THE discourse on the proposal to amend the Constitution has filtered down from the halls of Congress to the countryside. Such initiative is backstopped by handpicked elite of retired magistrates and assorted academicians. To draw ensure mass support, the bureaucracy joined the caravan in tandem with the irrepressible drumbeaters of the administration.
Constitution-making or its revision is concededly transformative. It is akin to a social revolution. For at stake is not only the destiny of this generation of Filipinos but the yet to be borne. This particularly critical of a government in a representative democracy like ours.
But we must be reminded that our strength lies not in government but in the resiliency and industry of free men and women. Thus, it is imperative that our electorate be enlightened on the merits of the proposed amendment, including certain cardinal principles underlying our Constitution. For an informed constituency is a sine qua non towards the attainment of social equity and political stability as envisioned in the Constitution. On the contrary, ignorance on such paramount issues will only render the exercise of sovereign powers self-defeating and illusory.
To begin with, the Philippine Constitution is the highest law of the State to which “all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest official of the land must defer.” No one is above the law. Neither expediency nor noble intention justifies an illegal or despotic act.
Interestingly, under our republican form of government, the exercise of sovereign powers is delegated to duly elected and/or appointed public officials comprising the three major departments of government, namely: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. And because these delegated powers are not absolute, they are subject to limitations to prevent their use as tools of oppression against the very people who founded them for their benefit. The fact is that mankind is witnessed to abuses even in democratic regimes founded on freedom and human liberty.
As safety device, a system of checks and balances has been enshrined in our Constitution. Under this arrangement, along with the doctrine of separation of powers, the three major departments are each granted specific powers with which to check the others. To mention a few, the legislature, for instance, may override the veto of the President and revoke the proclamation of martial law. On the other hand, the President may disapprove bills passed by Congress and by way of pardoning power, he may modify or set aside the judgments of Courts.
With respect to the judiciary, the Supreme Court may declare legislative measures or executive acts unconstitutional and determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Congress or the President. There is a growing perception, though, that the Supreme Court as sacrosanct sentinel of Constitutional stability and rule of law contributed to the current sense of instability through subservience to the legislative and executive branches of government.
Having said that, it is disheartening that an anti-dynasty law which is viewed as a much-needed checks and balances mechanism, particularly in local politics has yet to be enacted. Indeed, the absence of an anti-dynasty law holds back the social and economic development of local governments which remained hostage to corruption and incompetence brought about by the strangle-hold of family—controlled political machinery at the local level. For who will dare denounce anomalies perpetuated in local public administration if the incumbents thereof are closely related to each other, either by affinity or consanguinity. An anti-political dynasty law will give opportunity to the election of dedicated, honest and service-oriented candidates unburdened by the vices of political dynasty.
Anyway, the central issues in the current agitation to amend the Constitution is the establishment of a Federal system of government vice the present unitary/highly centralized system of government.
The proponents contend that the Federal system will result: (1) in a more rational redistribution of governmental responsibilities and taxing powers within the State; (2) the transfer to the federated states the duty to determine and provide for the basic needs of their respective constituents, e.g., housing, infrastructure, education, medicare, and security, to mention a few; (3) substitution of local judgment and priority for those previously imposed by the national government based in Manila. In short, federalism is viewed as an indispensable step towards the conscious plan to disengage the central government from unwanted intrusions into areas more appropriately left to local governments.
Indeed, under the present highly centralized system of government, local political units are reduced to the status of robots where grants-in-aid and related financial dole-outs are tied by a tangle of regulations that distort priorities and encourage waste. The complaint is that too much overhead expenses and time wastage is incurred in following up essential financial assistance in imperial Manila and the bureaucrats below. In short, Federalism will reverse the flow of power and resources from the central government to the federated states and barangay communities and more importantly to the Filipino people all across the Philippine Archipelago.
But the attainment of the elusive common aspiration for a just and decent life for our people requires more than just diffusion of power, responsibility and resources that Federalism is aimed to bring about. It also requires the ascendancy of competent, dedicated and honest political leadership in the entire gamut of our local governments. The only way to make this happen is to embody anti-political dynasty as a self-executing provision in our Constitution. All the orchestrated attributes of Federalism will come to naught if the family-dominated political corporation at the local public administration will persist.