoming president are nil under a direct vote from the electorate. The current charter change effort aims to install a federal system which was recently resurrected by Pres. Rodrigo Duterte who sought to get electoral support from the provinces by espousing a system that disperses the concentration of public funds from “imperial Manila” to the periphery.
Contrary to what the federalist advocates discuss in the alleged consultations with the people, however, the ongoing moves to amend the Constitution by the Duterte administration are not limited to merely proposing a shift to federalism, but are mainly aimed at (i) further eroding people’s rights, (ii) granting formidable powers to Pres. Rodrigo Duterte, and the (iii) further institutionalization of the anti-people and ineffective neoliberal economic policies. Additionally, politicians also inserted (iv) self-serving provisions to secure more benefits and more political power.
While the form of government may have an impact on the country’s development, the main threat to the people’s interest has always been the further institutionalization of neoliberal economics as well as dismantling whatever human rights remain enshrined in the Constitution.There are three pending proposals for charter change [Cha-Cha hereafter for brevity] These are the (1) PDP-Laban Proposal which is basically more of a shift to Parliamentary-Federal form of government and (2) Resolution of Both Houses No. 8 (RBH 8) filed in the House of Representatives on August 2, 2016 which calls for Presidential-Federal system.
The latest proposal is the (3) Draft Constitution of the Federal Republic of the Philippines (Parliamentary-Federal) containing the four sub-committee reports of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments of the House of Representatives. The Committee sponsored the Concurrent Resolution No. 9 convening Congress as a Constituent Assembly [Con Ass hereafter for brevity] was approved by the House of Representatives on January 16, 2018. Since the Committee sponsored Concurrent Resolution No. 9 claiming to have consolidated all the draft proposals in the Resolution as reflected in its sub committee reports, this proposal will be called the Concurrent Resolution No. 9 proposal [the CR 9 proposal for brevity].
This draft supposedly consolidated the proposals under RBH 8 and the PDP Laban Draft Constitution. Once the Con Ass is convened, however, it could still tackle RBH 8 and the PDP Laban proposals or may even come up with new provisions not contained by any of these proposals because the constituent assembly cannot be bound by a congressional act or resolution[2].
In this speech, I will posit that this is the worst and most dangerous charter change attempt ever as it centralizes powers to a repressive Duterte administration and contains self serving provisions never before proposed in the previous charter change efforts.
The current charter change embodies in the three proposals the following anti-people provisions that:
- Centralizes dictatorial powers in Pres. Duterte
- Constitutionalizes the self serving agenda of politicians
- Attacks human rights and social justice policies
- Dismantles the protectionist provisions in the current Constitution and exacerbate poverty and underdevelopment
The first part will discuss the provisions to prove the assertion that the Duterte Cha Cha is aimed at granting him dictatorial powers. This part will also explain the implications of the formidable powers given to Pres. Duterte by these provisions.
The second part will discuss the provisions proving that blatant self serving provisions were inserted in the latest Cha Cha, including brief discussion on why these are considered self serving provisions intended merely for the benefit of politicians and rent seekers.
The third part will discuss the provisions which directly attacks human rights including economic, social and cultural rights. The current Cha Cha dismantles the social justice provisions in the 1987 Constitution used by peoples organizations in challenging anti-people policies and actions of government.
The fourth part will discuss the provisions dismantling the protectionist economic provisions even if these have not even been fully implemented and has been followed in the breach since 1987. It will also discuss not just its economic implications but also its impact on the people, the country’s sovereignty and security.
The last part will forward the conclusion that that as long as the current exploitative and repressive system is maintained (such as the state of landlessness due to the absence of genuine agrarian reform, contractualization, the prevalence of government corruption and abuse, political dynasties, and political and economic domination of the Philippines by transnational corporations and powerful countries), the poverty and underdevelopment that Cha Cha aims to address will persist under any form of government, whether presidential or parliamentary and federal or unitary
While the paper will not lengthily discuss Pres. Duterte’s federalism proposal, it does not belittle the significance of the impact of this form of government on the people. It has, however, left it to other scholars to deepen the research on the federal form of government and its implications on the people.
It is proposed, however, that even while debates on the merits or demerits of federalism may be conducted, the main frame of the discourse must be on the impact on the people of the four anti-people provisions enumerated above. Whether one supports Federalism or not, we must oppose this chacha because of the insertion of these anti people provision.
The basis for the analysis that this Cha cha contains anti people provisions are:
I. Centralizes formidable and repressive powers in Pres. Duterte
The Resolution of Both Houses No. 8 and the Concurrent Resolution No. 9 Proposals are extremely dangerous pieces of legislation both in terms of procedure and content. Together with the PDP Laban proposal, they confer formidable and repressive powers on Pres. Duterte such as abolishing Congress and granting Pres. Duterte legislative powers, terminating the terms of all members of the current constitutional commissions, overhauling the judiciary from the Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan down to the Regional Trial Courts while terminating thousands of government employees and officials, including the lowering of the retirement age of all judges and justices. Considering that Pres. Duterte has the power to appoint all their replacements, RBH 8 makes him the sole appointing authority of almost the entire government, in one fell swoop.
They also have provisions which allow Pres. Duterte to further pack Parliament by appointing members of his cabinet to the legislature as well granting him a novel Presidential Oversight Powers on the entire government including the judiciary, legislature and independent constitutional bodies.
a. Abolishing Congress and Granting Pres. Duterte the Power to make laws
Section 6, Article XVIII of the Transitory Provision of Resolution of Both House No. 8 (RBH 8) grants Pres. Duterte dictatorial powers through the abolition of Congress[3] and the exercise of both executive and legislative powers:
Section 6 “Upon ratification of this Constitution, the present Congress shall be dissolved and the incumbent President shall exercise legislative powers until the first Federal Congress is convened
This is a constitutional power grab no different from the grant of legislative powers to Pres. Ferdinand Marcos who also abolished Congress when he imposed martial law. Pres. Duterte, who is intolerant of dissent, has been publicly espousing repressive measures as a means to solve the country’s problems. Giving him the power to make draconian measures will only worsen the country’s human rights situation and facilitate the implementation of neo liberal economic policies detrimental to the country’s development.
The current move to propose amendments to the Constitution has become a very dangerous “indecent proposal” when it calls for the abolition of Congress while granting Pres. Rodrigo Duterte the power to issue laws and presidential decrees.
b. Control of the Independent Constitutional Commission
Under RBH 8, the independent constitutional commissions will undergo a major change in jurisdiction and composition—including the cutting of the terms of office of all its Commissioners. Article XVIII Section 12 of RBH 8 demands that the term of office of ALL incumbent members of Constitutional Commissions be reduced to one year, unless “sooner removed”:
“Section 12 The incumbent members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections and the COA shall continue in office for one year after the ratification of this Constitution, unless sooner removed for cause or become incapacitated or appointed to a new term thereunder.”
Rarely does a President have the opportunity to appoint all commissioners of all the independent commissions. If approved, the new Constitution will grant Pres. Duterte the power to appoint all fifty-seven (57)[4] Chairpersons and Commissioners of the Commissions that oversees our elections, audits all government transactions and decides on the suspension and removal of government employees. He will become a very powerful president indeed.
c. Cabinet members to be appointed to the Interim Parliament
The Draft Constitution under CR 9 on the other hand provides that:[5]
“The members of the Interim Parliament shall be the incumbent Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and by appointment of the President, members of the Cabinet with Portfolio”
This will pack the Interim Parliament with more Duterte supporters through the appointment of his non-elected cabinet members to the Parliament. In parliamentary systems around the world, the cabinet members are appointed by the President/Prime Minister from the parliament, but in this Cha-cha, the President appoints Cabinet members to the parliament. This is no different from the martial law Interim Batasang Pambansa composed of the super majority KBL members and cabinet members Pres. Ferdinand Marcos appointed to the legislature. Pres. Duterte will practically have an overwhelming control of the Interim Parliament packed by his super-majority and cabinet members.
d. Strong presidential oversight powers never given to any President
Pres. Duterte is given an unusual potent oversight power over all branches of government, a power never before seen in the Philippine Constitution (and in other governments). The Committee Draft Constitution[6] provides that:
“The powers of the President shall include xxx oversight power over all branches of government (legislative, executive and judiciary), constitutional bodies, independent bodies, departments, agencies and offices of the government.”
This power is not lodged in Pres. Duterte under the 1987 Constitution which does not allow an oversight power exercised by the President over the judiciary and the legislature. All legislative systems around the world have congressional and parliamentary oversight over the execution or implementation of the laws passed by the legislature. There is no such set up anywhere in the world where one person, the President, is given the oversight power, not just over the legislative, but also the judiciary and independent constitutional bodies. This CR 9 proposal is probably the first Parliamentary system in the world which the President oversights the parliament.
The President cannot be allowed to summon to Malacanang the Chief Justice, or the Ombudsman or even a Senator to investigate them as part of his oversight function. This power to intimidate will weaken the independence of other branches of government and make Pres. Duterte very powerful over those institutions that are supposed to check and balance the executive.
e. Control of the judiciary to escape accountability.
The judiciary will be littered by Pres. Duterte’s appointees because of the provision under Committee’s Draft Constitution[7] which will lower the retirement age of justices and judges from the current seventy (70) years old to sixty-five (65) years old to wit (see Sub Committee Report no. 2).
This means that many of the justices and judges who will be retiring in 2021 or 2022 or beyond will be forced to retire once this Cha Cha is ratified in 2019. This will give Pres. Duterte the opportunity to appoint all the new justices and judges to replace them.
Worse, under Article VIII, Section 12 of Constitution of Resolution of Both Houses No. 8, the retirement age of the appointees of Pres. Duterte will be raised to seventy-five (75) years old. While this Cha Cha will cut the tenure of incumbent judges and justices it increases the retirement age of Pres. Duterte’s appointees:
Section 12. Members of the Supreme Court, justices of the Regional Court of Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy-five (75) years of age x x x “
The entire judiciary will be littered with the appointees of Pres. Duterte long after his term ends in 2022. This practically increases the control of Pres. Duterte over the judiciary while at the same time makes it difficult to file cases against him and extract accountability after he loses his immunity from criminal prosecution in 2022.
f. Courtesy resignation demanded on all career employees
RBH 8 not only imposes a government revamp under Article XVIII but also demands courtesy resignations from CESO or career officers when it assured that the provisions on pensions and benefits will also apply “to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the existing policy, had been accepted.”
From the above provisions, even career officers who resign “in line with the existing policy”, will still get the regular pension benefits existing at the time of “acceptance” of their resignation. This means that the Duterte administration will ask for courtesy resignation from all affected offices and courts. Pres. Marcos demanded this courtesy resignation from all judges and career officers during martial law putting them at his mercy should he accept their resignation.
II. Inserting self-serving provisions in the Constitution for the benefit of politicians
The current Cha Cha which was ostensibly intended for reforms, actually contains self serving provisions for the benefit members of Congress and the President. In fact, the insertion of these self-serving provisions is one major reason why members of Congress should not be allowed to sit as a constituent assembly to decide on provisions that will benefit them.
a. Pork Barrel enshrined in the Constitution
This is the only Cha Cha which brazenly enshrines pork barrel in the Constitution, by providing that each district congressman, senator and party list representative gets an ‘amount’ for hard and soft projects of the pork barrel system. The insertion of pork barrel is provided in the Committee’s Draft Constitution[8]:
“Each district shall be entitled to an annual share in the state and federal budgets for its infrastructure, as well as for the medical, educational and social services of its inhabitants.
Each member of the Senate and of the party list shall likewise be entitled to an amount not less than the allocation for a district from the state and federal budgets for their constituents within the region or nationwide.”
Despite the 2013 Supreme Court decision declaring the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF) later called the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional, pork barrel thrived by inserting the PDAF in the budgets of DSWD, DOH, DPWH, CHED and other executive departments. This is cumbersome, however, as members of Congress have to go through cabinet secretaries, such as former DSWD Secretary Judy Taguiwalo, who may not be amendable to this informal and illegal arrangements. Additionally, pork holders cannot openly practice credit claiming as they cannot publicly announce their pork barrel projects.
To ensure the smooth and institutionalized implementation of pork barrel, the Draft Constitution expressly provided for the pork barrel funds to preempt the Supreme Court and any peoples initiative to abolish the pork barrel system, as the “amount” allocated for members of Congress/Parliament is already expressly provided in the Constitution.
b. Tax exemption for members of Congress and top government officials
This is the only Cha Cha that surreptitiously inserts a provision exempting top officials in government, including congressmen and senators, from paying income tax. Sec. 15 Article XVIII of the new Constitution under RBH 8 strangely provides that income tax shall not be deducted from the salaries of top government officials:
Section 15. Until the Federal Congress provides otherwise, the President, Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, the Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, Justices of the Supreme Court, Chairpersons of the Constitutional Commissions shall continue to receive the annual salaries that they are presently receiving at the time of the ratification of the Constitution without any income tax deductions.”
While ordinary tax payers have to struggle for years to lower income tax, members of Congress did not just lower, but exempted themselves from paying income tax in one fell swoop. Why high-salaried top government officials are exempted from income tax while ordinary government employees pay taxes was not explained by RBH 8. This is one more reason why Congress cannot convene themselves into a con ass and exempt themselves from paying income tax.
While there is an admission to this attempt at tax exemption, they justified this as part of efforts to lessen corruption among top government officials. This actually defies logic as there is no nexus between the grant of tax exemption in order to lessen corruption. In any case, presuming this theory is correct, there is no justification why similar exemption should not be given to all government employees including lowly employees who pay income tax from their meager salaries.
To further entice support from the Judiciary for its complete reorganization, Article VIII Section 18 of RBH 8 gives similar income tax incentives to all judges and justices:
Section 18. x x x Upon the ratification of this Constitution, the salaries of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, justices of the Regional Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and of judges of the lower courts shall not be subject to income tax.”
c. Does not prohibit President Duterte from running for reelection, therefore, he is qualified to run for reelection twice under the new Constitution
None of the three pending proposals expressly provides that Pres. Duterte is not qualified to run under the new Constitution. However, it provides that the President under the new Constitution is allowed two terms and can, therefore, run for reelection under Sec. 3, Art. VII of the PDP Laban Constitution (which also abolishes the office of the Vice-President):
Section 3. THE PRESIDENT [DELETE Vice President] SHALL BE ELECTED BY DIRECT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE FOR A TERM OF FIVE (5) YEARS WHICH SHALL BEGIN AT NOON ON THE THIRTIETH (30th) DAY OF JUNE NEXT FOLLOWING THE DAY OF THE ELECTION AND SHALL END AT NOON OF THE SAME DATE, FIVE (5) YEARS THEREAFTER. [DELETE: The president shall not be eligible for any reelection]
NO PERSON SHALL SERVE AS PRESIDENT FOR MORE THAN TWO (2) CONSECUTIVE TERMS.”
d. Abolishes the Office of the President by inserting that the Senate President or the Speaker (of the House) shall replace Pres. Duterte in case of death or incapacity under Art. VII, Section 7 of the PDP Laban proposal:
Article VII Section 7. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, THE [DELETE Vice-President] PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, OR IN CASE OF HIS INABILITY, THE SPEAKER OF THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL THEN ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND QUALIFIED
e. Allows the hold over and term extension of all members of Congress and ALL the incumbent local government officials in the entire country as interim parliament and interim state government in a vaguely defined transition period.
Hold over for Congressmen and Senators at least, until 2022 as provided under the Committee Draft Constitution[9] under Sub Committee Report No. 1 which states that:
“The first election under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May 2022.”
Should the new Constitution be ratified in 2018 or even as late as March or April of 2019, the new Constitution expressly provides that the first election under that new Constitution is May 2022. This essentially means that the 2019 elections are cancelled. This is the reason why there is a rush to have the chacha approved by 2018. Malacanang actually admitted this when Sec. Harry Roque declared that :
“If they are able to amend the Constitution and have the people ratify it before 2019, that’s the only possibility of the postponement of the elections,” Roque said [pls see Philippine Daily Inquirer and Daily Tribune Jan 4 2018]
If this early ratification happens then the incumbent congressmen and senators will automatically have term extensions in hold over capacity as provided under the Committee Draft Constitution[10]:
The members of the Interim Parliament shall be the incumbent Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and by appointment of the President, members of the Cabinet with Portfolio.”
This means that members of the current Congress, even the last termers, will have an additional 3 years beyond their term, and worse, without election but by virtue of a constitutional amendment which they themselves drafted as Con Ass.
1) The same will happen to all governors, mayors and all local government officials who will have term extensions and holdover at least until 2022
“Each State Commission acting as the interim state government shall be composed of the incumbent governors of provinces and mayors of highly urbanized cities and independent component cities within the state.” [11]
It must be noted that the supposed transition period could last longer than 2022. Firstly, there is allowed a period of 18 months from the time of ratification of the Constitution in May 2019 to pass State and Local Government Code. Secondly, the State Commission as interim state government will only be organized at most eighteen months later or in November 2020.
“Within a period of eighteen (18) months from the ratification of the constitution, Parliament shall enact a comprehensive State and Local Government Code applicable symmetrically to all states. Upon its enactment a State commission which shall act as the interim State Government shall be established.”[12]
The Organic Act, however, will be passed only, at least 5 years after November 2020 when the State Commission shall have been established:
“After a minimum of five years after the organization of the State Commission, and upon a vote of two-thirds (2/3) majority vote by the Commission and the state consultative assembly voting separately x x x the state commission shall propose an organic act to be enacted by Parliament.”
This means that the transitory period could last until 2025 or even more if the Organic Act is not passed by then.
III. Attack on Human Rights and other People’s Rights
Another main feature of the current cha cha is its attack on the Bill of Rights and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution. In fact, it contains a provision which essentially prohibits people power, possibly fearful of the people’s resort to the exercise of their sovereign power to check a repressive or dictatorial president.
a. Sovereign power limited to suffrage: Outlawing People Power
All Philippine Constitutions since 1935 provide that “sovereignty resides in the people and ALL government authority emanates from them”. Even the Malolos Constitution provides in Title I Article 3 that “Sovereignty resides exclusively in the people” without any qualification.
This sovereign power of the people was, however, diluted by RBH 8 when it declared in Section 1 of Section 3 of RBH 8 amending Article II (Declaration of Federal State Principles and Policies) that:
“Sovereignty resides in the Filipino people THROUGH SUFFRAGE and all government authority xxx emanates from them.”
This provision limits the people’s exercise of sovereignty only through elections and practically prohibits people power or any form of reforms through people’s action outside the regular elections, as if the sovereign power of the people ceases in between elections. This seeks to counter the Supreme Court decision in the Freedom Constitution cases which recognized the Cory Government even if it was installed by the people[13] outside of the elections.
If RBH 8 became effective in 1986, Ferdinand Marcos would have remained the legitimate president since under RBH 8, Cory Aquino’s assumption to the presidency was not an exercise of the people’s sovereign will (aka suffrage) as she came to power though people power and not through election, which is the only exercise of sovereignty recognized by RBH 8.
b, Constitutional Protection only of rights exercised responsibly.
The Committee Draft Constitution (CR 9) provides that:
“No law shall be passed abridging the ‘RESPONSIBLE’ exercise’ of the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble for and petition the government for redress of grievances.”[14]
This amendment simply means that freedom of speech, expression, press freedom and freedom of assembly will be protected if they are exercised responsibly. This gives the government the power to violate these rights by simply alleging that these rights were exercised irresponsibly. Considering that Pres. Duterte is intolerant of dissent and has attacked critics and institutions merely for criticizing his policies on extra judicial killings and human rights, it is certain that many will charged or arrested by expediently charging them of irresponsibly exercising their rights.
The worse part of this attack on human rights is the justification for this amendment as contained in the same Sub Committee 2 amendment, to wit:
“JUSTIFICATION: According to the Presidential Human Rights Committee Secretariat, in their position paper dated 10 October 2017, the right to free speech OR ANY RIGHT ENSHRINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, comes with an equal burden of responsibly exercising the same. It further said that the exercise of ones rights must be done with good faith and reasonable care.”
This is worse because the new Constitution will apply this “responsible exercise” requirement in any and all rights under the Bill of Rights which includes, inter alia, the free exercise of the right to religion, right to information, and the right to form unions or associations.
This draconian measure will surely result in massive repression and further crackdown against dissent. The people struggled for the recognition of their rights as early as during the Middle Ages when their kings and leaders only imposed obligations on the people without any recognition of their rights. Due to government repression, certain charters,[15] containing rights instead of obligations, were won by the people to defend themselves from their government. This the reason why human rights documents and the bill of right in Constitutions only contain rights because other government laws and rules already provide for many restrictions and heavy obligations on the citizens. This Cha Cha will not only dilute these rights but also use this as a means to repress these hard won rights.
c. Clipping check and balance power of the Supreme Court.
The power of the Supreme Court to check grave abuse by the Executive or Legislature was clipped by the deletion of its expanded judicial power as provided in the Committee’s Draft Constitution:
“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, [DELETE ‘and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government’].[16]
Many presidents have been complaining about the Supreme Court voiding certain executive actions for grave abuse of discretion. Examples of latest petitions using this expanded judicial powers were the Supreme Court decisions voiding Pres. Gloria Arroyo’s EO 464, Calibrated Preemptive Response, the Sigaw ng Bayan Cha Cha, and recently the pork barrel and DAP decisions under Pres. Noynoy Aquino.
This deletion will make it more difficult for the people to legally contest abuses by government agencies and corruption by government officials.
f. Abolition of offices and government institutions
1) Abolishing the Office of the Vice President (discussed above)
2) Abolition of the partylist system
Under the PDP Laban Constitution, there will be no longer be a partylist system of representation that will be given a guaranteed 20% of the total seats in the Lower House. This system of representation was supposed to allow marginalized sectors to have their own representation in a Congress dominated by landlords and big business.
While it is true that the partylist system has been hijacked by the rich and the powerful, the solution should have been to cleanse the party list system and strengthen it instead of abolishing it. Many of the people’s issues such as investigation of government corruption, abuse and violation of human rights, protesting against unjust electricity rate hike, high prices of fuel, water and other social services, and many other pro people’s issues have been carried by some progressive party list groups. They have remained credible, incorruptible and consistent in their pro people stand. It would have been more difficult for these issues to come to the fore had there been no party list system.
Under the new set up, the partylist groups will now have to compete with the major political parties of the big landlords and big business, as the party list system will be opened up. The Constitution segregated 20% of the seats in the House of Representatives for the party list. The PDP Laban Constitution will allow district congressmen who already occupy 80% of congressional seats, to also occupy the remaining 20% essentially destroying the constitutional intent to segregate these seats for the party list.
Additionally this Cha Cha will abolish sectoral representatives in local government units such as the Sanggunian Kabataan and the Women Representative, as provided under Art. X, Sec. 9 of the PDP Laban proposal. It will also abolish the MMDA. There is an assurance however under RBH 8 that all employees affected by the abolition or revamp (such as employees of the Senate and the House, if the new Constitution provides for the abolition of Congress) will still get their pension and other benefits under the law.[17]
3) Dangerously vague provisions which can be twisted as basis for repressive measures such as:
4.1 Section 15 Art II “The Federal State and all its Regions shall be a drug free country”
4.2) The principle that Philippines renounces war as a matter of policy is now qualified with a phrase “The Federal State abhors any act of terrorism” which sets up the provision for possible reinterpretation.
4.3) This writer is uncertain how new phrases inserted in the Constitution by RBH 8 such as policies for the “maintenance of LAW and order”, “INTERNAL COHESION” in Section 7 of Article II will be interpreted by Pres. Duterte .
4) Difficulty in amending the Constitution especially on issues which may be interpreted as violative of “national integrity or territory”.
RBH 8 makes any amendment to the Federal Constitution extremely difficult as its necessity or wisdom is subject to the interpretation and decision of the President and other political leaders:
Article XVII, Section 5 “(a) No amendment or procedure shall be commenced or continued where the integrity of the national territory is placed in jeopardy.“
This writer is not aware of any similarly absurd restriction in other Constitutions. It practically limits the will of the people to demand change in the Constitution if the Federal Constitution is found abhorrent to a vaguely defined “integrity of the national territory”. Worse, efforts to amend the Constitution to accommodate the Moro people or the peace process may be declared “unconstitutional” as it may be deemed a threat to “territorial” integrity by Malacanang, Congress and racist or anti-peace elements.
RBH 8 also repealed the 1987 Constitution’s provision against the entry of foreign bases, troops and facilities under Sec. 25, and Sec. 26 on the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos and his cronies.
5) Violations of economic, social and cultural rights with the opening up of the country to transnational corporations, big mining firms, and the institutionalization of liberalization, privatization and deregulation.
With the above amendments including the restrictions on the sovereign power of the people, and the impending deletion of the “protectionist” provisions of the 1987 Constitution, various policies used by the people to assert their rights—such as land reform, industrialization, right to education, environment, freedom of assembly, and expression will also be further watered down.
IV. ECONOMIC PROVISIONS: COMPLETE SELL-OUT OF THE COUNTRY’S RESOURCES AND ECONOMY TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
The failed attempts to amend the 1987 Constitution’s economic provisions during the previous administrations were resurrected by the current chacha, allowing full economic liberalization and sell-out of the economy. Pres. Duterte failed to note that liberalization and privatization have been the policies of government for more than 20 years but failed to deliver the promise of development and progress.
While the Constitution does contain “protectionist” economic provisions, these have long been violated by big business and even government which favors transnational corporations, big mining firms, greedy oil companies and private investors in public utilities such as electricity, telecommunications and mass transportation.
The “60-40%” Filipino equity requirement for foreign corporations is an example of a constitutional provision more followed in the breach by many foreigners who employ dummies and other schemes to circumvent this restriction.
In fact, these “protectionist” constitutional provisions were just lip service hortatory provisions that were never fully implemented since 1987. Now they will be officially removed from the Constitution, and what has been the pro-foreign policy on the sly, will be institutionalized openly under the new Constitution.
While the PDP Laban Constitution simply deletes these “protectionist” economic provisions, RBH 8 does not directly “repeal” them. The people have previously opposed, and will continue to oppose, such repeal. RBH 8 instead innocuously restates the same protectionist provision but inserts the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law”. Congress will be allowed to amend or repeal these economic provisions by simply passing a law that will “provide otherwise”.
This not only grants Congress the power to chart constitutional policy it will make Congress the center of lobby interest groups and big business. This is going to result in “monthly” chacha as Congress can pass laws anytime to amend the Constitution. Congress arrogated unto itself the power to “otherwise the Constitution”
Section 13 of RBH 8 containing amendments to Article XII (Federal State and regional Economy and Patrimony) seeks to amend the following provisions by allowing Congress, not the people, the power to amend the Constitution and decide on the following:
a. Allowing foreigners and foreign corporations ownership of lands
The 1987 Constitution prohibits foreigners from acquiring lands in the Philippines, which essentially means that Congress is also prohibited from passing a law that allows foreigners ownership of lands. This is because such sale will drive up the price of lands, and will deprive poor Filipinos of the opportunity to own land, making more real the 70’s quote “mga Pilipinong squatter sa sariling bayan”. It will also endanger food security for Filipinos and the chance of genuine agrarian reform in the country. Additionally, allowing foreigners or countries such as China or Russia or the US, ownership of lands or landing beachheads in coastal areas endanger Philippine security and sovereignty. The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that allows foreigners the right to acquire lands.
Under RBH 8, Congress as a constituent assembly amends the 1987 Constitution, to grant themselves the power to pass a law that will allow, what was before then prohibited by the Constitution—foreigners acquiring lands in the Philippines.
Article XII Section 7 of RBH 8 grants the State or Regional Legislature, the power to allow foreigners ownership of lands including agricultural lands.
b. Allowing foreign corporations to solely explore, develop and utilize our natural resources
The 1987 Constitution does not grant foreigners or foreign owned corporations the power to solely explore, develop and utilize our natural resources because as the Constitution declares, all natural resources must be “under the full control of the state”. The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that allows foreigners the power to solely exploit our natural resources. This is because all waters, lands, minerals, coal petroleum, the flora and the fauna, must be for the benefit of the Filipino people and allowing foreign corporations to solely explore and utilize our natural resources will deprive the Filipino people of access to their very own resources.
Additionally, allowing foreigners or countries such as China or Russia or the US, to solely “explore, develop and utilize” our natural resources endangers Philippine security and sovereignty. RBH 8 amends the Constitution so that Congress is now allowed to pass a law that will countermand this constitutional policy:
Article XII Sec. 2 x x x The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The FEDERAL State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW
RBH 8 Article XII Section 2 grants Congress the power to allow foreigners or 100% foreign owned corporations the power to explore, utilize and exploit our natural resources.
c. Allowing private corporations to lease more than 1000 hectares of lands of public domain beyond 50 years
The 1987 Constitution only allows private corporations to lease alienable lands of the public domain for twenty five (25) years and (1) renewable for not more than 25 years (2) not to exceed 1000 hectares in area.
The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that allows private corporations to lease more than 1000 hectares of lands for more than 50 years because lands of public domain must be for the benefit of the Filipino people, not for private corporations. Leasing thousands of hectares to private corporations for more than 50 years is tantamount to an exercise of ownership by these corporations.
Article XII Section 3 of RBH 8 grants the State or Regional Legislature, the power to allow private corporations the right to lease more than 1000 hectares for more than 50 or even 100 years.
d. Allowing Foreigners to operate public utilities
The 1987 Constitution does not allow foreigners or foreign owned corporations from acquiring a franchise to operate a public utility in the Philippines. Only a corporation at least 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipinos is allowed, provided that such franchise should not be exclusive in character, and not for more than 50 years.
The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that allows foreigners or 100% foreign owned corporations from operating public utilities like electricity service, water utilities or telecommunication facilities because public utilities are important industries that cannot be left to the control of foreign corporations whose main interest is surely not for the Filipino people.
Additionally, allowing foreigners or countries such as China or the US to fully control our public utilities such as telecommunication, electricity and water supply endangers Philippine security and sovereignty.
RBH 8 amends the Constitution so that Congress is empowered to pass a law that countermands the above constitutional policy:
Article XII Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
Article XII Section 11 of RBH 8 grants the Congress the power to pass a law to allow private corporations allowing foreigners 100% ownership of public utilities.
e. Allowing foreigners control of the governing body and management of public utilities, even if they do not own it
The 1987 Constitution encourages public equity participation and requires the government to encourage the public to acquire equity or buy shares of stocks in public utilities so that they can participate in the management of these public utilities. At the same time, the Constitution does not allow foreigners participation in the governing body or management of the public utility beyond their proportionate share in its capital.
The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that allows foreigners whose share in capital is only 30%, for example, to exercise management or control of a public utility beyond that 30%. And rightly so. For why should a foreigner or a transnational corporation have 100% control and management of a public utility if its shares in its capital is less than that?
Additionally, allowing foreigners or corporations from countries such as China, Russia or the US to control our public utilities such as electricity and water supply to Philippine cities, especially since they did not even contribute more than 30% or 40% of the capital, endangers Philippine security and sovereignty.
RBH 8 for some strange reason allows Congress the power to pass a law which absurdly, allows foreign corporations control of a public utility beyond their proportionate share in the capital:
Article XII Sec 11 xxx UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, the participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.”
Article XII Section 11 of RBH 8 grants the Federal or Regional Legislature, the power to give 100% management and control to foreigners even if they own or contributed only a small percent of its capital.
f. Allowing Foreigners to own or manage universities and educational institutions
The 1987 Constitution does not allow foreigners or 100% foreign owned corporations (except those already established by religious groups) ownership of schools or universities. Only Filipinos, or a corporation at least 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipinos, are allowed to own schools and universities. Additionally, the Constitution does not allow foreigners control or administration of schools and educational institutions. Foreigners, cannot skirt the ownership prohibition by controlling or managing a school they do not even own.
The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that allows foreigners or foreign owned corporations to control schools and universities considering that the education of our youth is important to national development and independence, and an integral part of our culture that must not be left to the control of foreigners. In fact, one of the first things many invaders and colonizers do, is control of the educational system to create a subservient populace and colony.
Additionally, allowing foreigners or countries such as China or the US to control our educational system endangers Philippine security and sovereignty. RBH 8 amends the Constitution in order to grant Congress the power to countermand the above constitutional policy:
“Educational institutions, other than those established by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.”
Article XIII (G) Section 20 (2) of RBH 8 grants the Congress, the power to allow foreigners to own schools and universities in the Philippines, or to manage and control educational institutions.
Worse, in another absurd provision, RBH 8 DELETED the 1987 Constitution’s requirement that Congress “may require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions” and inserted a provision which grants Congress the power to pass a law which will allow foreigners full control and management of an educational institution:
“[DELETE The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational institutions.] The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
The tax exemptions given to assets of non-profit educational institutions and religious schools used exclusively for educational purposes under the 1987 Constitution is abolished under Art. XIV, Sec. 4 of the PDP Laban Constitution:
[DELETE All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties.]
g. Allowing Foreign Ownership of mass media
Section 15 of RBH 8 amending Article XVI (General Provisions) also contains similar provisions that grants Congress the power to allow foreigners and private corporations more power over the lives and resources of the Filipino people.
g.1 The 1987 Constitution prohibits the ownership or management of mass media by foreigners or foreign corporations.
The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that allows foreigners control of mass media since this powerful tool has been used to interfere in Philippine politics, or dictate the national discourse of the country on important issues such as the South China Sea dispute.
Additionally, allowing foreigners or countries such as China or the US control over our mass media endangers Philippine security and sovereignty. Article XVI Section 11 (1) of RBH 8 grants Congress the power to give foreigners ownership and control of our mass media.
g.2 absurd provision on mass media
The 1987 Constitution provides that “the participation of foreign investors in the governing bodies of corporations in the advertising industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital”.
The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing a law that will allow foreigners control of a corporation beyond its share in capital especially since this restriction is a very just provision. If foreigners own 30% of the capital in a corporation, then they should only have 30% share in the control of said corporation. It is unjust, among others, for a foreign corporation to exercise 100% control of the governing body if its share in the capital is only 30% or less.
For some strange and unexplained reason, Article XVI Section 11 (2) of RBH 8 grants Congress, the power to give 100% management and control of an advertising corporation to foreigners even if they own or contributed only a small percent of its capital.
Article XVI Section 11 (2) The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
All these amendments will practically empower Congress acting as a mere legislative body, to amend the Constitution and counter its “protectionist” provisions. Worse, this Cha-cha will institutionalize the economic strategy that has stunted Philippine economy and impoverished the Filipino people—an economy that caters to the needs of other countries and transnational corporations and not the needs of its people.
PDP-Laban’s Frontal Attack on Economic Provisions in the Constitution
The PDP Laban Constitution did not even attempt to hide its intentions of practically dismantling many of the 1987 Constitution’s economic provisions. PDP Laban has practically thrown wide open the country to transnational corporations. An example is its attack on Section 3 article XII of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into [INSERT RECLAMIMED LAND] agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
[DELETED Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.]
This amendment means:
- Inserting “reclaimed land” is an ominous sign that massive reclamation projects will take place. The government as of today is still incapable of providing housing for the demolished urban poor in foreshore areas and livelihood for fisher-folks affected by reclamation projects. Government has failed to stop the massive destruction of the marine environment and ecology resulting from reclamation projects.
- Ominous also is its deletion of the provision that does not allow mineral lands, timber or forest lands from being subject to sale or purchase.
- Dangerous is its deletion restricting private corporations to leasing these lands of only up to a maximum of 50 years and up to 1000 hectares. It may open up these lands to lease of more than 75 years and up to thousands of hectares. A study of the provisions deleted by PDP Laban would show a strong hand or lobby by big mining companies in the drafting of this chacha.
PDP LABAN’s list of deleted provisions are as follows.
- DELETED provision prohibiting foreign transnational corporations and aliens TNCs from acquiring lands
- DELETED “promoting preferential use of Filipino labor and locally produced goods”
- DELETED “The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos”
- DELETED “The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good.
- DELETED “The Congress shall, XXX reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.”
- DELETED “Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain”.
- DELETED Prohibiting “foreigners from wholly operating and controlling public utilities”
- DELETED “industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform”
- DELETED workers entitlement to “security of tenure” and labor’s “just share in the fruits of production”.
- DELETED “ comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform”
- DELETED “The State shall, by law, undertaken an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till”
- DELETED “The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons”
- DELETED “State protection of rights of subsistence fishermen and their right in offshore fishing against “foreign intrusion”
- DELETED “The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.”
- DELETED “Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area”
- DELETED “The Congress shall xxx when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines xxx certain areas of investments”
- DELETED “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.”
- DELETED “The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos”.
- DELETED “The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipinos xxx”
- DELETED AND AMENDED “The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized”
- DELETED important labor rights such as “security of tenure, living wage and humane conditions of work”
- DELETED “labor’s just share in the fruits of their production”
- DELETED “restriction on foreigners in the exploration and use of our natural resources”
- DELETED “Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwelling demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.”
- DELETED “No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated”.
- DELETED “The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to under- privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas.
- DELETED “It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens.”
- DELETED “All revenues of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions xxx for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties”
- DELETED “restrictions on foreign ownership of educational institutions, mass media”
- DELETED MANY OTHER ECONOMIC PROVISIONS
Summary
It is wrong for pro chacha advocates to say that we are poor because of the 1987 Constitution.
The reason for our poverty is not the Constitution but the exploitative and oppressive system (the landlessness and feudalism, contractualization and unemployment due to absence of industrialization, corruption, political dynasties, among many other systemic and structural problems). If the same political and economic system that exists today will exist tomorrow, we will never escape from poverty even if we cha cha ten times a year.
There have been many promises before. Government once declared that our joining the GATT WTO regime is the road to development and salvation from poverty but it did not. Government also promised that expansion of conditional cash transfer or 4 Ps will ease poverty—but there was no decrease in poverty incidence. The same people who promised salvation if we shift to ‘parliamentary system” are now saying that its actually “federalism” not the parliamentary system.
The pro cha cha advocates have never presented a study to show that cha cha will lead to development and eradication of poverty, because there is none. Ang ating kahirapan ay hindi nag mula sa konstitusyon, kaya ang pag amyenda dito ay hindi solusyon.
Secondly, the form of government is not decisive in economic development. Again, pro federalists have failed to produce any concrete study to prove the connection between federalism and development. They just produce anecdotal evidence saying that if power is dispersed to the local government development will follow forgetting that many federal states remain impoverished. There are federal states that are rich, Germany. There are federal states that are poor, Somalia. There are parliamentary states that are rich, United Kingdom. There are parliamentary states that are poor, Nepal. There are presidential states that are rich, the United States. There are presidential states that are poor, the Philippines. It’s the system not the form.
While pro federalist claim that federalism will lead to development, the fact that they found it necessary to tinker with the economic provisions tell a different story. They are forced to claim that the protectionist provisions caused our underdevelopment. So, the question is, ano ba talaga kuya? Is it the presidential form or the economic provisions that make us poor? ano ba talaga ang sinasabi niyong mag papaunlad sa atin, ang pederalismo ba o ang pag bukas sa ekonomiya sa dayuhan ? If it is true that Federalism will lead to economic salvation, why tinker with the economic provisions? Unless this is really the intention and not federalism.
The proposed Cha cha is dangerous and will insert many anti-people provisions in the Constitution. The Con Ass procedure also makes it more dangerous because it will grant members of Congress the power to decide whether or not they will grant themselves pork barrel or income tax exemption or the power to chart constitutional policy.
Even a constitutional convention will not ensure that the peoples interest will be protected under this chacha. First, the existence of political dynasties under current electoral and political system, will most likely result in the victory of the son or the wife or the brother of established political clans in the election of constitutional convention delegates. Second, the repressive political conditions today is not conducive to a free deliberation of charter change. Any proposal, whether in the con con or con ass that is against the interest of Pres. Duterte or his administration will not get approval, worse it may result in presidential attack against the proponent.
Being critical is a dangerous endeavor under Pres. Duterte. There can be no free cha cha deliberation under a repressive president like Pres. Duterte. Ordinary people will be afraid to speak up during public consultations and even during the ratification campaign due to the Duterte administration intolerance of dissent and people who question their policies and actions.
The fact that the proposals will still be approved by the people through a referendum or plebiscite is of no moment.
First, they have campaigned for federalism for a long time now. They have launched consultation all over the country gathering thousands of mayors, barangay officials and the public in their large and government funded assemblies. Anti-chacha advocates campaigning for a “no vote” will not only be saddled with these disadvantages but may even be subject to harassment during the campaign.
Second, their consultations were misleading as they merely discussed their concept of federalism and why it is the solution to the country’s problems. They do not mention however that their cha cha does not only contain federalism but also provisions that allow pork barrel, grant top government officials tax exemption, allow the sale of land and public utilities to foreigners, or grant Pres. Duterte the power to appoint his cabinet members to the Parliament. In short, they misled the people into thinking that the chacha is just about what is good and beautiful for the country, and not about repressive provisions, self serving insertions and opening up the economy to large transnational corporations.
Third, the government will have the resources and the funds for glossy campaign advertising. In fact, Pres. Duterte once told a TV company that he will treat them kindly (‘quits na tayo’) if they will campaign for his federalism. Philippine elections have not been reformed. The moneyed and the powerful still has a very substantial edge in any electoral contest.
The main thrust therefore is to stop this chacha on its tracks before it gets approved by con ass (or even con con). It will be difficult for a no vote to win once it gets approved by the constituent assembly.
The previous chachas had a lot of support initially but were all stopped on its tracks when the people became aware of its dangerous and anti people contents and expressed their outrage and opposition to these cha chas. This can be done, and can be achieved once more.
The people will surely oppose cha cha if they know what it contains. The main thrust of any resistance therefore is to raise the peoples awareness of its contents through :
- Holding of public forums in schools, communities, churches, and other public venues
- Discussing or writing about its anti people contents in newsletters, newspapers, radio or tv programs, and even social media. Especially social media. Pastoral letters read in masses during the previous chachas helped a lot in informing the people what it contains. Statements by community leaders, joint statements by bishops in various churches, respected lawyers, government officials, peoples organizations, and NGOs will be very important.
- Forming coalitions or networks to organize these forums and other mass actions. Sectors badly hit by this chacha are the workers, farmers, fisherfolks, urban poor, indigenous people, church sector, students, human rights advocates, nationalists, anti pork barrel networks, and those who believe on the checks and balance in government.
- Petition signing or challenging members of congress and senators and other public officials to oppose cha cha.
- Rallies and other mass actions. Previous chachas (such as the one in 2009) were stopped by massive expression of public opposition through rallies. These are important components of peoples resistance to a threat to the peoples interest.
In the end this Cha Cha is not really about Federalism. In fact, it seems that Federalism is just a cover to grant Pres. Rodrigo Duterte formidable and repressive powers, attack the protectionist economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution while sneaking in self serving provisions such as pork barrel. While there may be some who are sincerely advocating for federalism, majority of the politicians and public officials do not even know or care what its implications really are. After all these same politicians, mayors, governors, LGUs and members of Congress once campaigned for a “parliamentary system” also saying the same thing—the parliamentary system is the solution to all our problems and the road to development for our country.
In fact, it is not even clear by now if Pres. Duterte is sincerely for federalism. After all his grounding on Federalism is his simplistic analysis during the campaign that “government funds are centralized in imperial Manila”. This kind of justification could have been resolved without need for chacha when Duterte became president as he could easily refocus the national budget to Mindanao and the Visayas.
Strangely, Pres. Duterte even increased the budget of NCR when he became president as can be seen in the “regional allocation” component of the general appropriations law. While the budget for NCR in 2016 was P445 Billion or 14.8% of the national budget, the 2018 NCR budget under Pres. Duterte grew to a staggering P817.95 Billion or about 22% of the national budget [see DBM website data][18]. Pres. Duterte actually followed and even surpassed previous presidents who “centralized” public funds in “imperial Manila”. So it seems that his federalism talk was similar to his other promises—just a campaign spiel, or worse, a joke.
So, even if one is pro federalism, one must still oppose this chacha because its impact is beyond federalism. Even if one is pro-Duterte, one must still oppose this cha cha because it will enshrine attacks on our rights, condemn the next generation to poverty with the opening up of the economy to transnational corporations, and, grants Pres. Duterte repressive powers, lahat ng ito, wala namang kinalaman sa pederalismo.
Presidents come and go. This cha cha, however, once approved will be ruling over the lives of many Filipinos for years to come and even decades. We cannot exchange the future of our children and the next generation of Filipinos with our loyalty to a temporary president. If the people stopped the previous chachas, the Filipino people can once more rise up and stop “the worst cha cha ever”.
[1] Apologies for typographical and other errors.
[2] See Tolentino vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-34150
[3] Retirement of “affected” government personnel in the abolished Congress under an enticing retirement package: Article XVIII Section 6 (RBH 8) “xxx Affected personnel of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be entitled to separation pays in the amount of two-and-a-half (2.5) months for every year of government service. This entitlement shall be in addition to the retirement and other benefits under GSIS law and other social legislations.”
However, RBH 8 provides a different and discriminatory treatment and retirement package for government employees who are not from Congress such as those government personnel who are separated from service as a result of the “reorganization” coming from courts, independent commissions and other bodies abolished or reorganized by the new Constitution: “Section 14 Career civil service employees other than the affected personnel of the Senate and the House of Representatives who are separated from the service x x x as a result of the reorganization following its ratification shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retirement and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general application in force at the time of retirement. x x x This provision also applies to career officers whose resignation, tendered in line with the existing policy, had been accepted.”
From the above provisions, even career officers who resign “in line with the existing policy”, will only get the regular benefits existing at the time of resignation. Whatever this policy is, was not stated in RBH 8. This, however, could mean that the Duterte administration will ask for courtesy resignation from all affected offices and courts. Officials whose courtesy resignation were “accepted” will be forced to retire from government service paving the way for the appointment of new officials in their stead.
[4] Under RBH 9 each Commission shall have 19 members including its chairman.
[5] Sub Committee 1 on “Transitory Provisions” (page 3)
[6] Sub Committee 1 on the powers of “The President” (page 2)
[7] Sub Committee 2 on “The Judiciary” (page 2)
[8] Sub Committee 1 on “The Parliament” (page 1)
[9] Subcommittee 1 on Transitory Provisions (page 3)
[10] Sub Committee 1 on Transitory Provisions (page 3)
[11] [Draft Constitution Sub Committee 1 on Transitory Provisions (page 7)
[12] [Sub Committee 1 on Transitory Provisions page 7]
[13] Even the Catholic church through Cardinal Vidal recognizes this sovereign power of the people beyond mere elections, when he declared after Marcos won the “snap election” against Cory Aquino that “if a government does not of itself freely correct the evil it has inflicted on the people then it is our serious moral obligation as a people to make it do so”.
[14] Sub Committee 2 on “The Bill of Rights”, page 1.
[15] Example: English Magna Carta.
[16] Sub Committee 2 on “The Judiciary” (page 1)
[17] Except for the employees of the Senate and the House which will get an equivalent of 2.5 months salary for every year of service on top of their GSIS benefits.
[18]file:///C:/Users/nc2017/AppData/Local/Temp/2018-People’s-Budget-for-posting.pdf
