(Source: http://halalan.up.edu.

ph/viewpoints/by-experts/288-federalism-a-go-or-a-no)

Federalism: A go or a no?

By UPSIO on 12 May 2016

“It is about time that this issue is put to a serious national debate.”

These were the words that former Senator and now Muntinlupa Representative Rodolfo Biazon signed
on Joint Resolution No. 10 in 2008. This resolution sought to adopt federalism as the new form of
government, through charter change. The idea ultimately went to naught, but eight years on, new life is
being breathed into the idea of changing the government from a unitary form to a federal one.

Among the issues that raised the most red flags in the just-concluded presidential campaign, federalism
is now a serious possibility given the apparent victory of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte.

According to Professor Aries Arugay of UP Diliman Department of Political Science, Duterte seems to be
motivated by inequality and corruption in Mindanao in pushing for such change. Inequality and
corruption lead to economic backwardness, which in turn breeds the desire for secession or breaking
away from the mother country. Federalism for Duterte, would hit all these birds in one stone. Among
the then-presidential candidates, he was its sole, vocal advocate.

“He thought that by empowering the local governments further through a more federal setup and
therefore, [taking] away some powers from the national government, then it can help Mindanao
develop. And with development, ma-a-address na yung problem of inequality and corruption,” explains
Professor Arugay.

Professor Maria Ela Atienza, also of UP Diliman Department of Political Science, echoes this, adding that
Duterte is also motivated by the desire for peace, especially among the varied ethnolinguistic and
religious groups in Mindanao: “Many of the countries who decide to establish a federal system, isa sa
mga issues nila ay para may peace, to recognize ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions”. (Many of the
countries who decide to establish a federal system [do so because they have] peace issues and to
recognize ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions.)

But what exactly is federalism?

Federalism is concerned with the sharing of sovereignty. Among whom? One national (or federal
government) that encompasses all of a country, and several lower “state” or regional governments that
make up that country. This sharing of sovereignty or powers can mean that in a federal setup, the
federal government has the final say on matters such as monetary policy, national defense, and foreign
relations, whilst the regional or state governments have the last word on areas such as agriculture,
education, health, among others. In short, a federal government is so designed so that these two levels
of government are self-determining in there constitutionally-determined spheres of influence.
This is unlike the current unitary setup in the Philippines. In a unitary setup, the final say on all
government matters emanate from one central government. But although our country is unitary, its
central government delegates some powers and functions to legally recognized lower levels of
government. According to Professor Atienza, the central government maintains supervisory powers and
an important financial role (i.e., as funder) over these lower levels of government. This is
called devolution, a campaign issue that Senator Grace Poe has raised on several occasions.

You can see now where federalism and devolution differ. Although both of them are concerned with
somehow making governance easier by distributing responsibilities among different levels of
government, federalism gives more autonomy to governments immediately below the central (federal)
government, while devolution allows the central government to still have considerable control while
freeing itself from the more hands-on responsibilities.

Federalism, with its premise that would-be regional governments could take greater, even absolute,
control of their affairs, promises two things that are especially relevant to Mindanao: peace and
development. Peace, because armed secessionism would be tempered by unprecedented self-
determination as dictated by its constituents’ distinct ethnoreligious identity; development, because the
regions would finally be able to steer their own economic courses without the intervention of a central
government that in a unitary setup is perceived to be prioritizing some regions above others.

Not so fast though. Both Professor Atienza and Professor Arugay agree that Duterte has fallen short of
making a good case for federalism by failing to explain the specifics during the campaign. “The problem
is Duterte has not given us the details beyond just saying that nothing short of federalism will bring
peace to Mindanao…He has not really made any particular details on how it will be implemented,” says
Professor Arugay.

Professor Atienza, in particular, also wants a clearer picture of what kind of federalism Duterte wants to
establish in the country. “Kung Mindanao lang ang problema, kailangan bang magshift tayo safull
federalism?” the professor asks. (If Duterte’s only problem is the Mindanao situation, do we really need
to shift to a full federal system of government?)According to Professor Atienza, it might be possible to
emulate Spain, who gave more autonomy to regions such as Basque, Catalan, and Andalusia, while
maintaining more central or “unitary" hold on the other regions if Duterte seeks to address the
Bangsamoro problem in Mindanao. Spain’s model is called an asymmetrical federal setup.

Another concern is how federalism will affect the many political dynasties at the local level.

For Professor Arugay, federalism can aggravate the problem of political dynasties. He is particularly
concerned with how local political dynasties can have more consolidated regional power so they can
wield national influence. “Local political dynasties might be more empowered, and instead of regions
we’ll have fiefdoms, although we see that now…Kung mas maraming tao sa isang region, and if a
political dynasty can mobilize it, maybe that’s the way that they can [emerge as] national or federal
government-level dynasties,” the professor explains. (…If a region is considerably populated and a
political dynasty can mobilize it, maybe that’s the way that they can [emerge as] national or federal
government-level dynasties.)
However, Professor Atienza sees federalism as a way of breaking political dynasties, especially on the
regional level. While acknowledging that federalism can open up the system to more dynastic
influences, she sees the creation of regional governments in a federal setup as a way of “widening the
playing field.” Dynasties are extremely predatory within provinces but should fully functioning regional
governments be created, the provincial dynasties who would aspire to hold the regional power would
find the contest to be more competitive. “Maychance na ang mag-e-emerge ay ang best performing
dynasties,” she adds, with the competition also coming on the heels of a bigger electorate. (There’s a
chance that the best performing dynasty would emerge.)

Finally, a shift to federalism involves amending our Constitution. It remains to be seen how Duterte
would push his advocacy for federalism even further―he would have to contend with either calling for a
constitutional convention, asking Congress to convene as a constituent assembly, or leading a People’s
Initiative to formally start the process of charter change. Even after that he would need to have his
proposal ratified by all voters in a referendum.

(Source: https://x.rappler.com/x/xenonlequin/1449355234471-Why-Federalism-may-not-be-good-for-
the-Philippines)

Why Federalism may not be good for the Philippines

Federalism for the Philippines is an idea thrown around a lot these days, given the popularity of Duterte
and his staunch support of it. But do we really know what it means? And is it really what we need?

By Xenon Lequin

Updated December 6th 2015, 9:09:10 am

Many ideas are floating around on the internet from supporters of Duterte about the merits of
federalism for our country. And the principal reason for their support is that federalism supposedly
promotes more equitable distribution of government revenues under a scheme of "what they collect,
they keep," as compared to our current system, where major tax revenues are centrally administered at
the national level. The current system, they allege, is biased towards NCR when allocating resources,
to the detriment of the other provinces and regions. To sum up their argument: when taxes are
administered at the "state" level in a federal system, the LGUs and municipalities will have more funds
available to them compared to what they are getting in the current system.

However, supporters of federalism appear to be missing many points relevant to any kind of such move.
I'm afraid even they themselves are not aware of the full effects of such a transition and what it would
mean for our country. I'm not even sure if many of them realize what the true definition of federalism is,
aside from vaguely understanding it as "autonomous independent states under one federal governing
body." If we look into the question more closely, we will find that the issues are more complex than
they suppose, and the cause and effects are not as straightforward as they seem, as there are "hidden"
(hidden only for the less informed) factors that would have to be considered.
In the following items, I seek to expound why I do not support federalism, and the reasons and factors
that led to my stance:

1. Federalism does not necessarily solve the issue of unequal distribution of government revenues, and
may potentially worsen it.

It is not as if all the revenues in the current system are being swallowed by NCR and surrounding
regions, to the detriment of the remote provinces, as many federalism supporters will claim. A large part
of the national revenues still go back to the LGUs through a standardized formula as the IRA (internal
revenue allotment). The IRA system is actually a way to redistribute income from the wealthier
communities to the less wealthier ones: for small municipalities, IRA allocation may finance a greater
part of their budget compared to highly urbanized areas. Because the highly urbanized areas have
greater revenues from other sources, more of their budget can be financed with these other sources. In
the current scheme, it is actually the "generosity" of the larger cities which contribute to the
development of the smaller communities. If all tax revenues were kept at the point they originated, we
might actually see the wealthier municipalities getting more income and the poorer ones getting less,
resulting in a worsening wealth concentration problem.

While it is true that some of the budget are still allocated at the national level (by NEDA, for example,
which is headed by the president), it is not as if the process is wholly arbitrary and inherently biased
towards NCR. NEDA has regional offices, which can propose projects for their regions, for the
consideration of the national government. There may be perceived "biases" towards the highly
metropolitan areas, but this may simply be because these are the areas where the funds spent could
generate higher returns. Obviously, metropolitan areas have more people and more businesses, and
thus need more infrastructure and support. It should not be surprising for us that many of the highly
visible projects are there. But if the regions can make a good case for projects on their locations, they
should be able to make a proposal for it and escalate it to the proper local/regional/national agency for
prioritization and inclusion in the budget.

With the above, I believe that the current system is theoretically sound and overall does not need a
drastic revision (such as shift to federalism). If you feel that your town/province/region is not getting a
lot of projects right now, I don't think it is a problem with the budgeting and income distribution
framework. It is more likely because some official is embezzling the funds for your town, or the
development officials in your region are sleeping on their jobs. In these cases, it is a problem with the
officials; change government structures and systems all you want; if it is the same corrupt, lazy and
incompetent people running the show, nothing will change.

So, do we need federalism to promote equitable distribution of revenues? It does not seem so. The
current system actually looks good in structure, but what we urgently need is to implement an effective
framework or mechanism of oversight, accountability and transparency to ensure that our resources are
being used fairly and equitably. Also, the structure of government should be conducive to transparency
and efficiency. Will implementing the federal structure result in more transparency and efficiency? I
think not, as I will discuss in item 3 below.
2. Overall, Federalism would increase the cost of administration and government.

Duterte's supporters often speak of federalism, but I honestly don't have the vaguest idea of how
specifically they want to implement federalism in our country. I have not seen anything that would
describe Duterte's vision of federalism; but, assuming that we will draw from the US as an example, I
believe the key features to identify such a government would be as follows:

a. Each state will have its own executive department which will carry out the functions of the
government such as taxation, administration of basic services, budgeting, etc.

b. To check on the power of the executive department, each state should have a legislative department.
This department is responsible for drafting the basic laws of the state, and for checks-and-balance
functions such as approving the state budget drawn up primarily by the executive.

c. I think you know where this is going, but yes, since each state will have its own state-specific laws,
there should be a state-specific judicial department which is responsible for interpreting the laws
developed by the state legislature.

Whereas previously, the structure of the Philippine government is as follows:

National government > Provincial governments > City/municipality governments > Barangays

Under federalism, it would now look like the following:

National government > State government > Provincial governments > City/municipality governments >
Barangays

Stating the obvious, the state government needs money to pay for its officials and its infrastructure.
How would the state government get this money? You got it: more taxes, fees and debt. State taxation
is actually also a feature of federalism as implemented in the US.

It thus seems that proponents of federalism are pushing it supposedly to make more funds available for
their regions and municipalities, but they have failed to consider the incremental and continuing costs of
running this type of government, and the potential additional burden to citizens in the form of higher
taxes.

3. A larger government is not conducive to transparency and efficiency

A large and bloated government is not only costly, as discussed above, but can also be difficult to
oversee, unwieldy and inefficient. Our objective in the Philippines should be to reduce red tape and
bureaucracy and streamline the government, not to bloat it further by adding an additional layer.

Most modern, innovative businesses make a good case for streamlined, compact organizations. For
example, in my current organization, there are only 6 levels from the bottom to the top. The advantage
of this is that decisions are made faster and more efficiently (lesser approvals going up) and top level
management have a better grasp of what is occurring at all levels, including the grassroots (better
oversight).
In a compact organization, you would need less resources to control the activities of each of the
members, to ensure that each member is working within established rules or limits (in another analogy
to business, smaller internal audit/operational risk management group). As the size and complexity of an
organization grows, it becomes more difficult to identify and root out offending members, and
accountability also becomes an issue (with more people, it is harder to identify who is responsible for
what). This is precisely the current state of the Philippines.

To sum up, there is no assurance that LGUs and regions will receive more funding under a federal
system compared to our present system. What is likely to happen instead is that the revenues of high
income communities/regions will rise further, and those regions who have lower revenue generating
capacity may have their funding reduced. Also, federalism (if implemented in the way I described above)
will impose additional governing costs and inefficiency, since it adds a new layer of government, and
each state will have its own set of governing bodies and functions independent of other states. Also,
taxes will be imposed at both national and state levels. Finally, the Philippines should be working
towards having a more streamlined and transparent government, but implementing federalism seems
to be a step backwards on this.

What we need to resolve our fundamental governance problems are measures that enhance
transparency, accountability and efficiency of our government, and not a mere change in the
government structure

(Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/kami.com.ph/amp/18638-5-disadvantages-federalism-
philippines.html)

5 Disadvantages of federalism in the Philippines

Author: Ramona Laurel

UPDATED: 2 YEARS AGO

VIEWS: 16642

Category: Political News, Features

There is an ongoing debate in the Philippines if federalism is good or bad for the country as it is being
pushed by President Rodrigo Duterte.

A federal government will divide the Philippines into states with the national government focused on
nationwide issues such as foreign policy and national defense.

The autonomous regions or states will then be divided further into local government units that will have
primary accountability for their respective territory’s safety, security, transportation, education,
healthcare, culture, recreation and industry.
However, critics say that there are possible some negative effects if the country adopts a federal form of
government.

One way to form an opinion about this is to know the cons of federalism and learn about its dangers and
negative side.

So, what exactly are the disadvantages of federal government?

Here are five reasons – used by those who are against Duterte’s agenda – why federalism is not good in
the Philippines.

1. It might create further division and rivalries

Federalism could create a healthy competition among states but one negative effect of this system is
that it could lead to more rivalries and worse disunity among the Filipino people.

Decentralization of local governments might also worsen hostilities among ethnic groups, according to
critics.

2. Some states might lag behind

An argument used to explain why federalism is bad – in the Philippines, there are some states that are
probably not as ready to be autonomous compared to other states, which would create a lot of
problems.

Those who are against federalism say that the states that would perform poorly – probably those that
lack natural resources and skilled laborers – under a federal government would be in worse condition
than before because the national government would not be there to balance the situation and help out
with their predicaments.

3. Jurisdiction issues

A federal constitution might create a lot of confusion for both the citizens and the governments. The
amended constitution has to specify clearly the duties and obligations of the local governments and the
national government in order to prevent chaos and confusion in running the country.

4. Big costs

One of the arguments against federalism is that transforming the government into a federal system of
government is going to be expensive.

In order to transform our government into a federation, we would have to spend billions of pesos in
setting up federal states and delivering their services. The autonomous states will also have to spend a
lot of money just to set up and conduct elections for their new officials.

5. The Islamic separatists might continue to wreak havoc

Some of the radical Islamic separatists want to have their own country and not just a state. In our
country’s history, the formation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) did not stop
some of the terror groups from causing chaos and death in the country.
Now that you know the perceived bad effects, drawbacks and negatives of federal system, it would be
easier to have an opinion on whether to support Duterte’s federalism or not.

(Source: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/05/31/1588742/federalism-what-filipinos-need-
know)

Criticism and efforts to push for federalism

A change in the system of government requires a constitutional change and past attempts to push for
federalism in the country have failed.

In support of Joint Resolution No. 10 which got the backing of 16 senators, Bacolod Rep. Monico filed
the House Concurrent Resolution No. 15 in 2008.

Differing from the Senate resolution which called for the convening of Congress as a constituent
assembly to amend the Constitution, the House version included constitutional convention as an option.

As mandated by the 1987 Constitution, constitutional amendments could be made through a

Then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo supported the constituent assembly proposal of Pimentel.
Under this method, the Constitution states that any amendments to it may be proposed by Congress
"upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members."

Many, however, saw Arroyo's push for charter change as a ploy to extend her term.

"Charter change is and has been a sensitive topic for us," Go explained. "Any attempts to introduce
change is welcomed by protests and criticisms."

Critics are also wary that federalism will lead to fragmentation given the ethno-linguitic divide in the
country.

Many are also divided on whether it could strengthen regional communities or deepen the hold of
political dynasties.

"On the one hand, federalism may indeed empower local political elites and keep their hold of power.
On the other hand, the creation of state governments may pose as a challenge to political families in
different localities," Go explained.
(Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1019896)

Dominguez: Fiscal provisions of draft federal charter to lead to job losses

By: Ben O. de Vera - Reporter / @bendeveraINQ

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:31 PM August 10, 2018

Finance Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez III, the head of the Duterte administration’s economic team, on
Friday said the draft federal charter would widen the budget deficit, downgrade the country’s credit
ratings, and may lead to job losses and fewer funds for the administration’s infrastructure program.

While he and the economic team were not against federalism, Dominguez said in a statement that the
“ambiguous and unclear” fiscal provisions of the draft federal constitution should first be addressed.

“We welcome a discussion on the draft so that it is clear and unambiguous. We do not want the revenue
assignment and the expenditure assignment to be misunderstood, as what happened in the recent case
involving the internal revenue allotment of the local government units,” Dominguez said.

Repercussions

For Dominguez, “the possible repercussions could result in dire, irreversible economic consequences.”

If the fiscal provisions in the draft charter were to be implemented, “the federal government would
incur a deficit of 6.7 percent, which may result to a credit rating downgrade for the Philippines,” and,
subsequently, higher interest rates, Dominguez warned.

“To avoid this negative economic consequence and maintain the current deficit target of 3 percent, the
federal government will have to cut its expenditure program by P560 billion. This means the national
government may have to lay off 95 percent of its employees or reduce the funds for the ‘Build, Build,
Build’ program by 70 percent, or a combination of both,” according to Dominguez.

The government plans to roll out 75 “game-changing” flagship projects alongside spending up to P9
trillion on infrastructure until 2022 under its “Build, Build, Build” program.

Credit ratings

At the Senate finance committee hearing on the proposed 2019 national budget last Wednesday,
Dominguez said the Philippines’ investment-grade credit ratings, which makes it cheaper for the country
to borrow money, may “go to hell” while interest rates could rise by up to 6 percent under the “very
confusing” fiscal provisions of the draft federal constitution.

Credit ratings are a measure of a government’s creditworthiness. As the stability of state finances is also
related to a country’s performance, credit scores serve as a proxy grade for the economy.

Powers
“The draft constitution also enumerates the exclusive powers of the federal government and the
federated regions but is silent on the funding source for the exercise of these powers,” Dominguez
added.

“As we pointed out earlier, we never stated that we are against federalism. Rather, with respect to the
fiscal provisions of the proposed constitution, there are ambiguous provisions on revenue assignment
and there are no provisions on expenditure assignment. There are, likewise, principles on revenue
sharing that do not appear to be well-studied,” he said.

Source

For instance, Dominguez cited that “although the draft constitution provides for an equalization fund,
which shall not be less than 3 percent of the annual General Appropriations Act, it does not state
whether this will be taken from the share of the federal government or of the federated regions.”

He also noted that “the recently enacted Bangsamoro Organic Law provides for a 5-percent block grant”
but “it is not clear from whose share this will come from.”

“Given these ambiguities, it is our duty and responsibility to point these out and engage in a healthy,
level-headed discussion, especially when the possible repercussions could result in dire, irreversible
economic consequences. We believe that these should be set out clearly so that they adhere to the
principle that ‘funds follow function and ‘funds follow the program,’” according to Dominguez.

(Source:
https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/richardheydarian/2018/07/19/does-
federalism-make-sense-for-the-philippines/amp/)

Does Federalism Make Sense For The Philippines?

Richard HeydarianContributor

I write about Philippine economy and government policy

Next on Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s agenda is changing the country’s form of government
under a new constitution. The move has provoked a backlash among certain sections of society, ranging
from the business sector to the church and media, which have questioned the rationale for
constitutional change. A recent survey by Pulse Asia found that 67% of Filipinos oppose the change,
while only 18 percent were in favour and the other 14 percent were undecided.

Critics contend that the move is part of a plot to extend the president’s term in office. In response,
Duterte has sought to reassure the public that he will not extend his term beyond his constitutionally
mandated six years, which is due to end in mid-2022.
Leaving aside the conspiracy theories, a federal form of government, if enacted, will likely prove a bane
rather than a boon for the country. Federalism may end up only reinforcing socio-economic and ethno-
political fault lines in an already divided archipelagic nation.

The Federalist Blueprint

Last month, a special consultative committee, made up of leading jurists and political scientists who
were handpicked by the president, finalized the draft of a new constitution.

Duterte has already endorsed the draft, but the Philippine Congress is not under any obligation to adopt
it in its current form. Thus, the draft serves more as a reference point rather than the final substance of
a new constitution, which will have to be approved by a majority of the electorate in a future
referendum.

Nonetheless, the draft does provide some insights into the rationale of the pro-federalism camp, which
includes Duterte and his ruling party, PDP-Laban. Under the proposed constitution, the Philippines will
shed the unitary, centralized form of government it currently has in favor of a federal setup, not too
dissimilar from that of the U.S.

Under the new proposed constitution, the Philippines will be divided into 18 federated regions. Regional
states will have greater power over raising their own revenues, determining their own legislation and
choosing their economic development models.

By breaking distributing some of the powers currently residing in the country’s Manila-centric form of
government, Duterte and his supporters hope to bring more prosperity to its neglected peripheries.

Metro-Manila alone, which hosts barely 10% of the country’s population (103 million), accounts for
more than one-third (36.5%) of the country’s entire GDP.

Points for Concern

On paper, federalism seems well suited for the Philippines. In reality, however, it could become a recipe
for disaster in a country that is already divided by language, religion and economic inequality.

First of all, studies show that only a few regions are capable of raising enough taxes on their own. The
vast majority of provinces, which will be submerged into new federal states, lack the basic
administrative capacity for generating revenue. Not to mention duplication in taxes and further stress
on the nascent bureaucracy of peripheral regions under a federal arrangement.

Under a federal system, the richer states of the north will have even more resources to enhance their
competitiveness, thus deepening the developmental gap with other southern regions.

Even in prosperous nations like the U.S., the developmental gap between the rich coastal states of
California and New York, on one hand, and the southern and midwestern states, on the other, has
barely narrowed after two centuries of federalist experience.

In developing countries like India, Iraq and Nigeria, federalism has either failed to close developmental
gaps and ethno-communal tensions among various states or, more worryingly, in some cases reinforced
and reified them over the decades. In places such as Yugoslavia, a federal setup eventually collapsed
into a genocidal civil war.
Moreover, a federal system could further strengthen the power of political dynasties and warlords,
which control the Philippines’ peripheries. According to academic studies, around 178 so-called
“political dynasties” – politicians related by kinship and blood – control 73 out of 81 provinces across the
country. They also control up to 70% of the legislature, thus they seem likely to remove any proposed
restrictions on the proliferation of political dynasties.

Under a federal system, they are best positioned to dominate the newly created local legislature and
state institutions, further consolidating their grip on power in the country’s poorer regions. It’s no
wonder, then, that most surveys show the vast majority of Filipinos are either against constitutional
change or completely unaware of its implications.

(Source: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/07/18/pangilinan-questions-haste-in-federalism-push)

Pangilinan questions haste in federalism push

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Aug 07 2018 10:30 AM

MANILA - A hasty push for federalism may deprive the public of its chance to understand the issue, Sen.
Kiko Pangilinan said Tuesday.

If Congress approves proposed amendments to the charter that will pave the way for federalism, it can
be submitted to the public for ratification through a plebiscite that will be held alongside the May 2019
mid-term elections, according to the government's roadmap.

This will leave the public less than 10 months to understand federalism, said Pangilinan, who is leading
Senate hearings into the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

"Isasabay daw sa eleksyon so habang pinipili natin iyung mga kandidato para sa senador, kongresista,
gobernador, mayor, tinatalakay rin natin ang charter change," he told radio DZMM.

(They said it will be held alongside the elections, so as we choose senators, congressmen, governors and
mayors, we will also be discussing charter change.)

"Paano mapapalalim ang pag-unawa sa ating mga botante kung minamadali?" he said, adding the
plebiscite could be held in 2020 instead.

(How can we deepen the understanding of voters if we are in a hurry?)

The government has also yet to clarify where it draw funds to create federal states, which experts said
could be bankrolled by loans or higher taxes, he said.

The inter-agency body tasked to hold an information drive on federalism has also yet to pick out
spokespersons, Palace Communications Secretary Martin Andanar said in a separate DZMM interview.
The P10-million funds set aside for the information campaign may also be insufficient so the
government may seek help from media partners to disseminate information on federalism, he said.

(Source: https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/07/13/catholic-prelate-against-changing-present-constitution-
now/)

Catholic prelate against changing present Constitution now

Published July 13, 2018, 6:04 PM

By Leslie Ann Aquino

A Catholic prelate is opposed to changing the present Constitution at this time.

In his blog, Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo admitted that while the 1987 Constitution is not
perfect and can still be improved, but not at this time and not with this present congress and president.

The prelate believes federalism is being used as a “smokescreen” to bring about Cha-cha which is the
formula for total control of the country.

“President Duterte is presenting federalism as the magic wand to bring about prosperity to the whole
country and the way to bring about federalism is the change of the present constitution, cha cha, in
short,” Pabillo said.

“It is a control that is backed up by the new constitution they are proposing! We do not yet know this
new constitution but knowing the people who are behind this – Duterte and his minions – and knowing
who will craft this – the present congress convened as constitutional assembly – we can already guess
where this is heading. It will spell disaster to the Filipinos,” he added.

The bishop said he is saying no to Cha-Cha because the atmosphere in the country is not conducive to
critical participation.

There is also the haste, he said to make the cha cha.

“They want the plebiscite to be done this year. So there is no time for transparency, proper consultation
and discussion. But why the haste? There is a strong suspicion that the haste is to avoid the election of
2O19 so that those in the office can remain,” Pabillo said.

The head of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines Episcopal Commission on the Laity is
also convinced that Duterte is out for power.

Pabillo said they do not believe his “promise” to resign if the cha cha for federalism is already passed
since he also promised to do this in the past but never did.

The prelate also lamented the lack of independence of the Lower House which he said has become a
rubber stamp of the palace.
“The congressmen and women there no longer represent the people but their own families and political
interests. They do not have the good of the people at heart. They cannot be trusted. Nor are they
qualified too for changing the charter!” Pabillo said.

Instead of Cha-cha and federalism, he said people in government should address the real problems in
the country like the runaway inflation, the rise in prices of the basic goods, the atmosphere of
lawlessness with the continued killings of the poor, of church people and of politicians, the loss of our
territorial sovereignty, the weakening of our democratic institutions, the anger at the controlled and
uncalled for ranting of Duterte, among others.

The Sangguniang Laiko ng Pilipinas is also strongly opposed to the Cha-Cha.

“We do not believe in the timeliness of the process and its lack of transparency because we are
witnesses to a House of Representatives that acts as puppets of totalitarian executive,” the group said in
a statement signed by its president Julieta Wasan.

“We do not believe in the proposal to adopt a federal form of government that would apparently
guarantee a fairer distribution of resources among the regions, more participation in the political
process and a better life for all, yet giving vast powers to President Duterte between 2019 and 2022, and
impose more taxes on the people to support new structures and officials,” it further read.