Category: Documents

SIMBAHANG LINGKOD NG BAYAN 
The Socio Political Apostolate of the Society of Jesus in the Philippines
MANALANGIN. MANINDIGAN. MAKIALAM.

Paunang Salita

Hindi tamang sabihin na walang alam ang Simbahan sa mga problema at isyu na nakaka-apekto sa ating bansa. Ang totoo, marami ng pagkakataon na mismong mga politiko, lipunang sibil at iba pang mga pampubliko at pribadong grupo ang kumonsulta at humingi na ng payo sa mga obispo at pari kung paano bibigyan ng solusyon ang napakaraming suliranin ng ating bayan.

Sa kabila nito, inaamin din naman ng Simbahan na hindi siya eksperto sa lahat ng bagay at hindi ito makakapagbigay ng lunas sa lahat ng suliranin sa lipunan. Ang isa sa maaari nitong gawin ay turuan ang taong-bayan na maging matatag sa kanilang moral na paninindigan at bigyan sila ng katiyakan na ang pakikisangkot ng Simbahan ay bunsod lamang ng kanyang hangaring makamtan ang panlahatang kabutihan.

Kung nangangaral at may mga pagkilos man ang Simbahan, lagi nitong isinasa-alang-alang ang interes ng taong-bayan. Ang kanyang pakikilahok sa mga usaping pang-lipunan ay hindi upang isulong ang anumang balakin nito bilang isang institusyon o di kaya’y ito’y bunsod ng mga pansariling hangarin lamang.

Napaka-kitid naman ng ating pang-unawa kung ang mga isyu, sabihin pang ang mga ito ay politikal, ay titingnan at uunawain lamang natin sa aspetong pang-politika. Ang pangunahing tanong ayon kay Papa Benito XVI ay, “Paano nga ba magiging positibong impluwensiya ang Kristiyanismo sa mundo ng politika na hindi naman ito magiging instrumentong pang-politikal at hindi rin nito panghihimasukan ang mundo ng politika para sa kanyang pansariling kapakanan’’?

Sa paggawa ng “primer” na ito tungkol sa Pederalismo, ang Arkidiyosesis ng Manila ay hindi namumulitika o uma-aktong parang politiko na ang tanging hangad lamang ay malagpasan ang mga politikal na hamon at iba pang mga masalimuot na sitwasyon ng partido, bagkus ginagampanan ng Simbahan ang pagiging boses ng konsensiya na ang tanging hangad lamang ay mag-alok o magbigay ng mga moral na argumento o pananaw tungkol sa ikabubuti o (di-ikabubuti) ng Pederalismo.

Ang papel ng Simbahan sa gawaing ito ay malinaw na isinalarawan ni Papa Benito XVI ng kanyang sinabi, “Ang konsensiya ay talaga namang walang kapangyarihan, subalit sa ganyan mismong kadahilanan, nililimitahan niya ang kapangyahiran at ipinagtatanggol ang mga walang kapangyarihan”.

Ano ang Federalismo?

Ang federalismo ay isang anyo ng pamahalaan kung saan nagbabahagi ang Sentral na Pamahalaan (Central Government) ng makabuluhang kapangyarihan, tungkulin, at mga responsibilidad sa mga yunit ng Lokal na Pamahalan (Local Government Units). Sa sistemang ito, tinatawag na Federal o Pambansang Pamahalaan ang Sentral na Pamahalaan samantalang tinatawag namang Mga Estado o Rehiyon ang mga yunit ng Lokal na Pamahalaan, sa anyong ito, ang mga Estado at Rehiyon ay may sapat na awtonomya at kalayaan sa sariling pamamahala. Maaari silang magkaroon ng sariling batasan at mataas na hukuman. Ngunit may mga pangkalahatang kapangyarihang tanging ang Federal na Pamahalaan lamang ang maaaring gumamit tulad ng pambansang seguridad at pambanyagang diplomasya. Maaaring ihalintulad ito sa isang asosasyong pampurok tulad ng homeowners association kung saan independiyente ang bawat pamilya at kabahayan ngunit bumubuo sila ng isang malaking grupo upang tugunan ang pangkalahatang suliranin tulad ng seguridad at pagtatapon ng basura. Bilang buod, ang Federalismo ay tungkol sa pagsasalo sa kapangyarihan ng Sentral na Pamahalaan at mga awtonomo o independiyenteng Rehiyon o Estado: “kalayaan sa sariling pamamahala at magkasalong pamamahala.”

Paano ito naiiba sa kung anong mayroon tayo ngayon?

Sa paglipas ng mga dantaon, naisailalim ang Filipinas sa unitaryong anyo ng pamahalaan. Sa sistemang ito, ang buong bansa ay tinitingnan bilang isa, nagkakaisa, at di-mapaghihiwalay na politikal na yunit.

Ang pangunahing nagpapatakbo sa bansa ay ang Pambansang Pamahalaan kung saan konsentrado ang malaking kapangyarihan, tungkulin at mga responsibilidad.

Gayunpaman, ibinababa o ihinihirang ang ilang kapangyarihang pampolitika at pang-ekonomiya sa mabababang nibel ng pamahalaan o mga yunit ng Lokal na Pamahalaan – mga Lalawigan, Lungsod, Munisipalidad, at Barangay. Ang mga yunit na ito ay nananagutan pa rin sa Pambansang Pamahalaan, na maitutulad sa isang lokal na sangay o prangkisa ng isang kompanya sa pambansang tanggapan nito.

May iba-ibang uri o anyo ba ng Federalismo?

Ang mga Federasyon o Federal na Bansa ay nagkakaiba-iba ayon sa layon ng pagsasama-sama ng mga Estado.

• Ang layon ay maaaring kultural, kung saan ang mga estado o lalawigan ay nabubuo ayon sa kanilang pangkat etniko, relihiyon, o wika, tulad ng sa kaso ng Kanada, Espanya, at Belhika. O ang layon ay maaaring ayon sa teritoryo, kung magkakadikit o magkakasunod lamang ang mga estado, tulad ng sa kaso ng Estados Unidos.
• Ikalawa, nagkakaiba-iba rin ang federalismo ayon sa anyo ng pamahalaan kung saan maaari itong umusbong. Maaari itong maging Pampanguluhan kung saan inihahalal ang Pangulo bilang puno ng pamahalaan, o Parlyamentaryo kung saan pinipili ng Batasan (ang Kongreso o ang Parlamento) ang Punong Ministro bilang puno ng pamahalaan.
• Ikatlo, nagkakaiba-iba ang federalismo ayon sa uri ng kapangyarihan na pinagsasaluhan ng Federal na Pamahalaan at mga Estado at Rehiyon. Sa ibang modelo ng federalismo, may kapangyarihan sa paggawa ng batas ang mga Estado na maaari din nilang isakatuparan, samantalang sa ibang federasyon, may administratibong tungkulin lamang ang mga Estado, kung saan maaari lamang silang magpatupad ng batas.

Anong mga bansa ang naisasailalim na sa Federalismo?

Mayroong dalawampu’t pitong (27) federasyon sa buong mundo, na bumubuo sa higit na 40 bahagdan ng kabuoang populasyon nito.

Ilan sa mga kilalang bansang federal ay ang Estados Unidos (mula 1789), Kanada (1867), Alemanya (1948), Suwisa (1848), Arhentina (1853), Rusya (1993), Australya (1901), Indiya (1950), at Malaysia (1963).

Anong uri ng Federalismo ang ipinapanukala ng kasalukuyang pamahalaan?

Ipinapanukala ng Consultative Committee, komiteng binuo ng Pangulo upang pag-aralan ang Konstitusyon at magmungkahi ng mga pagbabagong kinakailangan upang maisulong ang federal na anyo ng pamahalaan, ang Modelong Federal-Pampanguluhan (Federal-Presidential Model).

Sa ilalim ng modelong itong itinulad sa Sistemang Federal ng Estados Unidos, maghahalal pa rin ang bansa ng Pangulo at Pangalawang Pangulo, at ng dalawang kamarang pambatasan (Kongreso at Senado).

Ang isang paksa ng debate ay kung paano bubuoin ang mga Estado o Rehiyon base sa kasalukuyang ayos ng mga politikal na teritoryo. Sa isang dulo ng talakayan, iminumungkahi ng ilan ang pagkakaroon lamang ng tatlong Estado (Luzon, Visayas, at Mindanao), at sa kabilang dulo naman ay 81 Estado mula sa 81 kasalukuyang lalawigan.

Bakit ipinapanukala ng kasalukuyang pamahalaan ang pagtulak sa Federalismo?

Sa kaniyang mga talumpati, nagbanggit si Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ng iba’t ibang dahilan ng agarang pagtulak sa Federalismo sa bansa.

Una, “katiting” lamang ang nakukuhang halaga o yamang pinansiyal ng mga yunit ng Lokal na Pamahalaan (LGUs) mula sa Pambansang Pamahalaan sa Maynila kumpara sa ibinibigay ng una sa huli. Bilang halimbawa, aniya, ang Davao ay nagbibigay ng P5 bilyon kada buwan ngunit nakatatanggap lamang ng P2 bilyon pabalik. Sa katunayan, binibigyan lamang ang mga LGU ng 40 bahagdan ng kabuoang buwis na kinokolekta ng Kawanihan ng Rentas Internas. Kung isusulong ang Federalismo, aniya, ang lahat ng ito ay mababaligtad –makagagamit ang bawat LGU ng 70 bahagdan ng kita nito at kailangan lamang nilang magbigay ng 30 bahagdan sa Federal na Pamahalaan.

Ikalawa, sinasabi din ni Pangulong Duterte na ang Sistemang Unitaryo, kung saan ang mga kapangyarihan ay napupunta lamang sa Pambansang Pamahalaan sa Maynila, ay malapit sa katiwalian. Tanging ang Pangulo lamang sa Malacañang at ang mga kaalyado nito sa Kongreso ang nakapagpapasya kung paano naipamamahagi ang badget at ang ilang bahagi nito ay napupunta lamang sa kanilang mga bulsa at pansariling proyekto, wika niya.

Ikatlo, mabibigyan ng Federalismo, ani Duterte, ng lakas ang mga LGU na isakatuparan ang kanilang sariling direksiyong pang-ekonomiya. “Maaari nilang imbitahan nang direkta ang mga namumuhunang dayuhan. Mapupuksa nito ang pagkagahaman ng burukrasya. Nakukuha ng Maynila ang lahat kaya’t napipilitan ang mga rehiyon na manlimos. Ang benepisyo ng federalismo, ikaw na ang direktang pupunta. Hindi na kailangang dumaan pa sa DOTC at NEDA.”

Ikahuli, para sa Pangulo, ang makabuluhang awtonomya na ipagkakaloob ng Federalismo sa mga LGU ang sagot sa separatistang hangarin ng mga grupong Muslim sa Mindanao. Madalas niyang nababanggit sa kampanya, “Tiyak na makapagdadala ang federalismo ng kapayapaan sa Mindanao.”

Bakit tinututulan ng ilang sektor ang federal na anyo ng pamahalaan?

Bagaman ang Administrasyong Duterte ay kumbinsido sa mga benepisyo ng Federalismo para sa Filipinas, nagpahayag ang ibang mga sektor sa akademya at lipunang sibil ng pagtutol sa planong paglipat dito. Mismong ang dating Chief Justice Hilario Davide ang tumawag dito bilang “paglukso sa impyerno”.

Ang mga dahilang sinasabi ng mga tutol sa paglipat sa Federalismo ay ang mga sumusunod:

Una, ang desentralisasyon, na pinaniniwalaang pangunahing benepisyo ng federalismo, ay hindi ginagarantiya ng federalism.

Sinulat ni Dr. Cielito Habito, dating puno ng NEDA: “Ang pangunahing punto ay hindi nangangahulugan ng mas malawig na desentralisasyon ang federalismo. May mga federal na pamahalaan na mas hindi desentralisado kumpara sa mga sistemang unitaryo, at katabi lamang ng bansa ang mga pangunahing halimbawa. Inilalarawan ang Malaysia bilang isang sentralisadong federal na sistema kung saan ang mga kasaping estado nito ay may maliit lamang na papel kumpara sa sentro. Sa isang banda, ang Indonesiya ay may mataas na nibel ng desentralisasyon kahit na ito ay naisasailalim sa unitaryo at pampanguluhang sistema. Naglalaro ang saklaw ng mga federal na sistema mula sa labis na sentralisado (tulad ng Beneswela) hanggang sa labis na desentralisado (Noruwega). Kung mas malakas na desentralisasyon ang hangad, hindi kinakailangang federalismo ang paraan.”

Ikalawa, may malaking pagkabahala na magdudulot ang federalismo ng mas malawak na dibisyon at kaguluhan sa Filipinas. Kinatatakutan na mas mapagtitibay ang mga dinastiyang politikal at mga pinunong may armadong grupo sa itatayong mga bagong Estado o Rehiyon. Tinataya ng Ateneo School of Government na apat sa limang kasapi ng Kongreso ang kabilang sa mga pamilya o dinastiyang politikal. Ayon kay Propesor Roland Simbulan ng Center for People Empowerment in Governance, “may 178 na dominanteng dinastiyang politikal sa Filipinas, kung saan 94 na bahagdan ng ating mga lalawigan ang may dinastiyang politikal (73 sa kabuoang 80 lalawigan).” Kinatatakutan na ang makakapangyarihang dinastiya ay maghahari pa rin kahit sa bagong sistema.

Ikatlo, ang paghahati ng bansa sa iba’t ibang estado ay maaaring magdulot ng kaguluhan. Ang mas mayayamang lalawigan ay hindi hahangaring sumama sa mga mas mahihirap na lalawigan. Habang ang mga Estado o Rehiyon ay may kapangyarihang mamahala sa kani-kanilang sarili, maaaring hindi pantay-pantay pa rin ang pag-unlad ng mga ito. Patuloy na yayaman ang ilan at lalong hihirap pa ang iba.

Ikaapat, higit na lalaki ang burukrasya ng pamahalaan dahil ang bawat Estado o Rehiyon ay mayroong kani-kaniyang kagawarang pang-ehekutibo, mataas ng hukuman, at batasan. * Lolobo ang bilang ng mga bagong mambabatas sa libo-libo, idagdag pa ang kanilang mga kawani. At natural na ang lumalaking burukrasya ay mangangailangan ng gahiganteng gastos. Tinataya ng Philippine Institute for Development Studies na ang halaga ng gagastusin ay P44 hanggang P72 bilyon, hindi pa kasama ang para sa mga kawani ng sangay ng hudikatura. Puna ni Habito, “Hindi ba lilikha lamang tayo ng pamahalaan ng mga politiko, ayon sa mga politiko, at para sa mga politiko?”

Ikahuli, kahit pa ibinabandera ng pamahalaan ang Federalismo bilang pangunahing lunas sa separatistang hangarin ng ilang Muslim sa Mindanao, hindi ito ganoon kasimple. Ebidensiya dito ang palpak na eksperimento ng Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Pumalpak rin ang panukalang pagbuo ng Estadong Muslim sa pag-unawa na walang iisa lamang na bansang Muslim kundi marahil ay “mga bansa”.

Paano tayo lilipat sa anyong ito ng pamahalaan?

Ang kinakailangan sa paglipat tungong Federalismo ay walang iba kundi ang pagbabago ng Konstitusyon (Constitutional/Charter Change o Cha-Cha), dahil ang paglipat na ito ay nangangailangan ng masaklaw, radikal, at malawakang pagbabago sa sistemang politikal ng bansa.

May tatlong paraan upang baguhin ang Konstitusyon.

Una, maaaring magtawag ng kapulungan (Constitutional Convention) ang Kongreso; o ikalawa, ang dalawang kamara ay maaaring bumuo ng isang Constitutional Assembly; ikahuli, maaaring magpanukala ang mga mamamayan sa pamamagitan ng tinatawag na “People’s Initiative”.

Sa anumang paraang pipiliin, kinakailangang dumaan ang mga panukalang susog sa isang Plebisito. Sa kasalukuyan, naghirang ang Administrasyon ng isang Consultative Committee upang magmungkahi ng mga pagsusog sa Konstitusyon na kinakailangan sa paglipat tungong Federalismo.

Bagaman hindi magkasundo ang Kamara de Representante at ang Senado kung magtatawag ba ng Constitutional Convention o magbubuo sila ng Constitutional Assembly, inaasahan na ang mga panukala ng Komite ay ipepresinta sa isang plebisito sa darating na Oktubre.

Ano ang posisyon ng simbahan ukol sa federalismo?

Una, bilang pangunahing gabay, base sa makasaysayang tradisyon ng Catholic Social Teaching, walang kinikilingang sistemang politikal ang Simbahan. Nagpapahayag lamang ito ng suporta sa Demokrasya sapagkat tinatatag at pinangangalagaan nito ang kalayaan at dangal ng tao, na siyang mga prinsipyong pinahahalagahan din ng Simbahan.

Ikalawa, sa isyu ng Charter Change, naglabas ng pahayag ang Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines noong Enero na nagpapahayag ng kanilang suporta sa 1987 Konstitusyon, at nagsasabing kung matutuloy ang Charter Change, kinakailangang siguraduhing lehitimo ang buong proseso at humihikayat ito sa aktibong pakikisangkot ng mga mamamayan.

Ikatlo, sa parehong pahayag, nakikita ng mga Obispo na hindi kailangan ang mga pagkilos tungong Federalismo sa panahong ito. Ayon sa kanilang sinulat: “Ang tanong namin: kailangan bang baguhin ang Konstitusyon upang makapagbahagi ng kapangyarihan? Maraming eksperto sa konstitusyon at batas ang nagsasabing hindi. Ang kinakailangan sa tunay na pagbabahagi ng kapangyarihan, ayon sa kanila, ay ang ganap na pagsasakatuparan ng Konstitusyon, ang paglikha ng mga nakapangyayaring batas, at ilang rebisyon sa Local Government Code, at mas mapagpasyang pagpapatupad ng Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act. Ang mga ito lamang, ayon sa kanilang paniniwala, ang makapaninigurado na ang kalayaan sa pagpapasya sa sarili at desentralisasyon ng kapangyarihang politikal at pinansiyal ay tunay na maisasakatuparan.”

Continue reading

F O R E W O R D

The Church cannot be said to be ignorant of the problems and issues besetting the nation. There are times, in fact, when politicians, civil society, and other interest groups would seek the counsel of clergymen and solicit their involvement in addressing society’s myriad of problems.

The Church, of course, does not pretend to be an expert who can provide “cure-all’’ remedies to everything that ails our country. The least that she can do is to provide the public with moral fortitude and to make assurances that her involvement is always motivated by a desire to achieve the common good.

When the Church speaks and does something, she always has the people’s interests in mind. Her involvement is neither for advancing any institutional agenda nor motivated by any ulterior motive.

It’s too narrow a sense, if issues, even if basically political in nature, should be viewed and understood only from the point of view of politics. The fundamental concern as Pope Benedict XVI puts it should be, “How can Christianity become a positive force for the political world without [itself] being turned into a political instrument and without, on the other hand, grabbing the political world for itself?”

By making this primer on Federalism, the Archdiocese of Manila does not see herself as a “political-actor’’ that is concerned mostly with political conundrums and partisan dilemmas but as the voice of conscience offering “morally suasive’’ thoughts aimed at objectively educating the people on the merits (and demerits) of Federalism.

The role of the Church in this undertaking is aptly described by Pope Benedict XVI when he said, “Conscience is essentially powerless, yet for that very reason limits power and protects the powerless’’.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FEDERALISM

WHAT IS FEDERALISM?

Federalism is a form of government wherein a Central Authority shares significant power, function, and responsibilities with Local Government Units. In this set-up, the Central Authority is called the Federal or National Government while the local government units are called States or Regions. In this form of government, the States or Regions, enjoy sufficient autonomy or self-rule. They may have their own Legislative Bodies as well as Supreme Courts. To the Federal Government, however, are reserved some general powers such as national security and foreign diplomacy.

One can think of a neighborhood association wherein families or homes are independent of one another and yet form one association that takes care of common concerns such as security and garbage disposal.

In sum, Federalism is all about the sharing of power between a Central Authority and autonomous or independent Regions or States: “self-rule and shared rule.”

HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM WHAT WE HAVE NOW?

For centuries now, the Philippines has been structured around a Unitary form of government. In this set-up, the whole country is regarded as one, united, and undivided political unit. Running the country is the National Government where great power, functions, and responsibilities are concentrated. However, some political as well as economic powers and functions have already been devolved or delegated to lower levels of governments or Local Government Units—Provinces, Cities, Municipalities, and Barangays. These units, nevertheless, remain dependent on and answerable to the national government like a local branch or franchise of a company to its national office.

ARE THERE MANY KINDS OR FORMS OF FEDERALISM?

Federations or Federal Countries can vary on the basis of the purpose for which states come together. The purpose can be cultural, wherein, states or provinces are formed based on ethnicity, religion, or language, such as in the cases of Canada and Belgium. The purpose can simply be territorial, the states being contiguous or adjacent to one another, such as in the case of the United States of America.

Federalism can also vary in terms of the form of government that the federation adopts. It can be Federal-Presidential where the President, who is the head of government, is popularly elected, or, Federal-Parliamentary where a Prime Minister

is the head of government and is selected by the Legislative Assembly, that is the Congress or the Parliament.

Still, Federalism can vary in terms of the kinds of power that the Federal Government shares with States or Regions. In some models, States have legislative power, which means, they can enact their own laws, while in other Federations, States merely have administrative power, that is, they only implement or execute laws.

WHICH COUNTRIES HAVE ADOPTED FEDERALISM?

There are at present twenty-seven (27) functioning Federations around the globe, which encompass over 40 percent of the world’s population. Among the well-known ones are the United States of America (Since 1789), Switzerland (1848), Argentina (1853), Canada (1867), Australia (1901), Germany (1948), India (1950), Malaysia (1963), the Federated States of Micronesia (1979) and Russian Federation (1993).

WHAT KIND OF FEDERALISM IS THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT PROPOSING?

The Consultative Committee, which was formed by the President to study the Constitution and propose the changes needed for a Federal form of government, has suggested the Federal/Presidential Model. Patterned after the US Federal System, under this model, the country will continue to elect the President and the Vice-President as well as the two chambers of Congress. A bone of contention however is how the States or Regions can be formed based on existing political territories.

WHY IS THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT PROPOSING THE CHANGE TO FEDERALISM?

In speeches then and now, President Rodrigo Duterte has cited various reasons for the urgency of the country’s shift to the Federal System of government.

First, the share that Local Government Units (LGUs) are getting from the National government in Manila is a pittance, compared to the amount that the former turns over to the latter. He cites, for example that Davao gives P5 Billion a month, but only gets P2 Billion in return. As a matter of fact, LGUs are allocated only P40 percent of the total taxes collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenues. If Federalism is adopted, he says, all this will be reversed, with each LGU retaining 70 percent of its income and remitting only 30 percent to the Federal government.

Second, President Duterte also bemoans that the current Unitary System, with powers centralized around the National government in Manila, has been prone to corruption. He says, “Only the President in Malacañang and his allies in Congress decide on how the budget is distributed and much of that goes to their pet projects and their pockets”.

Third, Federalism, Duterte says, will allow LGUs to chart their own economic destinies. “They can invite foreign investors directly. It will eliminate bureaucratic greed. Manila gets everything so regions are forced to beg. The benefit of federalism, they can get directly. They won’t have to go through departments like DOTC and NEDA.”

Finally, for the President, the considerable autonomy that Federalism gives to LGUs is the answer to the secessionist tendencies in Mindanao by Muslim groups. He was oft quoted in the campaign trail saying, “Nothing short of federalism will bring peace to Mindanao.”

WHY ARE SOME SECTORS OPPOSED TO THE FEDERAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT?

While the Duterte Administration is convinced of the benefits of Federalism for the Philippines, other sectors in the academe and civil society have expressed opposition toward the shift. The reasons put forward by those against the shift to Federalism are as follows:

First, decentralization, which is supposedly the primary benefit of Federalism, is not, in fact, guaranteed by Federalism. There are federalized governments that are less decentralized than unitary ones, and prime examples lie right next to us. Malaysia is described to have a centralized federal system where the constituent states play relatively limited roles in relation to the center.

On the other hand, Indonesia has achieved highly decentralized governance under its unitary presidential system.

Federal systems range from highly centralized (as in Venezuela) to highly decentralized (United States), just as unitary systems range from highly centralized (Singapore) to highly decentralized (Norway).

As it is said, “If there is a need for greater decentralization in government, Federalism is not the only way to it’’.

Second, there is great concern that Federalism will lead to greater division and chaos in the Philippines. It can lead to overlapping and contradictory policies in different parts of the country. It may breed governmental division and strengthen centrifugal pressures and ultimately lead to disintegration or failure of political union. In view of this, the threat of entrenched political dynasties is also a possibility. We must, therefore, ensure that the proposed changes in the Constitution will have self-executing provisions that will ban political dynasty. It can also lead to over-government.

Third, the division of the country into various states could become troublesome as it can lead to inequality between the federated units. It may increase regional discrepancies in wealth, resources, services and even democracy. Richer provinces will not wish to be joined with poorer provinces. With States or regions left to fend for their own, they can develop unevenly, with some growing richer and others poorer. To put it best, Federalism will hinder coherent development.

Fourth, the size of government bureaucracy will be multiplied. New legislators alone, with their staff, will number in the thousands. Each State or Region will also have its own Executive department, Supreme Court and Congress. Of course, with a burgeoning bureaucracy come staggering costs. The Philippine Institute for Development Studies estimates the cost to be between P44 and P72 billion, without the new judiciary personnel. One economic expert observes, “Won’t we simply be creating a government by politicians, of politicians, and for politicians?”

Fifth, even as the government touts Federalism as the ultimate solution to the separatist desires of Muslims in Mindanao, this may not be that simple. The failed experiment in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) proves this point. Having trustworthy, honest and strong leaders may even be a more important consideration for the development of the region than merely shifting to Federalism.

Finally, the continuing armed struggle of both Moro rebels and Communists, the rampant corruption, the complete disregard for rules, the enormous poverty, and the widespread abuse of power are gigantic burdens that cannot be addressed by just simply changing the system of government.

HOW DO WE TRANSITION TO THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT?

What is needed for a shift towards Federalism is no less than a Constitutional Change/Charter Change or Cha-Cha, because the shift would require extensive, radical, and widespread changes in the country’s political system. There are three ways Constitutional amendments are undertaken.

Firstly, Congress can call for a Convention, or secondly, the two chambers can simply constitute themselves into a Constituent Assembly. Finally, the people themselves can propose thru what is called a “people’s initiative.”

Whichever is taken, the amendments must be submitted to a Plebiscite. Currently, the Administration has appointed a Consultative Committee (Con Com) to propose the Constitutional amendments needed for a Federal shift.

Although, the House of Representatives and the Senate are at odds whether to call for a Constitutional Convention or to constitute themselves as a Constituent Assembly, it is widely believed that the work of the Consultative Committee (Con Com) will be subjected to a plebiscite this year or the following year.

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH ON FEDERALISM?

First, as a general rule, based on its long tradition of Catholic Social Teachings, the Church does not favor a particular political system over another. It has of course shown preference for “authentic Democracy” as this allows for the establishment and protection of freedom and human dignity, which are values that the Church espouses.

Quoting St. John Paul II, “Authentic democracy” is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility”. (Compendium, No. 406) (quoting Centesimus Annus, 46).

Second, on the issue of Charter Change, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines issued a statement last January, reiterating its support for the full implementation of the 1987 Constitution, and saying that if Charter Change is to happen, the whole process must be above-board, must involve the participation of citizens and should include the principle of human dignity and human rights; the principle of integrity and truth; the principle of participation and solidarity; and the principle of the common good.

Third, in the same statement, the Bishops find the move towards Federalism unnecessary at this point. “We ask the question: is it necessary to change the Charter in order to devolve power? Many constitutional and legal experts do not seem to think so. What is truly needed for a genuine devolution of power according to them, is a full implementation of the Constitution, the creation of enabling laws, and some revisions on the Local Government Code, and a more decisive effecting of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act”. These, they believe, can ensure that self-determination and decentralization of powers, both political and financial, are in fact realized.”

Finally, they say, it is not about structures but rather, the people running those structures. “We have also heard the views of those who believe that the solution we seek is ultimately the transformation of our political culture, the eradication of a political mindset of personalities, payoffs, and patronage – a culture that is entrenched in our present political structures and practices. Without conversion of mindsets, the new political wine of Charter change will remain in old political wine-skins, and merely end up bursting the hope for a new political culture.”

WHAT CAN WE DO AS CITIZENS IN THIS DEBATE?

Every Filipino must participate in this debate because the stakes are very high. A member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, warns, “If the Constitution is amended to pave the way for Federalism, the far-ranging or radical changes will be very hard to undo”. Whatever one’s position is on this issue, therefore, he/she must see to it that he/she is well informed of the intricacies or complexities of the matter.

Also, as an appeal to the populace, the Bishops, in their Pastoral Statement, suggest that the people “Form or reactivate circles of discernment and use your freedom as God’s children to discern, participate, discuss, and debate. Have an “informed conscience” and decide in the light of Gospel values. Do what is necessary. Persuade our legislators to do only what is genuinely for the good of all.”

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FEDERALISM Reference: Araral, Eduardo, Jr., et al. Debate on Federal Philippines: A Citizen’s Handbook. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2017.

July 31, 2018

To: All Laiko Members: National Lay Organizations &
Arch/Diocesan Councils of the Laity

Re: Catholink

Dear brothers & sisters,

The peace and love of the Lord!

Our Holy Father Francis once said, “The tragedy of disinformation is that it discredits others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict.” The cooperation of the laity is truly needed especially in the new evangelization and massive efforts to spread right information about the Church.

In this regard, we are endorsing Catholink, the Catholic Information Service program run by Radio Veritas 846 that aims to provide accurate, relevant and updated information about the Church, its ministries and social services in the country.

Spearheaded by a group of lay people whose mission is to inform the faithful through the means of multimedia, Catholink is a useful tool to spread verified information about the Church. It is our immediate response to the faithful who are looking for pastoral assistance, such as those who seek for a church nearby, pastoral services and answers to questions about Faith.

Let us support this endeavor as we prepare for the 500 years of Christianity in the Philippines. Attached is the flyer on Catholink.

Yours truly in Christ,

JULIETA F. WASAN
President

Noted:

+ MOST REV. BRODERICK S. PABILLO, D.D.
Chairman
CBCP-Episcopal Commission on the Laity

The armed conflict situation in the context of the GRP-NDFP remains volatile as it was in 2016 due unstable condition of the Peace talk between the two parties. The situation on the ground was basically dependent on the development of the peace talk based on the influx of the reports coming from our partners on the ground. In the first two months of the year-this was at the height of the terrorist tagging of the New People’s Army (NPA) and its alleged supporters by the President Rodrigo Dutertean, numerous encounters were recorded in the first two months, some resulted to internal displacements in the areas of Surigao del Sur involving 758 families and 115 individuals in Agusan Del sur-all coming from indigenous People’s (IP) communities. Other result of intensified encounters are Grave Child Rights Violations (GCRV) such as the maiming of two children in Quezon and detention of a minor in Compostella Valley who was attending a youth activity. There were recorded killings of IP Leaders and those allegedly connected with the rebel groups.

For the month of March, there was a sudden drop in the number of reported case primarily because it was at this juncture that the parties started doing back-channelling talks again in preparation for 5th Round of talk. Nonetheless, there were still violence perpetrated by the parties such as harassments in IP Schools, Killing of civilians and internal displacements caused by encounters in San Luis, Agusan Del Sur affecting 100 IP families. In April, several cases of attacked on civilians were monitored such as the killing of a Jehova Witnesses pastor in Surigao, Del Norte, abduction and inforced disappearance of IP couple in Arakan, North Cotabato and killing of a retired police and army in Negros Occidental. Again, at the height violence, children were not spared since during those attacks, children were also caught in crossfire resulting to killing or Maiming. One of them who was a legitimate civilian based on the statements of the parents, teachers and other people who knew him, was declared by the government forces as Child Soldier.

In the month of May and June, attacks on civilians continued either through direct attacks and civilians caught in crossfire. In Trento, Agusan Del Sur, a mother and her 8-yearl old daughter were attacked by unknown assailant resulting to the death of the mother while the minor survived. The connection of the mother to the rebel group was the alleged motive of the attack. Several minors also were wounded after the rebel group fired at them when they failed to stop at the checkpoint in San Fernando, Masbate. Other violations recorded are, burning of properties in Negros Occidental and Antique and internal displacement in Brgy. Umiray, General Nakar, Quezon Province. In the month of June also, the number of armed encounters in many areas has increased particularly in the later part of the month due to the cancellation of the scheduled 5th round of talk.

In the current month (July) reports from the areas keeps coming in as both parties intensified its operation in the wake of the cancellation of the 5th round of peace negotiation. Several encounters resulting to killing of minors and internal displacement were recorded in Davao city, Magpet, North cotabato and lianga, Surigao Del Sur. As of this writing, 1,607 individuals from 328 Lumad families evacuated from their ancestral domain due to alleged military presence, harassments and other human rights violations by the government forces. The evacuees are currently staying at a gym in Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao Del Sur. There are reports also of blockade of humanitarian assistance wherein the assistance given by the church and other organization to the evacuees are being blocked by the Military and police.

The trial of Lillian May “Sherry” Zimmer (Photo credit: PREDA Foundation)

July 14, 2018 ·

Lillian May “Sherry” Zimmer is a US national and a suspected pimp of little children with an outstanding arrest warrant in the Philippines. She has allegedly sexually abused three of five little children or allowed foreign men to do it to the five-year-old girls and one boy that she kept locked in her house. Zimmer denied the charges and presents herself as another Mother Theresa helping and loving needy children. The reality is very different.

The five children were allegedly illegally confined in her hidden and secluded house in Aningway-Sacatihan, Subic, Zambales. On 1 June 2014, Preda social workers discovered the terrible secret. The children, one of them naked, ran from the house of Zimmer when she was intoxicated and they went to the nearby Preda children’s center where they heard the children in the Preda home for girls singing.

They told the social workers they didn’t know their own names or why they were in the house of Zimmer and they were hungry. The Preda social workers gave them food and brought the little children who appeared about five and six years old back to the house of Zimmer. She appeared disoriented and angry.

The house was dirty and a child was seen tied to a plastic chair and excrement was near the child. Zimmer talked to the social workers and then told them to leave. The social workers reported the events to their supervisor. They went back in a few days and the situation was the same. Preda, a child protection organization, reported the situation of apparent child neglect to the authorities.

Soon after, when the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) officers with government social workers went to rescue the children, as was their duty under the law, she resisted and threw a spear at them. They arrested her and charged her with the illegal confinement of children and “assaulting persons in authority.” She operated without DSWD approval. (see http://www.preda.org/zimmer-case/

They investigated and saw the conditions that her house was dirty, strewn with empty whiskey bottles and in chaos. They found a child tied to a chair, the others half naked, neglected, crying and locked in a room to prevent them running away.

The children told social workers Zimmer scolded them and smacked them. Later, journalists found a sign in her house saying, “No Whining.” The children told government social workers and psychologists that foreign men went to the secluded house of Zimmer. According to the testimony of a 7-year-old boy locked in the house, one man sexually abused him in the shower and photographed him naked. Zimmer beat the boy with a stick, he said. Zimmer allowed the abuse to happen.

The girls said Zimmer dressed them up and brought them to foreign men at a beach for parties where the men held and touched them. The medico-legal examination confirmed that the children were neglected and sexually abused. (see medico-legal certificates also at http://www.preda.org/zimmer-case/ The child that was tied to a plastic chair was later found to be suffering from epilepsy and x-rays showed a previous healed fracture.

The agents of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) charged Zimmer in the Philippine Regional Trial Court in Olongapo City. Preda brought no charges and had no involvement in what happened to the accused Zimmer. She was broke and could not pay bail or hire a lawyer. When expensive lawyers from Manila showed up to represent Zimmer, it is likely that the foreign men to whom she brought the children to “play” paid for her lawyers. Also it is likely that she would name them and blame them for abusing the children so they paid. They petitioned the court to dismiss the case. Judge Jose L. Bautista Jr. did so without further hearings of evidence.

This was immediate and a very dubious decision. He dismissed the case by saying the government social workers and police had no search warrant. But the law says none is needed to rescue children in dire circumstance. The judge retired soon after. Immediately, Zimmer fled to a house in Fayetteville, NC 28304 in North Carolina, the United States.

The horrific crime against the little children has gone unpunished and Zimmer or those foreigners to whom she allegedly pimped and trafficked them to be abused has got off scot-free, for now. As is usual with non-Filipino pedophiles and pimps like Zimmer and her friends in the sex mafia, she denied everything and blamed Preda Foundation on social media for her plight.  Continue reading

Fears of dictatorship grow with draft constitution set for submission to Congress

Church and activist groups stage a protest in January against moves to revise the Philippine constitution to accommodate a federal system of government. (Photo by Mark Saludes)

UCAN News Jose Torres Jr., Manila Philippines
July 13, 2018

Various church groups in the Philippines have raised concern over moves by legislators in recent weeks to railroad an amendment to the constitution.

The Ecumenical Bishops’ Forum said it is “seriously alarmed and highly apprehensive” of the way allies of President Rodrigo Duterte want to rewrite the charter.

In a statement dated July 11, Catholic and Protestant bishops said they suspect something “sinister” behind the rush to shift to a federal system of government.

“The proposed charter grants Mr. Duterte the power to exercise a monopoly of executive, legislative and judiciary powers,” read the prelates’ statement.

They said that with “mounting pieces of evidence” pointing to Duterte’s alleged intention to hold on to power, “the proposed federal charter appears to pave the way for one-man rule.”

The bishops said there is a widespread perception that the amendment to the constitution would only lead to the establishment of a “constitutional dictatorship.”

They called on Duterte “to stop misleading the people into believing that his federal charter will work for the good of the country.”

“In reality, it is far worse than charter changes that past governments have sought to put forward,” read the bishops’ statement.

A Catholic lay group, meanwhile, called for prayer vigils in dioceses, parishes and communities around the country on July 23 when Duterte delivers his annual State of the Nation Address.

The Catholic Sangguniang Laiko ng Pilipinas (Council of Laity of the Philippines) urged Catholics to “reject attempts” by legislators to delete provisions in the constitution that guarantee people’s rights.

“Reject any attempt to bring back dictatorship, undetermined extension of office terms of elected officials, and the postponement of national and local elections,” read the organization’s statement.

“Mr. Duterte’s charter changes only make the intention to place the entire country under an authoritarian rule appear more clearly before our eyes,” said the group.

A survey by pollster Pulse Asia in March showed that opposition to charter change had risen from 44 percent in July 2016 to 64 percent in March.

On July 12, the presidential palace announced it was ready to submit to Congress a draft federal constitution written by a commission created by Duterte.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque expressed optimism that the new charter to facilitate the shift to a federal government would be ratified next year.

“The president has said that if it is finally ratified by the people then he will step down,” said Roque.

Duterte earlier said that he would not head a transition body to oversee the shift to a federal government if the new constitution is passed by Congress.

The draft constitution gives regions more power to self-govern and distributes power and resources of the national government.

If adopted by Congress, the new charter would create 18 federated regions that have autonomy and control over socioeconomic and financial systems.

The document proposes the election of 36 senators — two from each federal regions, and 400 district representatives that would compose the legislative body.

Other provisions include the prohibition of political dynasties, and clearly stated rights in an expanded Bill of Rights such as environmental and socioeconomic rights.

The new charter also mentions three high courts — a Federal Supreme Court, Federal Constitutional Court, and Federal Administrative Court with nine justices for each court.

Liham Pastoral Ng Kapulungan Ng Mga Obispo Ng Pilipinas (Salin sa Filipino)

“Mapapalad ang mga nagpupunyagi para sa Kapayapaan sapagkat tatawagin silang mga anak ng Diyos.” (Mat 5:9)

Minamahal naming mga kapatid kay Kristo, hindi ba‘t lahat tayo’y naghahangad ng biyayang maging mga anak ng Diyos? Kung gayon nga, dapat nating laging pagsumikapan ang maging daan ng kapayapaan sa mga panahong ito ng pagkabalisa sa ating bansa.

Kapayapaan: Ang Ating Pangkalahatang Bokasyon At Misyon

Sa mga panahong ito ng kadiliman at karahasan, panahon ng halos araw-araw na patayan, panahon ng palitan ng mga panlalait at masasakit na salita lalo na sa “social media,” nananawagan kami sa mga mananampalataya na manatiling tapat sa ating pinag-isang bokasyon at misyon na maging masigasig na tagapamagitan ng kapayapaan.

Ngunit huwag tayong magkamali ng pag-unawa dito; di ba’t sinabi ng ating Panginoon, “Kapayapaan ko ang ibinibigay ko sa inyo. Hindi gaya ng ibinibigay ng mundo ang ibinibigay ko sa inyo” (Juan 14:27). Ang kapayapaan para sa kanya ay hindi pakikikutsaba o pagsuko sa kasamaan; hindi rin ito tungkol sa kawalan ng hidwaan at kaguluhan.

Walang makapagdudulot sa atin ng kapanatagan ng loob sa mga panahong ito ng pagsubok kundi ang tahimik na pagkilala sa Kanya na nangakong kasama natin siyang lagi, “Lakasan ang loob! Ako ito, huwag kayong matakot!” (Mat. 14:27).

Ang Halaga ng Pagpapatotoo kay Kristo

Ano ang bago tungkol sa mga paring pinapaslang dahil sa kanilang pagpapatotoo kay Kristo? Ano ang bago tungkol sa mga propeta ng ating panahon na pinatatahimik ng mga traydor na bala ng mga mamamatay-tao? Ano ang bago tungkol sa mga pinunong-lingkod na nilalait dahil sa pagtataguyod nila ng kanilang tungkulin bilang mga pastol na sumusunod sa huwaran ng kanilang Punong Pastol? Nakalimutan na ba ninyo na “ang dugo ng mga martir ay binhi ng mga Kristiyano?” (Tertullian) Ito ang nagpanatiling-buhay sa Simbahan sa nakaraang dalawang-libong taon. Kaya huwag matakot! Hindi ba sinabi ng ating Panginoon, “Huwag matakot sa mga nakapapatay ng katawan ngunit hindi ng kaluluwa. Matakot kayo sa may kapangyarihang sumira ng kaluluwa pati ng katawan sa impiyerno.” (Mat. 10:28).

Hindi na bago sa atin ang hamakin at tuligsain. At anong sinasabi ng Panginoon sa kanyang mga alagad kapag sila’y tinutuligsa at hinahamak ng dahil sa kanya? Sinasabi niyang “Magsaya kayo at magalak” (Mat. 5:12). Ito rin ang mga pananalitang ginamit ng ating Papa Francisco sa panimula ng kanyang Apostolic Exhortation “Gaudete et Exsultate”. Ito ang pananalita ng ating Panginoon sa mga tinutuligsa at hinahamak alang-alang sa kanya. Paano tayo tinuturuang harapin ang mga pagtuligsa sa atin? Pakinggan natin ang sinabi ni Apostol San Pablo, “Inaalipusta kami at nagsasalita naman kami nang maayos; inuusig kami at kami nama’y nagtitiis. Kapag sinisiraan, kami’y nakikipag-ayos” (1 Cor. 4:12-13).

At paano natin haharapin ang pagkakahati-hati natin? Paano natin pakikisamahan ang kapwa nating “Kristiyano” na walang nakikitang masama sa pagpatay, na tumatawa na lamang sa tuwing ang Diyos ay nilalapastangan, at nakikiisa sa pagkakalat ng fake news o maling balita? Laging mayroong ilan sa atin na bagama’t nagpapahayag ng kanilang pananampalataya kay Kristo ay nagagawa pa ring magpalinlang sa mga hungkag na mga pangako ni Satanas. Naaalala ba natin ang nagkanulo kay Hesus sa halagang tatlumpung pirasong pilak sapagkat hinayaan n’ya ang kanyang sarili na magpagamit kay Satanas? Tama si San Pablo nang kanyang sabihing, “Kailangan pa palang magkaroon ng mga pangkat sa inyo upang makilala ang mga tunay at subok na sa inyo” (ESV 1 Cor. 11:19).

Ang Pagdurusa ng mga Mahihirap

Walang sinabi ang ating mga pinagdaraanan sa mga pagdurusa bilang mga lider ng Simbahan kumpara sa pagdurusa ng mga dukha sa ating bansa. Hindi ba tayo nagdurusa kapag ang mga iskwater ay ikinukulong sa simpleng dahilan ng pag-iistambay? Hindi ba tayo nagdurusa kapag ang tingin sa mga adik ay “hindi tao”, at ang kanilang adiksyon ay itinuturing kaagad bilang krimen kapag ang kanilang pangalan ay napasama sa kinatatakutang “drug watch lists”? Hindi ba nararapat natin silang tingnan bilang mga maysakit na pinahihirapan ng kanilang karamdaman? Hindi ba dapata natin silang tingnan na mga biktima na nangangailangan ng tulong? Magsasawalang-kibo na lamang ba tayo sa tuwing may mga taong pinapatay at itinatapong parang basura na lamang? Hindi ba natin naiisip na sa bawat pinapatay na pinaghihinalaang gumagamit ng droga, mayroong asawang nababalo at mayroong mga anak na nauulila – na hindi man lamang mabigyan ng maayos na burol at libing ang kanilang mahal sa buhay?  Continue reading