8/14/26

My friends and countrymen, this is an explainer for Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, for which case I made in The Case for the conviction of Vice President Sara Duterte. For a moment on the fifteenth day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, a single Facebook post from a lawyer, one with no seat on the bench and no witness stand to answer from, threatened to become the day's biggest story. House private prosecutor Amando Virgil Ligutan posted a general statement about courtroom procedure. The defense called it a violation of Rule 18. The presiding officer promised a formal ruling. Before any citizen judges whether a Facebook post can derail a trial of this magnitude, the rule itself deserves a plain explanation.

What Rule 18 Actually Says

Rule 18 of the Senate's impeachment rules prohibits senators, House prosecutors, defense counsels, private counsels, and witnesses from making public comments or disclosures about the merits of a pending impeachment trial. In plainer terms, everyone with a formal role in the trial is barred from arguing their case anywhere except inside the Senate chamber itself. This is a version of what Philippine law more broadly calls the sub judice rule, a principle that prohibits public commentary on matters still awaiting a court's judgment, precisely so that public opinion, media pressure, or courtroom theater performed outside the courtroom cannot substitute for the evidence and arguments a tribunal is supposed to weigh on its own.

This is a concern the American founders themselves anticipated, long before Facebook existed to test it. Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 65 in 1788 to defend the Constitution's design for trying impeachments, warned that such trials would rarely be decided on evidence alone, since the charges almost always touch matters that divide the public into rival camps before a single witness testifies. Hamilton's fear was that the accused's fate would turn on the comparative strength of the two parties rather than a fair demonstration of guilt or innocence, with the community choosing sides long before the tribunal rendered its verdict. Rule 18 answers a version of the same fear Hamilton raised two centuries earlier: that a trial conducted partly in public argument, rather than wholly within the chamber built to weigh it, ceases to be a trial in any meaningful sense at all.

The purpose is straightforward. A trial's integrity depends on the judges deciding the case based on what happens inside the proceeding, not on what lawyers post to their followers while the gavel is still in session. Impeachment court spokesperson Regie Tongol, addressing a separate Rule 18 controversy earlier in this same trial, put the principle plainly: senator-judges "are even more covered" by the rule than the lawyers arguing before them, since impeachment is inherently a political process, and any appearance that a judge has already formed an opinion risks damaging public confidence in the verdict itself.

What Actually Happened on Day 15

The controversy began during a heated cross-examination exchange between private prosecutor Lorna Kapunan and defense counsel Kristine Ferrer, in which Ferrer appeared to argue that misleading questions were permissible during cross-examination. At 11:29 that morning, Ligutan posted to Facebook a reminder that "misleading questions are not allowed even in cross-examination."

Lead defense counsel Sheila Sison raised the issue in a formal manifestation before the court, arguing the post mischaracterized Ferrer's courtroom position, disrespected a fellow member of the bar, and violated Rule 18's ban on public commentary about the case's merits. Ligutan defended himself to reporters afterward, saying his post named no one and referenced no case, and that he was confident he knew exactly where the line was and had not crossed it.

Presiding Officer Francis Escudero did not rule from the bench. He told the floor that he had directed the clerk of court to monitor counsels' public statements throughout the week, and observed that one side had been "crossing the line many, many times." He promised a formal ruling, warning, and order at the next trial date.

This Was Not the First Time

Weeks earlier, in June, Senator Robin Padilla, one of the senator-judges hearing the case, posted on Facebook defending his own courtroom questions about the authenticity of video evidence presented at trial. Tongol, the court spokesperson, confirmed that senator-judges are bound by Rule 18 as well, and warned that public statements suggesting bias could undermine confidence in the court's eventual decision. The Ligutan controversy is therefore not an isolated incident but the second public test of the same rule within a single trial, a pattern worth watching as the proceedings continue.

Two Honest Perspectives

Those who see merit in the defense's complaint argue that the timing and content of Ligutan's post make its target obvious even without naming names. A statement about misleading cross-examination questions, posted minutes after a public exchange in which the defense had just argued the opposite position, functions as public commentary on the case regardless of whether a name appears in the text. Under this reading, Rule 18 exists precisely to prevent lawyers from litigating their case in the court of public opinion between recesses, and a technical absence of names does not cure that.

Those unpersuaded by the complaint counter that Rule 18, as written, prohibits comment on the merits of the case, meaning the underlying facts, the guilt or innocence of the Vice President, the strength of the evidence, not general statements of settled legal principle. Representative Terry Ridon made this argument directly, asking whether the post named a person or discussed the case's merits and concluding it did neither. Under this reading, a lawyer restating a rule every law student learns in evidence class is teaching, not litigating, and treating every adjacent public statement as a Rule 18 violation would leave lawyers unable to discuss the law at all while a trial is ongoing.

Both readings rest on a genuine ambiguity in the rule itself: whether "the merits" means only direct commentary on guilt or innocence, or extends to any public statement whose obvious context relates to a specific courtroom dispute. Presiding Officer Escudero's own choice to draft a formal ruling rather than decide the matter immediately suggests the ambiguity is real enough to deserve careful resolution rather than a snap judgment from the bench.

Why This Matters Beyond the Courtroom

A citizen with no interest in impeachment law might reasonably ask why a lawyer's Facebook post deserves this much attention. The answer lies in a broader principle that touches every Filipino who has ever followed a court case in the news, or discussed one with a neighbor. Sub judice rules exist because trials are supposed to be decided by evidence presented and tested inside a courtroom, not by whichever side manages to dominate public conversation while the case is pending. The same principle that restrains Ligutan restrains a barangay official commenting publicly on a pending case against a political rival, or a company executive posting about ongoing litigation involving a competitor, or, for that matter, any citizen serving on a jury who might be tempted to discuss the case with family before a verdict is reached.

The Philippine Supreme Court took this principle seriously enough to formally rule, in a matter involving former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, that a public official's campaign of public statements about her own pending case violated the same sub judice standard now at issue in Ligutan's post, showing that this is not a minor procedural nicety invented for this trial but an established doctrine with real consequences reaching all the way to the nation's highest court.

My friends and countrymen, whether one Facebook post crossed a legal line is, in the end, a narrower question than the principle it tests. The principle is this: that citizens are entitled to a verdict reached through evidence weighed in the open chamber, not through whichever lawyer's post gained the most shares before the next recess.

Long live the rule of law, and long live the Republic of the Philippines!

The post EXPLAINER: Understanding Rule 18 - What the Ligutan Facebook Controversy Actually Means first appeared on Marcial's Law.

7-24-26

My friends and countrymen, this is an explainer for Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, which I mentioned in The Case for the conviction of Vice President Sara Duterte. On the seventh day of the trial, Senator Pia Cayetano raised an objection that many watching on television or scrolling through social media likely found confusing. She spoke of a "poisonous tree" and its "fruit." No plant was on trial, of course. She was invoking a legal doctrine, and it deserves an explanation in plain language before any citizen forms a judgment on whether her objection was sound. Her brother, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, raised a second and equally important legal question days later, one that turns on a distinction many citizens use loosely without realizing it carries a precise legal meaning: the difference between wealth that is merely unexplained and wealth that is proven ill-gotten. Both objections deserve a plain explanation before any citizen judges whether they were sound.

What the Doctrine Actually Says

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds a simple idea: if the source of a piece of evidence was obtained illegally, then anything that grows out of that evidence, anything discovered because of it, is likewise tainted and should not be used in court. The tree is the illegal act. The fruit is everything that comes after it. If the tree is poisoned, the fruit cannot be clean, no matter how useful or damning it turns out to be.

Consider an everyday illustration. Suppose a police officer breaks into a person's home without a warrant and finds a ledger detailing a crime. If a court later allows that ledger into evidence, it rewards the illegal entry. Worse, if that ledger leads investigators to a second location, and a second illegal search turns up a weapon, the doctrine says the weapon cannot be used either, because the entire chain of discovery began with an unlawful act. The remedy is not to punish the officer alone. It is to remove the incentive for any officer to break the law in the first place, by making sure the fruits of that violation are worthless in court.

Where This Doctrine Comes From in Philippine Law

The concern is older than the Philippine Republic itself, and older than the United States as well. In 1761, a Boston lawyer named James Otis stood before a colonial court and argued against British "writs of assistance," general warrants that let customs officials search any home or warehouse without specifying what they sought. A young John Adams watched from the courtroom and later wrote that American independence was born that day. The grievance ran deep enough that the founders wrote its remedy directly into the Fourth Amendment, requiring every warrant to describe with particularity the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

The Philippine Supreme Court applied this very reasoning in Stonehill v. Diokno, a landmark 1967 ruling that struck down evidence gathered against an American businessman under warrants so broad they authorized searches of nearly anything, anywhere, described only in general terms. The Court ruled that such general warrants violated the constitutional right against unreasonable searches, and that evidence obtained under them could not be used, regardless of what that evidence revealed.

There is a striking irony worth noting plainly. The very case Senator Cayetano invoked was decided against the father of the current lead private prosecutor questioning witnesses in this trial, Chel Diokno. The same precedent, coincidentally, was raised by Chief Justice Renato Corona's defense team during his own impeachment trial in 2012.

What Senator Cayetano Actually Argued

Senator Cayetano's specific objection concerned the Anti-Money Laundering Council, or AMLC, and whether it had legal authority to disclose Vice President Duterte's financial records to the House of Representatives committee that was investigating her. Her argument, reduced to its simplest form, was this: if the AMLC had no legal basis to hand over that information in the first place, then the tree from which the entire financial case grew was poisoned, and everything built on top of it, the House committee's findings, the subpoenas, the allegations, should not be admitted.

The Prosecution's Answer

Prosecutor Chel Diokno offered a narrower reading of the relevant statute. He argued that Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act was written to prevent individual AMLC officials from leaking financial information on their own initiative, not to block a subpoena issued by a lawful tribunal such as an impeachment court. A subpoena from a constitutionally recognized body, in his view, is a fundamentally different legal act than an unauthorized leak, and the poisoned-tree analogy does not stretch to cover it.

A Related Objection: Two Different Kinds of Wealth

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano raised his own objection in the same exchange, pressing the prosecution on whether the House had actual evidence before it began investigating, or whether it went looking for evidence only after deciding Duterte was guilty. His questioning did not stop there. He pushed further into a distinction worth understanding on its own, since it turns on two terms that sound similar but mean very different things in law. He asked Diokno directly, "Do you have the evidence, or are you fishing for the evidence?" His deeper concern was whether a mere gap between what Duterte declared as income and what she actually owned was enough, by itself, to justify subpoenaing years of her financial life before she had any chance to explain that gap herself.

Here is the distinction his question rested on. Unexplained wealth is a description. It simply means a public official's recorded wealth exceeds what her lawful income can account for, and no explanation has yet been given for the difference. Ill-gotten wealth is a conclusion. It means that gap has been examined and found to come from an unlawful source. Cayetano's worry was that treating the first term as though it already proved the second would let prosecutors search first and justify the search later.

Diokno's answer rested on a specific law, Republic Act No. 1379, which governs the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property. That statute holds that when a public official's wealth is manifestly disproportionate to her lawful income, and she cannot explain the difference, the law presumes the excess was unlawfully acquired, unless she rebuts that presumption with an explanation of her own. Diokno offered a simple illustration: wealth traceable to an appreciated land sale would be explained wealth, and only the records themselves, not an assumption of guilt, would reveal which kind Duterte's is. His closing line to the court captured the whole exchange: "That's precisely why, your honor, they call it 'unexplained wealth.'" The term itself, in other words, is not an accusation. It is the legal trigger that requires an official to speak up before the presumption against her hardens into something worse.

The Senate impeachment court, weighing all of these arguments, ruled in favor of issuing the subpoenas. Both objections were heard fully and fairly. Neither prevailed at this stage.

Two Honest Perspectives

A fair explainer must present both sides as their strongest advocates would, and let the reader judge.

Those who see merit in Senator Cayetano's objection point out that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches exist precisely to restrain the government when it is investigating the powerful, not only the powerless. If institutions can quietly hand over any citizen's financial data without proper legal basis, then no one, prominent or ordinary, is protected. A senator raising this objection loudly and publicly, they argue, does the nation a service by forcing prosecutors to prove their evidence was gathered lawfully rather than assuming lawfulness because the target is unpopular.

Those skeptical of the objection counter that Senators Pia Cayetano and Alan Peter Cayetano are widely known allies of the Duterte family, and that raising a procedural objection this technical, this late, and this specific to a single disclosure mechanism, functions as a delay tactic rather than a genuine constitutional concern. They further note that an impeachment court is not a criminal court bound by the same exclusionary rules developed for criminal prosecutions, and that Congress's oversight power to investigate a public official's conduct in office operates on a different constitutional footing than a police officer's power to search a private home.

A similar split exists over Senator Alan Peter Cayetano's unexplained-wealth question. Those sympathetic to his concern argue that due process matters even for the powerful, and that no official should have years of financial records exposed on the strength of an income gap alone, without first being asked to explain it. Those unpersuaded reply that Republic Act No. 1379 was written precisely to place that burden on the official, not on the accuser, and that Diokno's answer did not sidestep the law but applied it exactly as the legislature intended: the presumption exists so that citizens are not left waiting years for proof that may never surface if the official controls all the relevant records.

Both positions rest on real legal principles. Neither is frivolous. The impeachment court chose to allow the evidence, but that ruling settles the immediate procedural question. It does not settle the broader debate over how far this doctrine should reach into congressional investigations, a debate legal scholars will continue long after this trial concludes.

Why This Matters to Every Filipino, Not Just Politicians

Here is the doctrine's practical relevance for readers who have never appeared before a Senate impeachment court and likely never will. The same protection Senator Cayetano invoked for Vice President Duterte is the protection an ordinary Filipino would invoke if police searched a home without a warrant and used what they found to build a criminal case, or if a barangay official accessed a person's bank records without legal authority and passed them to a rival for political leverage. It is the same principle cited in countless drug war cases nationwide, where defense lawyers have argued that evidence planted or seized without a valid warrant should never have reached a courtroom. It is the same principle a small business owner would rely on if a local government unit obtained financial records through an improper channel and used them to justify a politically motivated tax investigation.

The unexplained-wealth presumption has its own everyday counterpart, one many Filipinos already recognize by another name: the lifestyle check. When a barangay captain drives a vehicle worth many times her declared salary, or a customs employee builds a house no ordinary government paycheck could finance, ordinary citizens invoke the very same logic Diokno used in the impeachment court, that an unexplained gap between income and lifestyle is itself grounds for scrutiny, not proof of innocence until someone else proves the theft. This is not a special rule invented for a vice president. It is the same rule a barangay assembly can invoke against its own captain.

The doctrine exists because the government's power to gather evidence must be paired with a government that follows its own rules while gathering it. When a senator invokes it on behalf of a vice president, and a public school teacher's lawyer invokes the identical principle defending a student wrongly implicated by an illegal search, they are standing on the same constitutional ground. That ground either holds for everyone or it protects no one.

My friends and countrymen, understanding these two doctrines is not merely an academic exercise for lawyers and senators. Each is one of the walls the Constitution and our laws have built between citizens and the power of the state, walls that stand whether the person behind them is a vice president or a jeepney driver.

Long live the rule of law, and long live the Republic of the Philippines!

The post EXPLAINER: Understanding Two Objections at VP Sara Duterte’s Impeachment Trial---"The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" and "Unexplained Wealth" first appeared on Marcial's Law.

7-21-26

Updated:

7-25-26

My friends and countrymen, the Senate of the Philippines now sits as an impeachment court to try Vice President Sara Duterte for the second time in her single term of office, a distinction held by no other Filipino official since the restoration of our democracy in 1986. The House has already impeached her; what remains is whether the Senate will convict. The trial that began on July 6, 2026, is not a spectacle of dynastic rivalry, however much the Marcos-Duterte feud tempts commentators to treat it as one. It is a constitutional proceeding grounded in specific articles, specific sums of money, and a specific threat against the life of a sitting president. I have compiled the evidence for your consideration, and I trust you, as I always have, to draw the conclusion it demands.

The Constitutional Foundation

Article XI, Section 3(5) of the 1987 Constitution bars a second impeachment complaint against the same official within one year of the first. This is precisely why Duterte's first impeachment, initiated in February 2025, was struck down by the Supreme Court in July 2025 on procedural grounds, and precisely why the four complaints filed in February 2026 waited until the one-year bar expired before they were formally initiated. The process that produced the current Articles of Impeachment on May 11, 2026, when 257 of 318 House members voted to impeach her, followed the very roadmap the Supreme Court itself laid down. This is not a shortcut. It is compliance with the Court's own ruling.

Once the Articles reached the Senate, the Constitution left no room for delay or dismissal. Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio stated plainly that once the Articles of Impeachment are submitted to the Senate, trial must proceed at once, and that the process cannot be terminated by a mere motion to dismiss. Carpio noted further that the Constitution's own Filipino-language text uses the word "forthwith," meaning immediately, leaving no ambiguity for senators inclined to slow-walk the proceedings. This is not a partisan reading. It is the plain text of our founding law.

The Legal Grounds

The Articles of Impeachment allege culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, bribery, and other high crimes. Article I concerns the alleged misuse of confidential funds: P500 million from the Office of the Vice President and P112.5 million from the Department of Education during her tenure as its secretary, totaling roughly P612.5 million. The Commission on Audit itself flagged P125 million of these confidential funds in July 2023 for having been spent in full within eleven days. Under Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, public officials who fail to account for public funds entrusted to them face both administrative and criminal liability, a standard the Commission on Audit's own finding of an eleven-day disbursement window was designed to test.  Article II concerns unexplained wealth disproportionate to her lawful income. Article III concerns bribery and procurement irregularities at the Department of Education. Article IV concerns her documented threat against the lives of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

It is worth stating plainly what impeachment is and is not. It is not a criminal trial, and conviction here would not brand Duterte a felon; it would only end her tenure and bar her from future office. The Constitution set a lower threshold, betrayal of public trust, precisely because the public should not have to wait years for a criminal court before removing an official found unfit to hold power.

House Representative Terry Ridon, one of the complainants, described the scale of the flagged transactions as impossible to explain through lawful income or declared assets, calling the House vote a constitutional act of accountability rather than a political exercise. Regardless of the complainant's motives, the underlying claim is a legal one, and it deserves a legal answer, not a political one.

Duterte's counsel calls the case against her baseless and the product of a family feud with the Marcos administration. The prosecution calls the same set of facts a matter of public trust owed to the electorate. Both claims cannot be weighed by rhetoric. They can only be weighed against the Commission on Audit's own findings, the AMLC's own reports, and the Vice President's own recorded words, none of which originate with her political rivals.

The defense's strongest procedural objection came not from Duterte's own counsel but from the bench itself. Senator Pia Cayetano, presiding as a judge in the case, invoked the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine during the trial's seventh day, questioning whether the Anti-Money Laundering Council had any legal basis to disclose Duterte's financial records to the House committee in the first place. Her brother, Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, pressed the same concern from a different angle, asking prosecutor Chel Diokno directly whether the House possessed evidence of wrongdoing or had impeached first and gone looking for evidence afterward. Both senators invoked Stonehill v. Diokno, a 1967 Supreme Court ruling that struck down evidence gathered under an unconstitutional general warrant, a precedent that happens to have been decided against the prosecutor's own father and was previously raised in Renato Corona's defense as well.

The prosecution's answer rested on a narrower reading of the statute. Diokno argued that Section 8-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act was written to prevent unauthorized leaks by individual AMLC officials, not to bar a subpoena issued by a lawful tribunal, including an impeachment court. Senator Cayetano pressed further still, asking Diokno directly, "Do you have the evidence, or are you fishing for the evidence?" His concern was one of definition as much as procedure. Unexplained wealth and ill-gotten wealth are not the same claim. The first describes a gap between declared income and actual net worth. The second describes a conclusion that the gap was filled unlawfully, and Cayetano questioned whether the prosecution was permitted to subpoena a lifetime of financial records before Duterte had any chance to close that gap herself.

Diokno's answer rested on Republic Act No. 1379, the law governing forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property, which holds that a documented gap of this kind creates a prima facie presumption that the excess was unlawfully obtained, a presumption the official may rebut with her own explanation. Wealth traceable to an appreciated land sale would be explained wealth, Diokno said, and only the records themselves, not an assumption of guilt, would show which kind Duterte's is. "That's precisely why, your honor, they call it 'unexplained wealth,'" he told the court. The impeachment court weighed both arguments and ruled in favor of the subpoenas. The objection was heard. It did not prevail. Even so, five senator-judges, Alan Peter Cayetano, Pia Cayetano, Loren Legarda, Imee Marcos, and Camille Villar, later filed separate manifestations registering continued reservations about the subpoena's scope. The ruling settled the procedure. It did not settle every judge's mind.

The Criminal Exposure

Beyond the impeachment court, Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, face independent criminal exposure. The Anti-Money Laundering Council confirmed that banks submitted 630 covered transaction reports and 33 suspicious transaction reports tied to accounts linked to the couple, amounting to roughly P6.77 billion in transactions dating back to 2006. Suspicious transaction reports of this volume are the statutory trigger under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, Republic Act 9160, for further civil forfeiture and criminal investigation, independent of whatever the Senate decides. The National Bureau of Investigation separately reported that handwriting analysis found signatures on confidential-fund liquidation documents inconsistent with authentic specimens, a finding at the center of allegations of falsification. None of these findings are convictions. They are, however, documented findings by government agencies charged with exactly this kind of forensic work, and they establish that Duterte's legal exposure does not end even if the Senate acquits her.

The Moral Argument

Here is where the case rests most heavily, my friends. Betrayal of public trust is not merely a legal category under our Constitution. It is a moral standard, and it applies to every official regardless of family name, regardless of popularity, and regardless of which political dynasty they descend from. Duterte's own words, delivered in a profanity-laced broadcast in November 2024, included an instruction that if she were killed, someone should go kill the President, the First Lady, and the former Speaker. She has never disavowed the remark as a joke. In fact, she said so herself immediately after making the threat, repeating the phrase for emphasis: "No joke. No joke."

Senior NBI Agent John Mark Calilung, the prosecution's first witness, testified under oath that the threat was absolute, telling the impeachment court it did not depend on Duterte's own survival to become real. A second NBI officer, Regional Director Jeremy Lotoc, went further days later, calling the threat "serious, actual, and real" and warning that leaving it unaddressed risked plunging the country into chaos. Two officers from the same bureau, testifying on separate days, reached the identical conclusion independently. Duterte's own defense is that the threat was conditional revenge, activated only by her own death, and therefore protected as an exercise of free expression rather than a genuine, actionable threat. Calilung's testimony that the threat was absolute cuts against this framing directly. A threat need not be immediate to be real: it commits a named person to kill three others the moment a single condition is met, and it is the commitment, not its timing, that the law treats as the offense.

On the trial's eighth day, NBI Director Melvin Matibag added a third layer of evidence, presenting the court with video from 2011 showing Duterte, then mayor of Davao City, striking a court sheriff four times during a property dispute. Matibag testified that pattern of violence is one of five factors the NBI weighs when assessing whether a threat is serious, a framework the bureau has said is modeled on the one used by the United States Secret Service. As part of that same assessment, Matibag testified that his task force had reviewed an affidavit filed with the International Criminal Court by former Davao police officer Arturo Lascañas, alleging Duterte's own involvement in the anti-drug operation known as Oplan Tokhang, the very operation at the center of her father's pending ICC prosecution. The following day, under cross-examination by the defense, Matibag went further still, testifying that Duterte's own statement was already an admission consummating a betrayal of public trust, since her oath of office bound her to execute the law and do justice to every man, not to execute the President. The defense moved to strike the remark from the record. The motion was overruled.

The record shows the assassination threat did not stand alone. In October 2024, Duterte warned Senator Imee Marcos that she would dig up her father's remains and throw them into the West Philippine Sea. Weeks earlier, she had publicly described her fantasy of beheading Marcos Jr.

Surely, Duterte, being a trained legal mind, does not need to be told that a documented pattern of this kind carries evidentiary weight in a court of impeachment. Indeed, a public official entrusted with the second-highest office in the land owes the nation sobriety in moments of crisis, not incitement, especially one elected by 32,208,417 voters--- the highest vote total of any vice-presidential candidate in Philippine history.

In 2012, the Senate convicted and permanently disqualified Chief Justice Renato Corona on a fraction of the documented irregularities now before it. A standard applied to a chief justice cannot quietly become optional for a vice president simply because her father commands a national following. The same standard I would apply to any official of any party, I apply here: documented misuse of public funds, a documented threat against the life of a president, and documented financial irregularities running into the billions of pesos are not matters that any elected official, however popular, should escape simply because a two-thirds vote in a divided Senate is difficult to secure.

Verdict

The evidence assembled here is not speculation. It is drawn from the Commission on Audit, the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the National Bureau of Investigation, sworn House testimony, and the Vice President's own recorded words. Even senator-judges sympathetic to Duterte's cause raised their strongest procedural objection to this evidence and lost. The Constitution requires 16 of 24 senators to convict. Whether the Senate finds the political courage to reach that number remains uncertain, given the shifting allegiances within that chamber. But the question before every citizen, Filipino and American observer alike, is not whether Sara Duterte is popular. It is whether a public officer who threatens the life of a sitting president and stands accused of misappropriating hundreds of millions of pesos in confidential funds should be permitted to remain a heartbeat from the presidency. Which standard would you rather see applied to those who govern you: the standard of loyalty to a name, or the standard of loyalty to the Constitution?

One more fact belongs on the record before you answer. Duterte herself has not once appeared before the court since the trial began on July 6. On July 16, with travel authority approved by the Office of the President, she left the country on a trip that included a stop in The Hague, the same city where her father remains in International Criminal Court detention awaiting his own trial for crimes against humanity. The House prosecution panel's farewell was brief and pointed. "Safe travels and happy trip, and hope she'll be back soon," said Representative Zia Alonto Adiong, the panel's spokesman.

My friends and countrymen, there is no shame in demanding accountability from those we once trusted. There is only shame in looking away.

Long live the rule of law, and long live the Republic of the Philippines!

The post The Case for the Conviction of Vice President Sara Duterte first appeared on Marcial's Law.

7/9/26

My friends and countrymen, both American and Filipino, on July 6, 2026, the Senate impeachment court of the Republic of the Philippines opened the trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, and within the first half hour, before a single witness was called, the senator-judges were locked in a constitutional dispute over who was even permitted to hold the gavel. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, the ousted Senate President, insisted that only the sitting Senate President could preside over the trial. Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian and the majority bloc disagreed, and by a vote of 12 to 8, the court elected Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero to preside instead. This dispute is not merely a Philippine curiosity. It sits atop the same constitutional silence that the United States has wrestled with since 1787, and understanding how the two nations have handled that silence tells us something important about what each constitutional order actually protects.

What Both Constitutions Actually Say

Article XI, Section 3, Paragraph 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that when the President is on trial, the Chief Justice presides but does not vote, and conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. The American original is nearly identical in structure. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution provides that the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments, and that when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside, with conviction requiring the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

Both documents name a presiding officer for exactly one scenario: the impeachment of the sitting president. Both documents are silent on every other case. This is not an oversight. It is a structural choice, and Cayetano built his entire argument on the theory that the framers of both nations left that silence intentional in a specific direction, toward the Senate President by default.

Why the Chief Justice Only Presides for the President

The American rationale is documented and specific. The Chief Justice presides over a presidential trial because the ordinary presiding officer of the Senate is the Vice President, and the Vice President cannot be permitted to preside over the proceeding that could elevate him to the presidency. As the Library of Congress's Constitution Annotated explains, the framers built this exception around a specific danger: a sitting Vice President judging the very trial that might hand him the presidency. That risk was not theoretical in the founding era, when a President and Vice President could come from opposing factions rather than a single ticket, as the pre-Twelfth Amendment system allowed.

The Philippines inherited this same design, and for the same reason. Neither constitution asked the Chief Justice to preside as a general safeguard of gravitas. Both asked him to preside to solve one specific conflict of interest, and only that one.

What Hamilton's Reasoning Suggests, and What It Does Not

America's founders left no record addressing a Vice President's own impeachment trial directly, and honesty requires saying so before saying anything else. However, Alexander Hamilton did explain, in Federalist 65, why the Senate was entrusted with impeachment at all, and why the Chief Justice's role was carved out as narrowly as it was. Hamilton considered and rejected uniting the Supreme Court with the Senate as the impeachment tribunal, reasoning that the same judges might later face the convicted official again in a criminal proceeding, and that having tried him once, they could not be trusted to judge him a second time without prejudice. Giving the Chief Justice a seat only in presidential trials was, in Hamilton's own words, "the prudent mean" between two flawed extremes, a partial adoption of judicial involvement without its full cost.

That reasoning was built for one specific problem: the Vice President, as the Senate's ordinary presiding officer, could not be trusted to preside over a trial that might elevate him to the presidency he stood to inherit. Nothing in Hamilton's argument addresses what happens when the Vice President is not the beneficiary of the trial's outcome but its subject. The founders solved the conflict they saw coming. They left unaddressed the one they did not.

This matters for both nations weighing the current dispute. It means the American constitutional design was never silent by accident on the presidential case, and never silent by oversight on the vice-presidential case either. It was silent because the specific problem of a sitting Vice President as defendant did not present itself to a convention working from the more urgent fear of executive overreach. Cayetano's framers'-intent argument in Manila rests on an actual, documented convention exchange. An American framers'-intent argument on this exact question would rest on inference from adjacent reasoning, not a comparable exchange, and the piece should not claim more certainty for one side than the record permits.

The Genuinely Unsettled Question: Who Presides Over a Vice President's Trial?

Here the comparison sharpens considerably, because the American Constitution has never actually answered who presides when a Vice President, not a President, stands trial. The Congressional Research Service's own account of Senate impeachment procedure confirms the gap directly: outside the four requirements the Constitution itself specifies, the Senate writes its own rulebook for every trial, and no rule in that book has ever named who takes the gavel when a Vice President, rather than a President, sits in the dock. No provision addresses a sitting Vice President as defendant, and it is doubtful the Vice President would be permitted to preside over their own trial, since as president of the Senate, the Vice President would ordinarily preside over every other impeachment. Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 before it came to that. The question Cayetano and Gatchalian argued over in Manila this month is, in the American system, not a resolved precedent at all. It is an open constitutional gap, no different in kind.

Precedent for a Senate-Elected Presiding Officer

The United States has, however, tested a related question and settled it by vote rather than by court order. During Donald Trump's second impeachment trial in 2021, Senate Republicans argued the Chief Justice was constitutionally required to preside even after Trump had left office, though that objection was entangled with a separate dispute over whether a former officeholder could be tried at all. The Senate rejected the presiding-officer argument by a vote of 55 to 45, and Senator Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore, presided instead. That is the closest American analogue to what happened in Manila. A minority raised a constitutional objection to the presiding officer's authority. The body did not accept the objection as self-executing. It put the question to a vote and moved forward with its chosen presiding officer.

The parallel extends further into procedure. Under long-standing Senate precedent, constitutional points of order in impeachment trials are not ruled on by the presiding officer alone. They are submitted to the full body for a vote. This is precisely what Escudero did when he declined to rule on Cayetano's objection himself and instead treated the matter as one for the Senate to resolve through the ballot, a procedural instinct both chambers apparently share.

Where the Two Situations Diverge

Here the parallel breaks, and it breaks in a way that matters more than the presiding officer question itself. The American precedent involved no dispute over whether Leahy was validly the President pro tempore, nor any question about whether the session that seated him was properly convened. The fight was confined to the single constitutional question on the table.

The Philippine dispute is layered atop a second, unresolved crisis: whether the June 3, 2026 Senate session that removed Cayetano as Senate President, installed Gatchalian, and amended the impeachment rules was itself valid. Petitioners before the Supreme Court, in a Very Urgent Manifestation with Motion filed the same day the trial opened, cite Senate attendance records showing only 12 of 24 senators present at that session and argue that if it lacked a proper quorum, everything built upon it, including the amended rule and Escudero's election, is void as well. University of the Philippines constitutional law professor Paolo Tamase offered a narrower reading of the underlying question, telling Rappler that "the Constitution only designated a specific presiding officer for the impeachment of a President, taking that from the US Constitution." Everything else, in his reading, was left open to the Senate itself. But Tamase's reading answers the constitutional silence question. It does not touch the separate quorum and legitimacy question that the Cayetano bloc has placed before the Supreme Court.

The Framers' Intent Argument, and Its Limits

Cayetano's strongest evidentiary claim was that the 1986 Constitutional Commission considered and withdrew an amendment naming the Senate President as presiding officer, not because it was rejected, but because commissioners believed it was already understood. He invoked the exchange involving future Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. to support this reading, and unbroken practice for nearly three decades appeared to bear it out. Davide himself, as sitting Chief Justice, presided over the 2000 to 2001 impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada, the one instance where the Constitution's own presidential-trial rule applied without dispute. Cayetano is entitled to his inference from the withdrawn amendment. However, an inference is not a ruling, and Senator Kiko Pangilinan countered with the text itself, noting that nowhere in the Constitution's provisions on impeachment does it state that the Senate President must preside over any trial but the President's. The American record offers no comparably specific withdrawn-amendment episode for non-presidential cases, which means the Philippine debate rests on a firmer documentary foundation than its American counterpart, even though it remains, at bottom, an argument from silence.

What Comes Next, and Why Americans Should Watch Too

The Supreme Court's ruling on the pending petitions will determine far more than who holds the gavel. Should the Court find the June 3 session void for want of quorum, the amended rule and Escudero's presidency of the impeachment court fall with it, and the trial already underway would face a retroactive legitimacy challenge rather than a prospective one. Should the Court instead treat the presiding-officer question as a political question left to the Senate's own rules, as the Philippine majority and scholars including Tamase and Molo have argued, the trial proceeds undisturbed regardless of how the quorum dispute resolves. American readers should not mistake this for a foreign curiosity. The United States has never tried a sitting Vice President, and the same silence that Manila is litigating this month sits unresolved in Article I, Section 3, waiting for the day an American Senate faces the identical question with no settled answer of its own.

Verdict

Two constitutions, drafted two centuries apart on opposite sides of the Pacific, arrived at the identical structural choice: name the Chief Justice for the President alone, and trust the Senate to govern itself in every other case. The United States has tested that trust once, in 2021, and resolved it by vote without a constitutional crisis attached. The Philippines is testing it now, in the middle of a leadership fight whose legitimacy the Supreme Court has not yet settled. The presiding officer question, standing alone, is not the threat to either republic. What threatens a republic is when a genuine constitutional silence becomes the seam through which a separate, unresolved power struggle tries to pass unnoticed.

My friends and countrymen, watch the Court's ruling closely, not because it will tell you who should have held the gavel, but because it will tell you whether the Philippine Senate's own house is in order. A trial cannot stand on ground that is still being surveyed.

The post When the Constitution Does Not Say: Presiding Officers, Precedent, & VP Duterte's Impeachment Trial first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

My friends and countrymen, the founders of the American republic were students of failure. They did not theorize about self-government in the abstract; they autopsied every prior attempt at it and built constitutional barriers against the precise mechanisms by which free republics had collapsed. Chief among those mechanisms was what former Senator Richard Gordon identified was occurring in the Philippine Senate as the "tyranny of the majority." Of course, he was invoking what James Madison, the principal framer of America's Constitution, called the danger of a numerical majority wielding institutional power without check — using it not to serve the common good, but to entrench its own position at the expense of the minority.

The events of May 2026 gave that warning a local address. On May 11, 2026, amid the chaos surrounding Senator Ronald dela Rosa's evasion of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, the Senate majority ousted incumbent Senate President Vicente Sotto III and installed Alan Peter Cayetano in his place. Two weeks later, on May 26, Senator Rodante Marcoleta — a majority ally — moved to amend Senate rules to allow members to vote remotely through online platforms under "justifiable" circumstances. The minority bloc of eleven senators, recognizing the motion for what it was, walked out.

Their objection was straightforward: under prevailing Senate rules, senators may only vote while physically present in the plenary hall, with remote voting permitted solely in cases of force majeure or a nationally declared emergency. No such emergency existed. What existed, instead, was a majority whose two most legally embattled members (dela Rosa, evading an ICC warrant, and Jinggoy Estrada, facing legal jeopardy) could not appear in person to vote. The rule change, in other words, was not procedural housekeeping. It was a maneuver to manufacture votes the majority could not otherwise cast, and events quickly vindicated the minority's suspicion.

Within days of the walkout, Estrada, who had been present on May 26 but already facing Department of Justice recommendations for plunder and graft charges over alleged flood control corruption, was arrested on May 29 on graft charges and again on June 1 on plunder. The majority had not merely been protecting dela Rosa. It had been building a procedural shelter for a class of legally embattled members whose courtroom troubles were, even then, accelerating toward detention.

This is precisely what the founders meant by faction, Madison's term for a self-interested majority acting not in the common interest but in its own. In Federalist 10, Madison defined faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." The Philippine majority's push to rewrite the rules of the institution in order to count senators who cannot appear due to legal jeopardy is, by Madison's definition, faction in its most transparent form.

However, the minority's response is equally instructive, and herein the American constitutional inheritance reveals its full relevance. Senator Panfilo Lacson announced that if the rule change were forced through over the minority's objections, the minority would bring the matter before the Supreme Court for possible grave abuse of discretion. That instinct to seek relief, not in the streets, not in a counter-coup, but in an independent judiciary, is the founders' institutional logic in practice. Madison did not merely warn against majority tyranny; he engineered the remedy. Separated powers, bicameral chambers, and an independent judiciary exist precisely so that the aggrieved minority has somewhere to go other than the mob. The Philippine minority, to its credit, appears to understand this.

What makes the current dispute a particularly acute illustration is that it lacks even the passion of the classical mob. Madison warned against emotionally inflamed majorities — the Athenian assembly that executed eight generals in a fit of rage after the Battle of Arginusae, or the jury of 500 that condemned Socrates on the flimsiest of grounds. The Philippine Senate majority's maneuver is something colder: a calculated exploitation of institutional rules to compensate for numerical weakness. It is faction by arithmetic rather than by fury, which makes it pernicious, because it is more difficult to recognize and easier to justify in procedural language.

The Philippine Constitution, modeled substantially on its American counterpart, adopted the same architecture of checks and balances for the same reasons. The founders of both republics understood that the greatest threats to self-government do not announce themselves as tyranny. They arrive dressed as parliamentary procedure.

The minority senators who walked out on May 26 were not being obstructionist. They were doing precisely what a functioning bicameral system demands of a minority: refusing to grant legitimacy to a process that had abandoned the deliberative standards the institution exists to uphold. As Senator Lacson put it, the majority's numbers were not enough to sustain proceedings once the quorum was questioned. The minority did not defeat the majority by matching its votes. It defeated it by withdrawing the consent that makes majority rule legitimate in the first place. That is not mob rule. That is republican government working as designed.

Madison wrote in Federalist 51 that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." The Philippine Senate in May 2026 offered a reminder of why that observation remains as true in Manila as it was in Philadelphia. The remedy is not cynicism about institutions; on the contrary, it is fidelity to them. The minority senators who stood their ground, and who now carry their grievance to the Supreme Court rather than to the barricades, are demonstrating that fidelity. Whether the institutions hold is the question every republic, American and Filipino alike, must answer in each generation.

The post Tyranny of the Majority in the Philippine Senate? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

1. Robredo does not come from a political dynasty
   or privileged nepotism.  Marcos Jr. does.
2. Robredo’s last name plays minimal, if any, role in
   her success.  Marcos Jr.’s last name
   plays a significant role in his success.
3. Robredo has no relatives in government which
   could potentially pose conflicts of interest. 
   Marcos Jr. has relatives in the Senate, House, province, and city.
4. Robredo has no tax liabilities.  Marcos Jr. has a pending estate tax of P203
   billion, which even President Rodrigo Duterte acknowledges.
5. Robredo’s relevant educational achievements
   include Doctor of Laws from the University of the Cordilleras, Juris Doctor
   from the University of Nueva Caceres, Doctor in Public Administration from PUP,
   and B.A. in Economics from UP Diliman.  Since
   Marcos Jr. did not complete his preliminary examinations, he was unable to
   attain a B.A. in politics, philosophy, and economics.  Instead, he obtained a Special Diploma (not
   equivalent to a degree) in Social Studies. 
   Likewise, Marcos Jr. did not acquire a master’s degree from Wharton
   School of Business, since he could not finish his studies (due to his election
   as vice governor of Ilocos Norte in 1980).
6. Robredo has the endorsements of 162 economists.
   Marcos Jr. does not, and many predict the peso as well as the economy will
   decline under his tenure as president.
7. Robredo will defend the West Philippine Sea at
   all costs, including invoking the US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, and will
   leverage the arbitral award before making any oil exploratory agreement with
   China.  Marcos Jr. opposes US involvement
   in the WPS dispute and will unconditionally enter an oil exploratory agreement
   with China.
8. Robredo is poised to govern for all Filipinos,
   which is why she has attended all major presidential forums in order to
   maximize her exposure.  Marcos Jr. is
   likely to govern only for his political base, which is why he has foregone all
   major presidential forums in spite of the clamor of Filipinos to face them and
   other presidentiables---in a word---accountability.

Remember, my friends and countrymen, there is no shame in changing your vote even at the last hour.  However, it is shameful to vote blindly, so vote wisely.

Long live the Philippines!

The post Leni or Bongbong? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

4/12/2022

My friends and countrymen, UP political science professor Clarita Carlos said voters have different criteria for choosing a presidentiable, based on what is important to each one (e.g., climate change, health, education).  Hence, if your criteria are identical to mine, then it is only logical that you will not vote for Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. for president of the Republic of the Philippines.  Unlike many of his critics who hold him accountable for the “sins of his father” (e.g., ill-gotten wealth, injustice to martial law victims) and evasion of taxes and tax penalties, my concerns are of a more fundamental nature.  That means such concerns, as important as they may be, are only secondary to the three specific ones I’m about to present.

First and foremost, it is important to me that the commander-in-chief, the head of state, and the head of government (all embodied in the president) know and understand the Constitution and the context upon which it was framed.  In that case, Marcos Jr. should have known before choosing President Rodrigo Duterte as his running mate for vice president, that it is unconstitutional.  Some may contend that, upon realizing this, he settled for the President’s daughter, Sara Duterte, instead.  Hence since Marcos Jr. averted a potential violation of the supreme law of the land, why should Filipinos be so concerned or even critical of him?  My answer is that his initial ignorance of such a fundamental issue raises the question of his grasp of the Constitution, which makes a mockery of his tenure as a law maker in both the House and Senate.

Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution reads: “The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection.”

According to Far Eastern University Law Dean Mel Sta Maria, the word “any” in the last sentence refers to reelection as president as well as vice president, since both posts were cited in the preceding sentence.  Hence, “the President shall not be eligible to run for reelection for ‘any’ of the positions,” concludes Sta Maria, “either the Office of the President or the Office of the Vice President.”

If that’s insufficiently comprehensible to Marcos Jr., how about the fact that the 1987 Constitution was the direct byproduct of the dictatorial presidency of his father?  Indeed, its framers designed it precisely for the purpose of preventing such a tyrant from remaining in power for a prolonged period of time via a single term presidency and vice presidency.  Thus, Duterte’s attempt to run for vice president, states Christian Monsod (one of the constitutional framers), “is an ingenious and insidious move to circumvent the constitutional provision on reelection.”  If Marcos Jr. doesn’t understand such a fundamental concept, then he is utterly unfit to be president.  Although he ultimately chose Sara Duterte, he should have at least been prudent so as to not publicly disclose his initial intention of selecting the President at the time when its constitutionality was questioned.

Second, if you’re in the market to hire a professional to complete a specific job for you, and he didn’t appear in the job interview, what would you make of that?  Perhaps something beyond his control occurred.  Would you give him another chance?  What if you offered him a second chance for another interview, and he failed to appear again?  What if you discovered that he intentionally missed both interviews?  Would you persistently pursue him, or would you seek another professional, who’s eagerly ready to meet you?

In fact, Marcos Jr. deliberately missed several forums (the Jessica Soho and Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas interviews, CNN presidential debate, etc.) in which all presidentiables generally appeared to present their positions and plans to our voting countrymen.  He and his camp cited several reasons for his absences and others yet to come: conflict of schedule, unfavorable format (interview preferable to debate), media bias, lack of desire to be combative to other presidentiables due to his unity platform.

As a concerned Filipino citizen, I present some points and simple suggestions to address those reasons:

                Conflict of Schedule: Marcos Jr. should prioritize presidential forums.  He should make time for the most important things, and schedule everything else accordingly.

                Unfavorable Format: Marcos Jr. should mentally prepare for all potential formats, whether they be interviews or debates.  He should take notes and memorize them.  He should perform mock interviews and debates for practice.

                Media Bias: Marcos Jr. should participate in allegedly biased forums and point out the bias whenever it is presented by the interviewer or interpolator.  Additionally, he should use social media to clarify points or rebut the forum’s alleged bias.

                Lack of Desire to Be Combative to Other Presidentiables Due to “Unity” Platform: Marcos Jr. need only present his plans, programs, and track record.  He should stress his core competency without resorting to ad hominem remarks or personal attacks, while ignoring them from his competitors.  The debate format need not be a forum for verbal combat but for statesmanship, which may foster unity---true unity because his ideas will stand out if they appeal to Filipinos.

                Job Interview not for Debating Future Bosses or Other Fellow Applicants: That presupposes that all job interviews uniformly entail verbally asking and answering questions; they don’t.  Some entail demonstrating one’s knowledge or skill set, which may also display subtleties in temperament or character.  For example, an aspiring phone salesman may

As a concerned Filipino citizen, I present some points and simple suggestions to address those reasons:

• Conflict of Schedule: Marcos Jr. should prioritize presidential forums.  He should make time for the most important things, and schedule everything else accordingly.

• Unfavorable Format: Marcos Jr. should mentally prepare for all potential formats, whether they be interviews or debates.  He should take notes and memorize them.  He should perform mock interviews and debates for practice.

• Media Bias: Marcos Jr. should participate in allegedly biased forums and point out the bias whenever it is presented by the interviewer or interpolator.  Additionally, he should use social media to clarify points or rebut the forum’s alleged bias.

• Lack of Desire to Be Combative to Other Presidentiables Due to “Unity” Platform: Marcos Jr. need only present his plans, programs, and track record.  He should stress his core competency without resorting to ad hominem remarks or personal attacks, while ignoring them from his competitors.  The debate format need not be a forum for verbal combat but for statesmanship, which may foster unity---true unity because his ideas will stand out if they appeal to Filipinos.

• Job Interview not for Debating Future Bosses or Other Fellow Applicants: That presupposes that all job interviews uniformly entail verbally asking and answering questions; they don’t.  Some entail demonstrating one’s knowledge or skill set, which may also display subtleties in temperament or character.  For example, an aspiring phone salesman may display his social interaction skills and mastery of the art of persuasion, which may take patience, grace, and empathy.  The same holds true for a politician, since he or she is basically a salesman, pitching ideas and promises for votes.  One of the presidentiables has stressed the importance of debates as a leveler of the playing field, since there’s “no tutor, no script, no phones, so we cannot search on Google.”  That means “not only your wisdom but also the grasp on issues — current issues, past issues — would be tested and unearthed here. Not only wisdom and knowledge, but also the character is being revealed in these debates.”

display his social interaction skills and mastery of the art of persuasion, which may take patience, grace, and empathy.  The same holds true for a politician, since he or she is basically a salesman, pitching ideas and promises for votes.  One of the presidentiables has stressed the importance of debates as a leveler of the playing field, since there’s “no tutor, no script, no phones, so we cannot search on Google.”  That means “not only your wisdom but also the grasp on issues — current issues, past issues — would be tested and unearthed here. Not only wisdom and knowledge, but also the character is being revealed in these debates.”

I would add that in a debate forum, politicians are under pressure from their competitors, as well as their interpolators, which gives voters a glimpse of their agility and decisiveness or lack thereof when dealing with government officials, foreign diplomats, or heads of state---in a word---statecraft.  After all, if Marcos Jr. finds the debate forums with his colleagues and our voting countrymen overly challenging or burdensome, then how will he be able to face Chinese President Xi Jinpin or Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Surely a seasoned politician like Marcos Jr. would already know everything I’ve pointed out and suggested.  Anyway, the presence and participation of all presidentiables make it convenient for us to compare, contrast, and evaluate their presentations in order to make an informed vote.  More than Marcos Jr. not showing the best face of his campaign, candidacy, and character, stated political analyst Tony La Vina, “he did a very big disservice to the country.”  For me, that would be a display of his misplaced priorities and lack of concern for the Filipino electorate, not to mention the farce of his “unity” platform.  After all, shouldn’t Marcos Jr. maximize his exposure in order to court the voters of the other presidentiables?  Indeed, that would display his initiative to be a team player and a president for all Filipinos, not just for his political base, hence unifying the country.

Third, just as the man of the house must defend his family and property from intruders and thieves, so too, must the president defend the Filipino people and their country from foreign invaders and land grabbers.  Unfortunately, Marcos Jr. plans to simply resume Duterte’s policy of appeasement to China with regard to the West Philippine Sea, since China neither consents to the arbitral award, nor was it a signatory to the proceedings.  In an interview with Boy Abunda, Marcos Jr. stated, “Ang problema diyan saChinaay sinabi na nila: 'Hindi kami signatory diyan, hindi kami makikinig kung anuman ang maging findings ng court.'”  (The problem with China, they said: We’re not a signatory, we won’t listen to whatever the court’s findings are.)  Hence, “it’s no longer an arbitration if there’s only one party. It is no longer available to us.”  That is factually incorrect, since China ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1994, hence legally binding it to international law according to maritime expert Jay Batongbacal.  UP Political Science Head Herman Kraft said Marcos Jr. needs a “deeper understanding” of the proceedings leading to the 2016 arbitral ruling.

Marcos Jr. even reiterates the same straw man of President Duterte that “if we get in a fight [with China], . . . we will lose” within one week.  For the record, I know of no single government official or foreign policy expert who thinks that the Philippines should wage war against China, much less be victorious.  Perhaps this false premise gives justification to Marcos Jr. to pursue “diplomacy” and “bilateral agreement” with China.  “His true position, I think, is really pro-China,” states Batongbacal.  “It’s like Duterte’s old position that he needs China, and the Philippines can’t do anything about it…. It’s all very shallow, outdated, and simply uninformed.”  Indeed there are practicable and non-combative options for defending WPS suggested by Batongbacal, legal luminary behind the arbitral award and former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, and maritime expert and former national security advisor Roilo Golez, which I’ve listed in How the Philippines Can Enforce Its Arbitral Award without Going to War with China.

Speaking of being uninformed, Marcos Jr. stated in the SMNI forum, “Marami talaga tayong issue, hindi lamang sa conflicting claims sa gitna ng Pilipinas at saka China kaya’t ngayon lang ang nakita kong national election na naging issue ang West Philippine Sea or ang foreign policy.” (We really have lots of issues, not only the conflicting claims between the Philippines and China, that’s why I see only in this national election that the West Philippine Sea or foreign policy has become an issue.)  Such a statement could be misconstrued as sarcasm if one just tuned in and heard it on television.  Unfortunately, Marcos Jr. seems oblivious to the 2016 presidential debates in which then presidentiable Rodrigo Duterte promised to jet ski to Panatag Shoal and plant the Philippine flag in defiance to China’s incursion.  Indeed, it was one of the most memorable highlights.

How could Marcos Jr. have been unaware of it?  Could he have known and simply forgotten about it?  Could this be the first sign of dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease taking effect?  Perhaps he simply turned a deaf ear or a blind eye to the WPS issue because it’s just not a priority for him.  If the last possibility is the case, then it would account for his position, or rather uninformed position on different aspects of the matter, on which I will now expound.

In the SMNI forum, Marcos Jr. constantly expressed his concern over the disputed “territorial waters.”  He said, “It is about territorial waters, and when we have these 200 Chinese boats coming and blocking our fishermen, it is to assert their claim that this is part of their territorial water.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Anyone who has studied this matter would know that the vicinity of the territorial waters of the Philippines is within 12 nautical miles along the coast of Palawan and Mindoro, in Luzon (which is the area that China does not claim).  However, the area within 200 nautical miles is known as the “exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters.”  Contrary to what Marcos Jr. said, Carpio retorted, “Our dispute with China in the WPS, outside of the territorial dispute in the Spratly Islands, is a dispute over EEZ waters, not territorial waters. A dispute over EEZ waters is a dispute over the resources in that EEZ – the fish, oil, gas and other mineral resources.”

Aside from Marcos Jr.’s apparent lack of understanding of the Philippines’ territorial waters and EEZ waters, his grasp of the arbitration court seems equally deficient.  On one occasion, he stated, "Ang pagsolusyon sa mga territorial conflict… naaayos lang ‘yan sa ICC (International Criminal Court). Pero kailangan sumang-ayon ang parehong bansa, magsasabi, ‘Okay sa akin sa Pilipinas, susundan ko ‘yong decision ng ICC.” (The resolution of territorial conflicts, these are only fixed at the ICC. But both countries have to agree, say for instance, 'It is okay with me in the Philippines, I will obey the ICC.) Marcos Jr. further said, "Pero ‘yong China, hindi naman signatory sa pagtaguyod ng ICC. Pangalawa, sinabi na nila mula umpisa pa sa hindi namin susundan, hindi namin kinikilala ‘yang mga decision sa ICC. (But China is not a signatory in the establishment of the ICC. Second, from the start, they said we will not follow, we do not recognize those decisions of the ICC.)  Again, anyone who has studied the Philippine arbitration case against China would know that the Permanent Court of Arbitration was the tribunal in which the case was filed and the Philippines awarded.  The ICC is the tribunal in which crimes against humanity are filed.

Hence, Marcos Jr. was factually incorrect about China being legally bound to comply with international law, about the Philippine waters of which China claims, and about the tribunal which awarded the arbitral ruling to the Philippines.  How can such a misinformed presidentiable be trusted to assert the Philippines’ arbitral award when he displayed his sheer ignorance on three fundamental maritime issues?

Furthermore, my friends and countrymen, I have only three questions to ask with regard to whether or not you should vote for Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.  First, do you want a president who fully grasps the fundamental principles of the Constitution, on which he or she will solemnly swear an oath to protect and defend?  Second, do you want a president who will be a president for all Filipinos and not just for his own voters and supporters?  Third, do you want a president who fully knows and understands the maritime fundamentals in order to defend the whole Philippines, including its EEZ waters in which fish, minerals, and oil are present in the West Philippine Sea?

If you answered “yes” to all of the above questions, then perhaps we share the same criteria or standard for our president after all.  That would logically mean that, like me, you will not cast your vote for Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.  However, if you answered “no” to the above questions, then our criteria or standard differs.  Perhaps such mass neglect for fundamentals is why the Philippines has remained stagnant for so long.  Therefore, my friends and countrymen, let’s focus on fundamentals first, raise our standards, and choose our leaders accordingly.  Only then can we be competitive in the marketplace of governance, and always remember this: There’s no shame in changing your vote.  There’s only shame in voting blindly, so vote wisely.

Aim High Pilipinas!

The post 3 Reasons I Will Not Vote For “Bongbong” For President & Neither Should You first appeared on Marcial's Law.

My friends and countrymen, as we commemorate the 125^th anniversary of Dr. Jose Rizal’s martyrdom today, it is incumbent upon us to create a better future for our youth and improve our country.  That includes electing good public servants to the Senate.  The purpose of this article is not to persuade you all to vote for Senator Richard Gordon against or over another senatoriable, although perhaps, that debate can be made. On the contrary, I wish to persuade you all to simply add an indispensable man of great learning and historical achievements to your current list of senatoriables. Please allow me to present my case.

1. He is a crusader against corruption.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon), Gordon has been the nemesis of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.  Presiding over the ongoing Pharmally probe, he has exposed corruption in the collusion of Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp. directors and officers, former DBM (Department of Budget and Management) officials, a former advisor to President Duterte, and potentially even President Duterte himself.  Some of the recommended charges by the Blue Ribbon Committee include violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, fraud against the public treasury, perjury, falsification of public documents, and disobedience to summons issued by Congress.

Other high-profile probes over which Gordon presided as chairman include the Dengvaxia scandal, the P728 million fertilizer fund scam, and the $329 million ZTE National Broadband scandal.  Furthermore, a man, such as Gordon, who will impartially uphold justice and follow the rule of law as senator is invaluable for our country which was ranked 115^th place according to the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International.

2. He has political will.

Gordon has been perceived to be allies with Duterte since the beginning of his presidency, which would be politically expedient, since Duterte remains popular to this day.  However on several fronts (as I have elucidated in “Digong is no Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is”), he has courageously opposed Duterte’s questionable or unconstitutional proposals and policies, such as acquiescing to China on Panatag Shoal in the West Philippine Sea, running for the vice-presidency, and appointing former military officials to civilian posts in his Cabinet (which I addressed in “Is Dick Hindering Digong or Is Digong Suffering from Dick Envy?”).  When Duterte responded with sophomoric ad hominem comments, Gordon never responded in like fashion with personal insults.  On the contrary, he has challenged Duterte’s proposals and policies exclusively on their merits, even providing historical and constitutional context to support his positions.  However, in spite of his civility, Gordon has not been bashful in condemning Duterte as a “bully” and a “cheap politician,” whose acts could be construed as a “betrayal of public trust” and a “culpable violation of the Constitution.”

When President Gloria Arroyo declared martial law in Maguindanao, Gordon opposed it challenging its constitutional validity.  In the fertilizer scam, Gordon recommended charges be filed against Arroyo appointee Jocelyn Bolante (Undersecretary of Agriculture for Finance and Administration), in spite of Gordon’s own appointment by Arroyo (as Secretary of Tourism); such a maverick tendency indicates he is not a trapo (traditional politician).

3. He is a pious public servant.

In 2016, Gordon could easily have filed a lawsuit against Sen. Grace Poe to disqualify her from running for the presidency on the grounds of her citizenship and residence. That was precisely what his UP college mates (also members of UNA and LP) urged him to do. However, rather than pursue the matter to advance his political ambitions, he exercised restraint. He stated:

I believe that the matter of Sen. Poe’s qualifications for national office has already been referred to the proper legal venues, and I deem it counter-productive to say anything more about this issue, aside from the statements I have already made.

In spite of Gordon’s preoccupation with public office duties, he has been a Red Cross volunteer since he was 17 years old.  With time and dedication, he became chairman and CEO of the Red Cross, serving even to this day.  The fact that Gordon holds a responsibility-laden post without receiving a salary, is a display of his altruistic and charitable nature.

4. He strongly opposes China’s illegal incursions in the West Philippine Sea (WPS).

Gordon has been tenaciously vocal in condemning China’s violation of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and the ruling of the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) in favor of the Philippines.  His foresight into China’s intrusive potential (while presiding as Olongapo mayor) led him to defend the renewal of the U.S. Bases Treaty in 1991.  He advocates for the implementation of the Visiting Forces Agreement and Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which make Philippine military bases accessible to American troops, while providing for training and intelligence to Philippine troops.  They also regulate joint military exercises and patrolling of the WPS and give “teeth” to the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, which Gordon reiterated could be triggered in “an armed attack against the Philippines’ armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea.”

In addition to collaborating with our oldest and most loyal ally, Gordon also encourages forging alliances with other countries, which are wary of China’s encroaching inclination, while the Philippines build its own military strength.  In order to protect our fishermen in the WPS, he proposes the stationing of coast guard assets therein.  Incidentally, he and 10 other senators recently filed a resolution to “condemn in the strongest possible terms the illegal activities” of China.

5. He has a practicable vision for a prosperous Philippines.

Gordon supports measures which would create domestic jobs and render the Philippine economy less dependent on remittances of OFWs (overseas Filipino workers). He favors competition to lower energy costs; this would lower production costs and prices for consumer goods. In turn, living standards of all our countrymen would be raised and the destitute would be lifted out of poverty, rendering the culture of government handout dependency obsolete.

Gordon’s transformational vision of a prosperous Philippines is not one of mere wishful thinking or political rhetoric. On the contrary, it is a goal, which has already been partially implemented in Subic Bay with outstanding success.  As its first Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) chairman, Gordon directed a successful effort to convert a desolate, abandoned American naval base (Subic Bay) into a prosperous economic trade zone. Before the conversion, Subic Bay was reduced to a heap of ash caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. After Gordon inspired thousands of volunteers to clean and renovate the area, hundreds of companies (including Acer and FedEx) created approximately 40,000 jobs with their US $1billion of foreign investments. The success was such that several world leaders (including Pres. Clinton) lauded it as a model for economic development.

Aside from stimulating the economy on a local level in Subic Bay, Gordon has done no less on a national level as secretary of the Department of Tourism. At a time of declining tourism, he managed to increase the number of tourists from one million to two million within a single year, thereby creating numerous jobs. Against overwhelming odds, all this occurred in the midst of terrorist threats, civil war in Mindanao, coup attempts, and SARS.  Indeed, with successful experience in reviving the economy on a local and national level, Gordon envisions a Third World Philippines ascending into First World status.

6. He is a learned law maker.

As senator, he authored several important laws (e.g., New Automated Elections System Law, Motorcycle Crime Prevention Act, Filipino World War II Veterans Pensions and Benefits Act of 2008) and was a member of more than twenty committees (most notably the Blue Ribbon, Economic Affairs, Trade and Commerce, Education, Energy, Foreign Relations, National Defense and Security, and Ways and Means). He also served as a member of the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council), chairman of the Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws Committee, and was the youngest delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. That makes him an exceptional lawyer and senator, since he took part in framing the supreme law of the land, namely the Constitution.

7. He has diverse executive experience.

In my article entitled “Of Scooters, Jeepneys, Buses, and Airplanes,” I make the case that Gordon’s executive experience of private and public policy implementation would serve him well as president of the Republic of the Philippines in 2010.  However, I contend here that such experience gives him the hindsight of working with other policy makers as chief executive himself, which subjected him to conflicts of interest, compromise, resolutions, and collaboration with them. For example, as mayor (an executive position) of Olongapo City, he worked with the sangguniang panglungsod (local legislature) in ratifying or vetoing bills as a local public executive. This gave Gordon the perspective and savvy to craft good laws and pass them effectively through the often long drawn out legislative process and conflicts of interest between the national executive (the president) and the national legislature (Congress). Being mayor has also given him a stricter sense of public accountability, since the small bureaucratic structure of local officials tends to be more transparent (as opposed to the national level), thus making it more difficult for them to conceal their potential violation of the law.

8. He is a crisis manager.

As chairman and CEO (an executive position) of the Philippine Red Cross, Gordon traveled all over the Philippines, undertaking numerous drastic measures. As a crisis manager, he directed many disaster/rescue operations involving aid in man-made and natural catastrophe victims.  In the Covid-19 pandemic, the Red Cross has been the leading agency for testing.  According to Gordon, 5 million Filipinos have been tested as of early December, 2021.

In Gordon’s nearly 60 years of charitable service, his intervention has saved millions of lives and restored over 133,000 homes of Typhoon Yolanda victims and other calamities. (View this video for firsthand accounts, including a successful hostage rescue operation from Abu Sayyaf without ransom.) He has also directed operations that involve prevention and safety in order to better prepare our countrymen for any disaster. Only a crisis manager or executive (not just a legislator) would know precisely what resources and in what quantity need to be allocated to each disaster area, knowledge which is indispensable for a country prone to such disasters.

9. He was a radio show host.

As a radio show host on Radyo5 92.3 News FM on a program called “Aksyon Solusyon”, Gordon was exposed to people of diverse economic, provincial backgrounds. Such a constant daily inflow of various feedback directly from the people kept Gordon informed on the state of the nation and provided him with fresh ideas on what can and must be done. As senator, he will be in a better position to accommodate such ideas via legislation.

10. He is an ordinary Filipino.

Apart from Gordon’s apparent devotion and service to our country, on the lighter side, he is an ordinary Filipino, which makes him a likable politician with a human face. For example, here is a clip in which he performs a song and dance routine with the renowned entertainers Moymoy Palaboy. 

In another video, he dances the Harlem Shake with his grandchildren. Apparently, Gordon is not the typical “out of touch” career politician without a good sense of humor.

In summary, my friends and countrymen, you should all vote for Gordon because he is an accomplished public servant with political will, who has opposed corruption, created thousands of jobs, and saved lives. Aside from serving our country for nearly 60 years, he also knows how to do the Harlem Shake. Who would not want all those qualities in a senator?  That is precisely why Filipinos need a taste of more Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is.

Long live Sen. Dick Gordon!  Long live the Philippines!

Tagalog Version:

10 Dahilan  Kung Bakit Mas Kailangan ng Pinoy ang Isang Dick . . . sa Senado

Mga kaibigan at kababayan ko, sa paggunita natin sa ika-125 anibersaryo ng pagiging martir ni Dr. Jose Rizal ngayon, tungkulin nating lumikha ng magandang kinabukasan para sa ating mga kabataan at mapabuti ang ating bansa. Kabilang doon ay ang mahusay na pagpili ng mabubuting lingkod-bayan sa Senado. Ang layunin ng artikulong ito ay hindi para hikayatin kayong lahat na iboto si Senador Richard Gordon laban o
kapalit ng iba pang senatoriable, bagaman marahil, ang debateng iyon maaaring gawin. Sa kabilang banda, nais kong hikayatin kayong lahat na magdagdag lamang ng isa pang kandidato. Iminumungkahi kong isama ninyo sa inyong talaan ng mga senador ang isang taong kailangan ng ating bayan dahil sa kanyang angking kaalaman at makasaysayang tagumpay. Hayaan ninyong ilahad ko kung bakit:

1. Siya ay matapang na lumalaban sa katiwalian.

Bilang isang tagapangulo ng Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon), si Gordon ay isang mabagsik na kaaway ng kabuktutan sa pamamahala, ng pangaaabuso sa apangyarihan, at sadyang di pagganap sa tungkulin. Sa pamumuno sa kasalukuyang imbestigasyon sa kaso ng Pharmally, ibinunyag niya ang lantaran at malawakang katiwalian sa sabwatan ng director at ilang opisyales ng Pharmally Pharmaceutical Corp., ng dating pamunuan ng DBM
(Department of Budget and Management), ng dating tagapagpayo ng Pangulong Duterte, at malamang, kahit ang Pangulong Duterte mismo. Ilan sa mga inihaing kaso ng Blue Ribbon Committee ay ang paglabag sa Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, panloloko laban sa kaban ng bayan, pagsisinungaling, palsipikasyon ng mga pampublikong dokumento, at pagsuway sa patawag na inisyu ng Kongreso.

Ang ilan pang bantog at malawakang pagsisiyasat na pinangunahan ni Gordon bilang chairman ay ang Dengvaxia scandal, ang P728 million fertilizer fund scam, at ang $329 million ZTE National Broadband scandal. Higit pa rito, ang isang taong katulad ni Gordon, na patas manindigan sa katarungan at sumusunod at nagpapasakop sa kapangyarihan ng batas, ay napaka halaga para sa ating bayan lalo pa’t tayo ay nasa pang 115 pwesto sa  Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International
2020.

2. Siya ay may political will.

Marami ang naniwalang si Gordon ay masugid na kaalyado ni Duterte mula pa noong umpisa ng kanyang pagkapangulo, na siya namang kapakipakinabang dahil si  Duterte ay nanatiling bantog hanggang ngayon.  Subalit sa ilang pagkakataon,  (gaya ng sinabi ko sa “Digong is no Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is”), may lakas ng loob syang salungatin si Duterte at ang mga kahinahinala at labag sa Saligang Batas nitong panukala at pamamalakad, halimbawa ay ang lantaran nitong pagpapahintulot sa China sa Panatag Shoal ng West Philippine Sea, ang pagtakbo sa pagka pangalawang pangulo, at ang pagtatalaga sa mga dating opisyales ng militar  sa mga puwestong pang sibilyan sa kanyang gabiniete, (na siya ko namang tinukoy sa “Is Dick Hindering Digong or Is Digong Suffering from Dick Envy?”).  Nang nagbigay ng pahayag si Duterte puno ng pangungutya at atakeng personal, hindi sumagot si Gordon sa ganoong pamamaraan, bagkus ay hinamon nya kabutihang dulot, kung mayroon man, ang mga panukala at pamamalakad ni Duterte.   Naglatag pa nga siya ng mga halimbawang hango sa kasaysayan at nilalaman ng konstitusyon para itaguyod ang kanyang posisyon. Subalit,sa kabila ng kanyang pagiging magalang ay hindi nahiyang ikondena ni Gordon si Duterte bilang isang “bully” at isang “cheap politician,” na isang asal na pwedeng ipakahulugang pagtataksil sa tiwala ng  taong bayan  at lantarang paglabag sa Saligang Batas.

Noong mag deklara ng batas militar si Pangulong Gloria Arroyo sa Maguindanao, tinutulan ito ni Gordon at hinamon kung alinsunod ito sa Saligang Batas. Sa fertilizer scam, iminungkahi ni Gordon na magsampa ng kaso laban sa itinalaga ni  Arroyo na si Jocelyn Bolante (Undersecretary of Agriculture for Finance and Administration), sa kabila ng pag hirang ni Arroyo kay  Gordon (bilang Kalihim ng Turismo); patunay na siya ay isang maverick, at lalong hindi trapo (traditional politician).

3. Siya ay tapat na public servant.

Noong 2016, napakadali kay Gordon  na magsampa ng kaso laban kay Sen. Grace Poe para ma diskuwalipika sya pagtakbo sa pagka pangulo sa usapin ng kanyang pagkamamamayan at paninirahan. Na siya ring iminumungkahi ng mga UP college mates (also members of UNA and LP) ni Gordon na gawin niya. Subalit, sa halip na isipin niya nag pagsulong ng kanyang political ambitions, minabuti niyang huwag makinig sa udyok ng iba. Sinabi niya:

“I believe that the matter of Sen. Poe’s qualifications for national office has already been referred to the proper legal venues, and I deem it counter-productive to say anything more about this issue, aside from the statements I have already made.”

Sa kabila ng pagiging abala ni Gordon sa kanyang pampublikong tungkulin, nanatili siyang Red Cross volunteer mula pa noong siya ay 17 taong gulang pa lamang.  At sa tamang panahon at dedikasyon, hinirang siyang chairman at CEO ng Red Cross, at nagsisilbi hanggang sa ngayon.  Sa totoo lang, si Gordon ay hindi tumatanggap ng sweldo sa mga posisyong ginagampanan niya, ito ay patunay ng kanyang katapatan at pagiging bukas palad.

4. Mariin niyang tinutulan ang ilegal na pagkamkam at pananatili ng China sa West Philippine Sea (WPS).

Mariing nagpapahayag si Gordon ng kanyang pagkondena sa China’s violation of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) at ang ruling ng PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) na pumabor sa Pilipinas.  Noon pa man ay nakita na ni Gordon ang panghihimasok ng China (habang siya ay namumuno bilang  Olongapo mayor) na siyang nag udyok sa kanyang ipagtanggol ang renewal ng U.S. Bases Treaty noong 1991.  Pinangunahan nya ang pagpapatupad ng Visiting Forces Agreement at Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, na magbibigay daan  sa mga American troops na ma access ang Philippine military bases, habang nagbibigay ng kasnayan at kaalaman sa Philippine troops.  Ang mga kasunduang ito rin ang mag reregulate ng  joint military exercises and pagpapatrol ng WPS and siyang magbibigay “ngipin” sa U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, ni reiterate ni Gordon kung sakaling may mag umpisa ng “an armed attack against the Philippines’ armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea.”

Bukod sa pakikipagtulungan sa ating pinakamatagal at pinaka mabuting kakampi, hinihimok din ni Gordon ang pakikipagkasundo sa ibang bansa, upang magsilbing babala sa China’s encroaching inclination, habang pinagtitibay ng Pilipinas ang sarili nitong pwersang militar.  Para protektahan ang ating mga mangingisda sa WPS, iminungkahi ni Gordon na mag istasyon ng coast guard dito.  Kaugnay dito, siya ta nag 10 pang senador ay kamakailan lamang  nag filed ng resolusyon para “ikondena ang malawakang illegal activities” ng China.

5. Siya ay may makatotohanang pananaw sa isang maunlad na Pilipinas. 

Sinusuportahan ni Gordon ang lahat ng gawaing makakalikha ng domestic jobs na siyang makapagbibigay sa Pilipinas ng isang ekonomiyang hindi umaasa sa remittances ng mga OFWs (overseas Filipino workers). Hinihikayat niya nag kompetisyon na makapgapapababa ng energy costs; na siyang magdudulot ng mas mababang production costs at presyo ng consumer goods. Sa kabilang banda, tataas ang kalidad ng pamumuhay ng ating mga kababayan at ang mga mahihirap ay maiaangat mula sa kahirapan, na siyang nagtatapos sa kulturang ayuda o lubusang umaasa sa tulong ng pamahalaan.

Ang makapagpapabagong pananaw ni Gordon ng isang maunlad na Pilipinas ay hindi isang pangarap lamang o isang gasgas na political rhetoric. Ito ay isang adhikain na matagumpay na naipatupad  sa Subic Bay Bilang kauna-unahang Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) chairman, pinamunuan ni Gordon matagumpay at mahusay  na na-convert  ang dating abandonadong base military ng America (Subic Bay) para maging isang maunlad na economic trade zone. Bago ang conversion, ang Subic Bay nag mistulang  tambak ng abo mula sa pagputok ng Mt. Pinatubo. Matapos hikayatin at pasiglahin ni Gordon ang libo-libong volunteers na maglinis at ayusin ang lugar, daan-daang kumpanya (katulad ng Acer and FedEx) ang lumikha ng humigit kumulang na 40,000 hanapbuhay na may katumbas na US $1 bilyong foreign investments. Hindi maikakaila ang tagumpay na ito kung kaya nga at may ilang world leaders (kasama na ditto si Pres. Clinton) ang humanga sa modelong ito ng economic development.

Maliban sa muling pagpapasigla ng lokal na ekonomiya ng Subic Bay, Hindi biro ang nagawa ni Gordon sa pambansang antas bilang kalihim ng Department of Tourism. Sa panahon nang panghihina ng turismo, nagawa niyang pataasin ang bilang ng mga turista mula sa isang milyon hanggang dalawang milyon sa loob lamang ng isang taon. Nang sa gayon ay makalikha ng maraming trabaho. Laban sa napakaraming pagsubok, ang lahat ng ito ay nangyari sa gitna ng mga banta ng terorista, digmaang sibil sa Mindanao, mga pagtatangka ng kudeta, at SARS. Sa katunayan, sa matagumpay na karanasan sa pagpapasigla ng ekonomiya sa lokal at pambansang antas, naiisip ni Gordon ang isang Third World Philippines na umakyat sa First World status.

6. Siya ay maalam na mambabatas.

Bilang senador, gumawa siya ng ilang mahahalagang batas (halimbawa, New Automated Elections System Law, Motorcycle Crime Prevention Act, Filipino World War II Veterans Pensions and Benefits Act of 2008) at naging miyembro ng mahigit dalawampung komite (lalo na ang Blue Ribbon, Economic Affairs, Trade and Commerce, Education, Energy, Foreign Relations, National Defense and Security, at Ways and Means). Nagsilbi rin siyang miyembro ng JBC (Judicial and Bar Council), chairman ng Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws Committee, at siya ang pinakabatang delegado sa 1971 Constitutional Convention. Iyon ang dahilan kung bakit siya ay isang natatanging abogado at senador, dahil sa Karanasan niyang makibahagi sa pagbalangkas ng pinakamataas na batas ng lupain, ang Saligang Batas.

7. Siya ay may iba't-ibang karanasan sa ehekutibo.

Sa aking artikulong pinamagatang “Of Scooter, Jeepneys, Buses, and Airplanes,” ginawa kong kaso  ang karanasang pang ehekutibo ni Gordon sa pribado at pampublikong pagpapatupad ng patakaran upang  patunayan na siya ay magiging mahusay na presidente ng Republika ng Pilipinas noong 2010. Gayunpaman, ipinaglaban ko dito na ang karanasan iyon ay nagbibigay sa kanya ng hindsight sa pakikipagtulungan sa iba pang mambabatas bilang punong ehekutibo mismo, at naranasan niyang magkaroon nga magkatungggaling interes, kompromiso, mga resolusyon, at pakikipagtulungan sa kanila. Halimbawa, bilang alkalde (isang ehekutibong posisyon) ng Lungsod ng Olongapo, nakipagtulungan siya sa sangguniang panglungsod (lokal na lehislatura) sa pagratipika o pag-veto ng mga panukalang batas bilang isang lokal na pampublikong ehekutibo.  Nagbigay ito kay Gordon ng pananaw at kasanayan sa paggawa ng mabubuting batas at epektibong maipasa ang mga ito sa kabila nang madalas ay mahabang proseso ng pambatasan at mga salungatan ng interes sa pagitan ng pambansang tagapagpaganap (ang pangulo) at ng pambansang lehislatura (Kongreso). Ang pagiging alkalde ay nagbigay din sa kanya ng mas mahigpit na angking pampublikong pananagutan, dahil ang small bureaucratic structure ng mga lokal na opisyal ay may posibilidad na maging mas transparent (kumpara sa pambansang antas), kaya nagiging mas mahirap para sa kanila na itago ang kanilang potensyal na paglabag sa batas.

8. Siya ay isang crisis manager.

Bilang chairman at CEO (isang executive position) ng Philippine Red Cross, naglakbay si Gordon sa buong Pilipinas, na nagsagawa ng maraming mabilisang hakbang tugon sa krisis. Bilang isang tagapamahala ng krisis, pinamunuan niya ang maraming operasyon ng sakuna/pagsagip sa mga biktima ng sakunang gawa ng tao at natural na kalamidad. Sa pandemyang Covid-19, ang Red Cross ang nangungunang ahensya para sa testing. Ayon kay Gordon, 5 milyong Pilipino na ang nasuri noong unang bahagi pa lamang ng Disyembre, 2021.

Sa loob halos ng 60 taong serbisyong pangkawanggawa ni Gordon, ang kanyang interbensyon ay nagligtas ng milyun-milyong buhay at naibalik ang mahigit 133,000 tahanan ng mga biktima ng Bagyong Yolanda at iba pang kalamidad. (Panoorin ang video na ito para sa mga personal na account, kabilang ang isang matagumpay na hostage rescue operation mula sa Abu Sayyaf nang walang ransom.) Siya rin ay nagdirekta ng mga operasyon na may kinalaman sa pag-iwas at kaligtasan upang mas maihanda ang ating mga kababayan sa anumang sakuna. Tanging ang isang tagapamahala ng krisis o ehekutibo (hindi lamang isang mambabatas) ang tiyak na makakaalam kung anong mga mapagkukunan at kung anong dami ang kailangang ilaan sa bawat lugar ng sakuna, kaalaman na kailangang-kailangan para sa isang bansang laging dumaranas ng mga sakuna.

9. Siya ay isang radio show host.

Bilang isang host ng radio show na Radyo5 92.3 News FM sa isang programang tinatawag na “Aksyon Solusyon”, na-expose si Gordon sa mga taong may iba't ibang economic at provincial background. Ang araw araw na pagpasok nang iba’t ibang feedback na nagmumula mismo sa mga tao ang nagpapanatili kay Gordon na mulat sa totoong estado ng bansa at nagbibigay sa kanya ng mga sariwang ideya kung ano ang dapat gawin. Bilang senador, siya ay nasa isang mas mahusay na posisyon upang ma-accommodate ang mga naturang ideya sa pamamagitan ng batas.

10. Siya ay isang ordinaryong Pilipino.

Bukod sa maliwanag na debosyon at paglilingkod ni Gordon sa ating bansa, on the lighter side, siya ay isang ordinaryong Pilipino, at isang kagiliw-giliw na pulitiko at tao. Halimbawa, narito ang isang clip kung saan nagpe-perform siya ng song and dance routine kasama ang mga kilalang entertainers na si Moymoy Palaboy.

Sa isa pang video, sinasayaw niya ang Harlem Shake kasama ang kanyang mga apo. Si Gordon ay hindi isang tipikal na "out of touch"  politician na walang magandang sense of humor.

Sa pagwawakas, mga kaibigan at kababayan ko, iboto ninyong lahat si Gordon dahil isa siyang accomplished public servant na may political will, na lumaban sa katiwalian, lumikha ng libu-libong trabaho, at nagligtas ng maraming buhay. Bukod sa halos 60 taon niyang paglilingkod sa ating bansa, alam din niya kung paano gawin ang Harlem Shake. Sino ba naman ang hindi maghahangad ng lahat ng katangiang iyon sa isang senador? Iyon ang dahilan kung bakit kailangan ng mga Pilipino ang mas maraming Dick. . . Dick Gordon.

Mabuhay si Sen. Dick Gordon! Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

The post 10 Reasons Filipinos Need a Taste of More Dick . . . for the Senate, that is first appeared on Marcial's Law.

By Marcial Bonifacio

August 31, 2020

My friends and countrymen, as we observe National Heroes' Day on August 31, 2020, it is most appropriate to contemplate our country’s sovereignty, which includes maritime rights.  Throughout his term, President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly expressed the false notion that China is “in possession” of the West Philippine Sea (WPS) and that the Philippines is powerless to assert its sovereign rights therein, short of waging war with China, the latest declaration having been made in his last State of the Nation Address on July 27.  Consequently, every time he does so, his critics persistently rebut him, particularly the astute Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, who was instrumental in the favorable 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the WPS.

In my “Open Letter to President Duterte” and “Why Filipinos Should Give a Damn about Panatag Shoal,” I have presented some of Carpio’s advice on how the Philippines can, indeed, enforce its arbitral award without waging war with China, some of which I have likewise enumerated below.  Some of them are Carpio’s direct response to Duterte upon publicly asking him what action to undertake, as in the following dialogue:

“Xi Jinping [said] there will be trouble,” stated Duterte, “so answer me, Justice, give me the formula and I’ll do it.”

“My response is yes, Mr. President, there is a formula,” replied Carpio, “and not only one but many ways of enforcing the arbitral award without going to war with China, using only the rule of law.”

Without further ado, I present those options which Carpio stated should be implemented “together to fortify the award part by part, brick by brick, until the award is fully enforced.”

• The Philippines can join a convention with Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei regarding the South China Sea.  The convention can declare that no geologic feature in the Spratly Islands generates an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and that there are only territorial seas from the geologic features that are above water at high tide, as ruled by the PCA.  According to Carpio, China will be "isolated" as the only country claiming EEZs from the Spratly Islands.  Countries that assert freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea are also expected to follow such a convention, he added.
• The Philippines can invite Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei to conduct joint FONOPs in respective EEZs facing the West Philippine Sea.  "This will be a common assertion by 5 coastal states that each of them have their own respective EEZs in South China Sea thereby enforcing the arbitral award that China's 9-dash line has no legal effect and cannot serve as basis to claim the waters of the South China Sea," Carpio said.  By conducting joint FONOPs, it will also affirm the EEZ of the Philippines in the West Philippine Sea.  Carpio said that while the Philippines should welcome and join these operations, it has instead distanced the country from them, saying the Philippines "does not take sides" in disputes between China and other countries in the area, a seemingly treacherous gesture vis-à-vis the oldest and most loyal ally, the U.S.
• The Philippines can welcome and encourage the freedom of navigation and overflight operations (FONOPs) of the U.S., U.K., France, Australia, Japan, India and Canada in the South China Sea, including the West Philippine Sea. The naval and aerial operations of these naval powers, which are in conformity with UNCLOS and customary international law, have increased in frequency since the 2016 PCA award, and are what Carpio describes as the “most robust enforcement” of the arbitral award, bridging the gap between the rule of law and the rule of justice.
• The Philippines can persuade the U.S. to declare Panatag Shoal as part of Philippine territory, which would protect it under the 1951 Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).  Such action would add clarity for legal ramifications, since the shoal was known to be under Philippine jurisdiction as early as the American colonial period and even under Spanish rule.  The Japanese did precisely that with their Senkaku islands, which the U.S. declared as part of Japan’s territory for purposes of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty.
• The Philippines could send the Philippine Navy to patrol Panatag Shoal.  “As the South China Sea is part of the Pacific,” stated U.S. State Sec. Mike Pompeo, “any armed attack on any Philippine forces, aircraft, or public vessels in the South China Sea will trigger mutual defense treaty obligations under Article 4 of our Mutual Defense Treaty.”  Of course, that would prompt the U.S. Navy to intervene.
• The Philippines can resume joint naval patrols with the U.S. in the West Philippine Sea in order to project military might, which could deter China from continuing its island-building activity on Panatag Shoal.
• The Philippine Coast Guard can send its ten 44-meter multi-role response vessels that were donated by Japan to patrol the West Philippine Sea.  These vessels, Carpio said, are ideal for patrolling and catching poachers in the Philippines' EEZ in the West Philippine Sea. Doing so will also assert the country's sovereign rights in the maritime area.
• Congress can enact legislation to make permanent the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).  Indeed, the MDT would be rendered obsolete without either of them as elucidated by Foreign Affairs Sec. Teodoro Locsin:

The Mutual Defense Treaty without the VFA and EDCA may be compared to a deflated balloon. For all practical purposes, it becomes an extra large rubber for an Asian. Far more elastic than he can ever need for its purpose and far more suitable as a shower cap than a prophylactic against foreign aggression.

Aside from the two treaties giving teeth to the MDT, making them permanent would revitalize and fortify America’s alliance with the Philippines while deterring China and other potential aggressors, as well as quelling terrorist threats.

• The Philippines can emulate America’s foreign policy of imposing visa restrictions on all persons and business entities which Pompeo characterizes as “responsible for, or complicit in, either the large-scale reclamation, construction, or militarization of disputed outposts in the South China Sea, or [the People’s Republic of China’s] use of coercion against Southeast Asian claimants to inhibit their access to offshore resources.”
• The Philippines can terminate contracts with Chinese firms which are, in any way, involved in reclamation and militarization activities in the WPS.  In fact, Locsin has already publicly said he would make such a recommendation to the appropriate agencies.
• The Philippines can file an extended continental shelf claim in the West Philippine Sea beyond the 200-nautical mile EEZ off the coast of Luzon, where China is the only opposite coastal state. The Philippines can file this unilaterally with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. China cannot invoke historic rights under its nine-dash line claim which has already been ruled without legal effect by the PCA. China’s own extended continental shelf does not overlap with the extended continental shelf of the Philippines in this maritime area.
• The Philippines can “bring China’s threat of war to another United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) arbitral tribunal, to secure an order directing China to comply with the ruling of the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal that declared the Reed Bank part of Philippine EEZ.”  He added that the “Philippines can also ask for damages for every day of delay that the Philippines is prevented by China from exploiting Philippine EEZ.”
• The Philippines can facilitate efforts of active citizens to enforce the arbitral award.  Carpio referred to the case filed by former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales against Chinese President Xi Jinping before the International Criminal Court. The complaint accused Xi of crimes against humanity over environmental damage in the South China Sea.
• According to Senator Richard Gordon, the National Security Council can regularly convene and collaborate with a think tank paneled by foreign policy and defense experts.  Such regular meetings could keep the Philippines prepared for various contingencies.  “Alam naman natin na there is always contention in that area,” stated Gordon, “kaya dapat nakahanda tayo kung ano ang mangyayari diyan.”
• The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) can and should immediately issue a clarification that China is in fact not in possession, and legally can never be in possession, of the WPS.  According to Carpio, the international law doctrine of unilateral declarations can bind the Philippines to Duterte’s statement about China’s alleged possession of the WPS, whereby China can claim the Philippines has forfeited its sovereign rights.  Hence, clarification from the DFA is essential.
• The Senate and the House of Representatives can pass resolutions declaring that China is not in possession of the WPS.
• All professional, civic, social, political, student, and alumni organizations, and all Filipino citizens, can and should overwhelm Malacañang with statements and text messages: China is not, and will never be, in possession of the WPS.

In conclusion, my friends and countrymen, lest the Philippines becomes “a province of China,” we can and must assert our sovereign rights in the WPS, regardless of Duterte’s rhetoric.  In the authoritative words of Carpio, “The Filipino people should not be intimidated by national leaders who peddle a false option that either we go to war with China or submit to China. This false option should be discredited once and for all. . . We cannot adopt a defeatist attitude and just sit idly by and let China seize what international law has declared to be our own Exclusive Economic Zone. . . This is the moment for all Filipinos to unite in defense of Philippine sovereign rights in the WPS.”

Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

The post How the Philippines Can Enforce Its Arbitral Award without Going to War with China first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Updated: 9/8/19

My friends and countrymen, I realize this commentary comes late but is most appropriate as we observe National Heroes Day.  Indeed, I wish to shed some light on the current issue by providing some historical context, which would otherwise perpetuate misapprehensions and misperceptions about the intentions of a public servant, worthy of the same respect, honor, and adoration as Dr. Jose Rizal.  Therefore, I’ll be killing two birds with one stone.  Without further ado, I’ll begin now.

I’m greatly appalled by the spectacle of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s behavior on August 1, 2019 wherein he went on a tirade against Senator Richard Gordon.  When the former disclosed his decision to appoint former military officials to top government posts, the latter simply commented that having such numerous appointees could potentially be “dangerous because civilian authority must remain supreme over the military.  Dapat three years muna bago ka i-appoint… para mawala muna ‘yung ties mo, the ties that bind.” (There must be three years after relief from active duty before you get appointed...to let go of your ties, the ties that bind.)

Gordon explained, “Ang problema lang kay Presidente, mababaw ang bench niya. He comes from the province, hindi niya nakilala. So, mas nagre-rely siya sa military.” (The problem with the President is that he has a shallow bench. He comes from the province and scarcely knows anyone. So, he relies mostly on the military.)  As a result, during his speech at the 28^th founding anniversary of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) commemoration, Duterte made some repugnant and bizarre remarks, which I will list below and consequently address:

"Pero kung ako ang presidente at pupunta ako ng Maynila magtrabaho dito, maghanap ako ng tao. Kung si Gordon lang naman ang makita ko, mag-resign na lang ako [sa] pagkapresidente." (If I'm the President and I go to Manila to work and look for people, if Gordon is all I'd see here, I'd rather resign as president.)

"Ang tanong niya sa akin, ano daw ang nakita ko sa military. Well, one, sabihin ko sa 'yo, I can move faster with honesty. Mahirap maghanap ng tao na honest ngayon." (His question for me is, what do I see in the military? Well, one, I'll tell you, I can move faster with honesty. It's hard to find honest people nowadays.)

"Do not be too presumptuous about your talent. Why do you criticize me? It's my prerogative. It is not prohibited by law. And the law says that the president shall be, kung may tulong siya sa mga taong Cabinet member (if he gets help from Cabinet members), it doesn't say except those who are ex-military men because they are not qualified."

“I am challenging him, give me one specific instance that the military, the police or the DILG membership disobeys a single order from me.”

“You won’t ever become vice president. I will make sure of that. You really won’t become vice president. Now if you want that title badly, what you should do is you create a private corporation, make your family the incorporators of that corporation, then appoint a president, a member of your family as president of the corporation, then find a way that you will be seated as the vice president of that corporation.”

“Kung ikaw mag-presidente, sigurado ‘yan wala talagang maniwala sa ‘yo. ‘Yang sinabi mo na ‘yan? ‘Wag ka na tumakbo ng presidente, wala kang makuha sa Armed Forces. Pag manalo ka, kargahin ka diyan galing sa Luneta diretso ka doon sa Bilibid (If you run for president, for sure, no one will believe you. Considering what you said about the military? Don't ever run for presidency, you won't get a single vote from the Armed Forces. If you win, you will be carried straight from Luneta to jail),” he added.

“Mabuti kung may away diyan sa Negros, matawag ko ba si Senator Dick Gordon magpunta doon? Magturo-turo, mag-English… Siya lang makaintindi, kinakain niya salita niya, eh (There’s conflict in Negros, it would be good if I could call on Senator Gordon to go there. But what would he do? Teach English? It’s only he who understands himself because he eats his words),” Duterte said.

“Hindi ka naman talaga Filipino, tisoy ka lang. Kami dito mga probinsyano.” (You are not pure Filipino, you are of mixed race. We, from the province, are.)

"You know, I think 'yung sabi niyang probinsyano ako, sa bagay totoo 'yan. Pero, at least, probinsiyano ako, my brain stays in my head. 'Yung utak mo, Dick, natutunaw, napupunta diyan sa tiyan mo. You are a fart away from disaster. Intindihin mo muna 'yung tiyan mo bago ka makialam sa trabaho ko." (You know, I think his remark about me being from the province, to be fair, that's true. But at least I'm from the province, my brain stays in my head. Your brain, Dick, dissolves and goes to your belly instead. You are a fart away from disaster. Mind your belly first before interfering with my job.)

“Take care of your stomach. It’s ugly. You’re just a fart, a heartbeat away from… ‘Yang laki mong ‘yan? ‘Yan ang katawan na mahirap, hindi pwede ambulansya. Karga ninyo sa truck ninyo.” (With your size? You won’t fit in an ambulance. They will carry you at the back of a truck.)

“Sabi ko nga, ikaw, para kang penguin maglakad. Totoo man sabihin mo sa kanya. Makita kami. Sabihin niya sa akin uli ‘yan. Sabihin niya in front of me.” (Like I said, he walks like a penguin. It’s true, you can tell him that. When we see each other, he should tell me what he said to my face.)

To all these insults, Gordon graciously responded, "I take no offense at the President’s comments. As I have said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and we cannot be onion-skinned about such things. . . I am happy that the President is concerned about my waistline, but he need not worry about that.  My wife has seen to it that I have reduced it significantly of late. But I appreciate that he is concerned about my health as I am about his.”

Now that I have presented the relevant parts of the dialogue between Duterte and Gordon, I will henceforth address each of Duterte’s points.  First, Duterte detests Gordon so much that he would resign as President if he was the only prospective appointee.  However, in a speech at a Philippine Red Cross event in 2017, Duterte praisefully referred to him as “President Gordon,” which would be “only about a few more years.”  Whence came such clear inconsistency in Duterte’s view of Gordon?

Now that I have presented the relevant parts of the dialogue between Duterte and Gordon, I will henceforth address each of Duterte’s points.  First, Duterte detests Gordon so much that he would resign as President if he was the only prospective appointee.  However, in a speech at a Philippine Red Cross event in 2017, Duterte praisefully referred to him as “President Gordon,” which would be “only about a few more years.”  Whence came such clear inconsistency in Duterte’s view of Gordon?

Second, Duterte says he prefers military officials because they are trustworthy, and honest non-military prospects are difficult to find.  Generally speaking, in this seemingly cruel, dog-eat-dog world, it is difficult to find trustworthy friends and spouses, much less good, upstanding public servants impervious to corruption.  However, that is precisely why anyone running for the office of president should have an entrenched political machinery.  That is simply the nature of politics.

Surely Duterte’s close friendships with potential appointees are not limited to current military and retired military officials.  Even if so, can he not find prospects among the network of his own children in public office?  Mayor Sara Duterte or Congressman Paolo Duterte?  What about his college mates or colleagues when he was a prosecutor?  By the way, if military officials are trustworthy, what of the retired generals who are accused of plunder at the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)?

Third, Duterte questions Gordon’s criticism, defensively stating that his intended appointments are at his discretion and lawful.  Article XVI, Section 5(4) of the 1987 Constitution reads: “No member of the armed forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed or designated in any capacity to a civilian position in the Government including government-owned or controlled corporations or any of their subsidiaries.”  Therefore, Duterte is correct with regard to legality and constitutionality.

However, this is not an issue of legality or constitutionality, but of national security and following the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter of the law.  Apparently, Gordon understood the principle of civilian control of the military, since the latter is not an institution “wired for democratic policymaking, governing, or statecraft.”  Rather, its nature is authoritarian and generally functions for defense, deterrence, and killing.

In order to understand Gordon’s concern germane to Duterte’s potential militarization of the government, historical context is instructive.  This concept of civilian supremacy is the trademark of American government, which distinguishes the U.S. as well as other republics (including the Philippines) from authoritarian nations, whose attempts to overturn their governments via military coups, are banal.  In order to institute such a state of affairs, America’s founders delegated some military functions to civilians.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress shall have the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy."  Article II, Section 2 reads, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . .”  Such a dispersal of power with a civilian check on the military was similarly adopted and assimilated into the Philippine Constitution.

During a time when the world was less interconnected in terms of trade and national defense, a standing army or permanent military force was obsolete, even abhorred by America’s founders.  They knew from their experience under King George III, that on just a whim of a tyrannical government, their rights could easily be violated.  However, this situation changed after World War II and the specter of Communism, whereby a more dangerous world necessitated the banality of a permanent American military force and interventionist foreign policy, even more so today with the rapid spread of Islamic terrorism and the emergence of rogue states, developing nuclear weapons.

Consequently, the U.S. Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947 which mandated a 10-year minimum (currently amended to a 7-year minimum) of inactive military service prior to appointment as Defense Secretary.  Such a law, according to Kathleen Hicks of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “is a prudent contribution to maintaining the constitutionally-grounded principle of civilian control, both symbolically and in practice, in the presence of a sizable and highly capable 21st century military.”  Gordon is fully aware of this American law and proposes it be applied to retired military appointees in the Philippines as well.  However, he suggests a mandatory 3-year (instead of 7-year) hiatus and proposes it for all top civilian posts, aside from that of Defense Secretary.  Such an interval would weaken the “ties that bind” and hence thwart coup attempts by rebels.

From our own history, Gordon has pointed out two coup d’etat attempts by the Magdalo group, which is composed of three Philippine Military Academy graduates, who served in the Bureau of Customs, namely, former Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon, Customs Deputy Commissioner Gerardo Gambala, and former Import Assessment Services (IAS) director Milo Maestrecampo.  “First of all,” Gordon asks, “is there any danger, for example, that they could be raising money for a political party like Magdalo? Is there any danger, for example, that they could be raising money to buy arms for another coup?”

V: Gordon’s interpolation

Cognizant of our countrymen’s tendency to be complacent, even in so far as to be acquiescent, Gordon is simply cautioning us, including Duterte, about the risks of appointing newly retired military officials to top civilian posts of government.  The purpose, according to Gordon, is “meant not only to protect the country but his administration."  That is his mandate as a representative of the people, and if Duterte feels hindered or threatened, perhaps he does not possess an equivalent historical acumen or erudition.  Otherwise, his despotic tendencies may be preventing him from tolerating peaceful dissent or differing public policies, qualities that comprise a thriving republic.

Aside from the ostensible domestic concerns of militarized government, negative global optics can adversely affect international relations in security and business dealings.  Among Duterte’s former military appointees thus far are: Interior Secretary Eduardo Año, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr., Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Carlito Galvez Jr., Social Welfare Secretary Rolando Bautista, Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council of the Philippines (HUDCC) Chair Eduardo del Rosario, Environment Secretary Roy Cimatu, and MMDA Chair Danilo Lim.  Couple such appointments with his numerous visits to military camps throughout the Philippines, his rhetoric on the prospect of establishing a revolutionary government, his demand for authorization to use emergency powers and imposition of martial law, and his censuring of journalists.

Would such optics bode well with the international community?  Would foreign investors feel confident about infusing funds to boost our economy?  Would our allies trust us and continue to provide foreign aid in the form of humanitarian goods and services and military goods and training?  How would potential tourists feel about vacationing in the Philippines?

Fourth, on Duterte’s challenge to Gordon to cite one specific instance wherein a military official disobeyed an order from him, August 20th the day of such an instance.  It was the day Bureau of Corrections Chief Nicanor Faeldon ordered the release of rapist/murderer Antonio Sanchez against Duterte’s order.  According to Duterte, “he violated my instructions.”  That is why on September 4, 2019, the President terminated his public service.  “Faeldon has to go,” he said, “because Faeldon disobeyed my order.”  Hence, Gordon won the challenge without ever uttering a word, since Duterte essentially outchallenged himself.

Fifth, it seems that Duterte has given advice to Gordon on how to become Vice-President.  I must say that I am a bit perplexed.  I was not aware that Gordon has sought or currently seeks such a post.  Therefore, I cannot comment on that, but I will ask: How is that pertinent to the BFP commemoration?

Sixth, Duterte states that should Gordon run for the presidency, nobody would believe him, and the military would not vote for him, due to insulting them.  Why wouldn’t anyone believe Gordon?  He has been consistent in his principles and is even known as “Aksyon Gordon” because he “walks the walk” and doesn’t just “talk the talk.” What precisely was Gordon’s insult to the military?  That the government may become militarized?

Perhaps he shares the same sentiment as one of America’s founders, Samuel Adams, who warned that, “Even when there is a necessity of military power, within the land… a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful & jealous eye over it.”  Why wouldn’t the military vote for Gordon?  I’ll let him defend himself in his own words:

During my first term as Senator, we authored and passed RA 6948 or the Act Standardizing and Upgrading the Benefits for Military Veterans and their Dependents. We even pushed for a higher budget for the military and defense. In fact, during the deliberations of the TRAIN Law, we proposed that 15% of the collections from it be earmarked for military modernization and it passed the Senate. When it was later removed, I threatened to filibuster until the President called and assured me that the executive would ensure that it would be implemented.

Seventh, Duterte expressed his desire for Gordon to accompany him in Negros with regard to the recent killings allegedly committed by the New People’s Army, the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines.  However, he questioned what he would do there.  Teach English?  What an excellent idea, since English is a most essential language!  According to the British Council:

English is the main language of books, newspapers, airports and air-traffic control, international business and academic conferences, science, technology, diplomacy, sport, international competitions, pop music and advertising. Over two-thirds of the world’s scientists read in English. Three quarters of the world’s mail is written in English. Eighty percent of the world’s electronically stored information is in English. Of the estimated forty million users of the Internet, some eighty percent communicate in English. . .

Gordon speaks both fluent English and Tagalog.  He is even adept in utilizing English colloquialisms, clichés, and idioms.  Therefore, Gordon would be the ideal English instructor for the people of Negros, unlike Duterte who is fluent in neither.

Of course, a well learned and accomplished man as Gordon can contribute in other ways as well.  As a crisis manager for the Red Cross, he could provide emotional and inspirational support, as well as disaster logistics and rescue aid to the victims.  As a legal luminary, Gordon could advise Duterte on any proposals with regard to military and counter-terrorist action and the legality or constitutionality thereof.  After all, he was a lawyer and delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and is currently an effective lawmaker in the Senate.

Eighth, on the issue of Gordon not being a real Filipino, If Duterte is referring exclusively to ethnicity, then he is incontrovertibly correct.  He is only 50% Filipino due to his Caucasian father, who chose to renounce his American citizenship, become a Filipino citizen, betroth and live with a Filipina in the Philippines, serve Filipinos as their mayor, and eventually die and be buried in the Philippines.  Gordon followed suit, notwithstanding his birth and rearing in the Philippines and is yet to be deceased.

If, on the other hand, the definition of a Filipino is expanded to include a Philippine citizen who religiously performs his civic duty, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  If the definition includes a citizen who contemplates and honors Filipino heroes and martyrs, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  If the definition includes a public servant who defends and upholds Filipino institutions and the Philippine Constitution, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  In a word, if the definition of being a Filipino is simply one who embraces Filipino culture and supporting causes and policies which will advance or uplift the Filipino people, then Gordon is 100% Filipino.  Is that not all that should matter?  Duterte will not even fulfill his constitutional mandate of protecting the Philippines’ territorial sovereignty in Panatag Shoal.  Perhaps we should rightfully say that he is 50% Filipino and 50% Chinese for acquiescing this fundamental right to China.

Ninth, from where did all Duterte’s derogatory and puerile comments about Gordon’s intelligence (or lack thereof) and excess weight emanate?  One can only speculate.  Perhaps this was a display of the former’s own intelligence (or lack thereof).  Perhaps it was another typical demonstration of his character (or lack thereof).  Perhaps such histrionics was simply an indicator of his own inadequacies or insecurities projected deeply from his own subconscious.  Perhaps it is due to his upbringing in the province. de0a  Whatever it may be, one thing is certain: Digong’s obsession with Dick finally overwhelmed him.  Indeed, ranting about Dick for approximately twenty minutes in a speech, which was supposed to commemorate the BFP, made this clearly transparent.

In conclusion, I wish to inculcate our countrymen with some important points.  First, we must always remember that a popular president does not equate to a good president.  That is why Gordon’s grasp of history, his foresight, and his persistent vigilance are qualities we should come to appreciate and cultivate within ourselves.

Second, we must understand that Gordon’s civility and humility in handling Duterte’s excoriation exalts him and makes him the better man, as well as the better public servant.  Indeed, his restraint in personal attacks against Duterte is a display of good character, diplomacy, and cognizance of domestic, as well as global optics, which could impact international relations.

Third, we must appreciate the founders and their concept of civilian supremacy over the military in order to preserve our government’s peaceful transfer of power.

Finally, my friends and countrymen, we must never, under any circumstances, underestimate or take for granted, the value and impact of Dick . . . Dick Gordon, that is.

The post Is Dick Hindering Digong or Is Digong Suffering from Dick Envy? first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Now that I have presented my reasons for supporting the American paradigm on which the Philippines can model, in full or in part, its federal form (namely, a limited, federal, presidential government), I will henceforth present a few key features and safeguards of the U.S. government which I propose be assimilated into the new Philippine constitution.  However, it must be noted that, albeit the Philippine government was partially modeled after the American government, these key features were excluded from being incorporated into the Philippine constitution.

Such safeguards are not only what starkly differentiate the U.S. government from the Philippine government, but they are precisely what account for the general effectiveness of the former’s system of checks and balances---namely, a federalist system by which power is equally divided by a central government and the states, an electoral college to elect the president, a Senate with its members elected by their districts rather than at large, and recourse for the states whenever their sovereignty is threatened by a tyrannical federal government.  Due to much of the public’s oblivion to these distinctions, I have elucidated them in my commentary entitled “Is the Philippine Government an American Replica?”

Senate

First, I propose the restructuring of the Philippine Senate pursuant to the American model of equal regional representation, whereby each region or state will elect two senators.  Indeed, this is a drastic deviation of the current method of the populace voting for twenty-four senators nationwide or at large.  Not only would this arrangement be congenial to the unique situation of each region or state, it would empower the small states as well.  Indeed, as American founder William Davie stated, “The protection of the small states against the ambition and influence of the larger members, could only be effected by arming them with an equal power in one branch of the legislature.”  Hence, equal representation in the Senate is a safeguard against what American founder James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Since the lower chamber of Congress known as the House of Representatives is composed of members elected directly by the people, it has been characterized as embodying the unfettered “passions” of the people.  By contrast, members of the upper house known as the Senate shall be elected or appointed by the regional or state legislatures, whose members are inclined to be refined and informed.  That is why Madison wrote, “The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”  Put more simply by American founder George Washington, the scalding heat of the “tea” of the House is placed into the “senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Additionally, the election or appointment of senators by regional or state legislatures will decrease the influence of special interest groups on senatoriables, since they often fund costly state-wide races.  Political commentator John DeMaggio elaborates:

Senators would no longer be bound by allegiances to these special interests. Candidates would not be obliged to receive funding from political parties for their nonexistent campaign limiting a Senator’s obligation to the national political party. Senators would be more obligated to serve the interests of their State . . . rather than a national political party or special interests.

Hence, the republican nature of the Senate serves as a check and balance on the democratic nature of the House, a distinct feature of American federalism, which ultimately keeps an overreaching federal government at bay.

Electoral College

Second, I propose the establishment of an electoral college (EC) to elect the president as opposed to the current form of direct or popular election.  Being comprised of what American founder John Jay characterizes as “the most enlightened and respectable citizens. . . their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue. . . As an assembly of select electors possess. . . the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment . . .”

By contrast, the current presidential electoral system via popular vote is often dominated by man’s raw passion and impulse (as in the House) because as American founder Elbridge Gerry stressed, the “people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”  Perhaps that accounts for the banal election of incompetent politicians, unfavorable dynasties, and inexperienced celebrities in the Philippines.  Hence, the EC, much as the Senate, serves as a check and safeguard against the populace’s unfettered passion and impulsive drive.

The EC also serves to ensure fair representation for the small and least populated regions or states just as it does in the U.S. Senate.  Consider that of the seventeen regions, the two most populous ones are Southern Tagalog (Region IV) at 14,414,774 and the National Capital Region (Region XIII) at 12,877,253.  Naturally, a direct election of the president would be largely in their favor to the detriment of the less populous regions, such as the Cordillera (Region XIV) at 1,722,006 or Caraga (Region XVI) at 2,596,709.

That is why I propose, in addition to the equivalent number of House members, two representatives be elected or appointed by each region or state in order to constitute a Philippine electoral college (EC) similar to the U.S., whereby each region will be equally represented, regardless of its size.  In so doing, the president will be the president of the whole Philippines, not just of the largest regions or metropolitan areas.

The final purpose of the EC is to facilitate the preclusion of voter fraud.  However, in order for this to be effective, the presidential electoral system must become decentralized.  Just as in the U.S., each individual state legislates its own election laws, each Philippine region or state must do likewise.  In so doing, corrupt federal election officials would find it virtually impossible to fix or “rig” the presidential election due to the electoral autonomy of every region or state and the functioning of local election judges, tasked with multiple responsibilities.

Even when anomalies are discovered after the voting results, they can easily be isolated to one or only a few regions or states, which would make for speedy recounts, as was the case in the 2000 U.S. presidential election wherein a voting dispute occurred between George W. Bush and Al Gore in Florida for only a few weeks.  Contrast that with the dispute between Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Leni Robredo which has persisted for over two years.  Consider also how cost-effective the electoral process would be due to decentralization and curtailing of lawsuits.

The electors shall not hold public office in any branch of the federal government, be given a salary, or have tenure, and whereupon its sole function of electing the president and vice-president is executed, the EC shall immediately be dissolved.  Hence, they will be insulated from national political pressure.  Such a temporary function certainly addresses American founder Alexander Hamilton’s concern that presidential selection should not “depend on any preexisting bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes.”  The manner by which electors are selected shall be at the sole discretion of each individual state or region---e.g., via a state or region’s legislature, via a state or region’s governor on the authority of that state or region’s legislature.

It is ostensible that the EC has a positive impact and wide implications on governance.  Such a significant feature, with all its safeguards, is the cornerstone of American federalism, of which the Philippine government is bereft.  Indeed, the EC is also an alternative to a direct democracy (as is currently the case), authoritarianism, and parliamentary government.

Nullification

Third, America’s founders brilliantly concocted two checks as a remedy for the states to counter an overreaching or tyrannical national government.  The remedies are state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and an Article V Convention of States (COS).  The former is, according to Jefferson, “the rightful remedy” against “all unauthorized acts done” by the national government and was executed effectively in defiance of a federal embargo, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  In my commentary entitled The Peak of Tyranny and End of Its Destruction, I cited two more recent examples in which Montana, Alabama, and Wyoming amended their state constitutions, nullifying Obamacare.

In defiance to President Barack Obama’s executive orders to banning certain types of firearms, several governors, state legislators, and sheriffs have taken measures to quell or nullify any presidential decree, which did not conform to their own state’s gun regulations.  Some legislators have gone so far as to prepare legislation which would criminalize any attempt of federal agents to enforce the new federal gun ownership restrictions.  One sheriff in Oregon (Tim Mueller) even wrote a letter to Vice President Joe Biden in which he declared that neither he nor his deputies would enforce any federal gun law, which he deems unconstitutional.  Among the states which exercised such recalcitrant acts were Mississippi, Kentucky, Oregon, Minnesota, Alabama, Tennessee, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Florida, and Texas.

Convention of States

In Federalist 85, Hamilton alludes to the second remedy when he says, “. . . we may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”  He is referring to assembling a Convention of States (COS), which is actually embodied in Article V of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ….

Put plainly and simply, thirty-four states of the U.S. must consent to deliberation in a convention of states (not a constitutional convention, which would be a formidable option) to propose constitutional amendments.  Thirty-eight states must ratify the amendments in order for them to become binding and effective.  In this way, the states can put the national government in check regardless of who occupies the presidency, Congress, or the Supreme Court.  As of this writing, twelve states have passed a COS resolution.  Furthermore, the aforementioned remedies as state nullification and an Article V COS are essential in lawfully preserving federalism, while precluding “mob rule.”

In the Philippine context, a clause pertinent to regional or state nullification of intrusive federal laws can and should be annexed to the draft constitution in order to preclude jurisdictional discrepancies, wherein both the regions and national government purport to defend and uphold the Constitution.  Unfortunately, such a clause is nonexistent in the U.S. Constitution, which has been the cause for the aforementioned discrepancies and can thus serve as an example of unintended consequences from which the Philippines can learn.  In terms of annexing a COS clause to the draft constitution, the number of regions needed for deliberation and ratification will be smaller than our U.S. counterpart, since the number of regions created and established via federalism will be significantly smaller than the fifty states of the U.S. (e.g., eleven pursuant to LDP Institute’s model and eighteen pursuant to RBH 8).

Furthermore, a Senate elected by the regions or states, an electoral college to elect the President, and recourse for the regions or states against an overreaching federal government are checks and balances safeguarding the sovereignty of the regions or states and the people.  They are elements, which, in spite of their historical significance to American federalism, have never been assimilated into Philippine government.  Perhaps now is the time in the clamor for federalism and as an alternative to a costly and more drastic shift to a federal parliamentary system.

However, in spite of the ostensible advantages of my federalist proposal, it must be noted that it is not a “magic bullet” or the single, perfect solution to everything ailing the Philippines.  Rather it is a remedy to address certain issues, which, in order to have maximum positive impact, must be executed in concert with other measures, e.g., the enforcement of current laws, economic liberalization to curb protectionist policies and attract direct foreign investments, and cultural changes in order to cultivate an informed, disciplined, industrious, and active citizenry which will strengthen preexisting, fundamental, social institutions.  The latter is imperative, lest the electorate continues to elect incompetent or corrupt politicians, and that will occur under any system of governance—unitary or federal, presidential or parliamentary.

This is excerpted from “The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards” by Marcial Bonifacio.  Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are accessible by clicking on their links.

The post A Federal Philippines: A Modest Proposal first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Having presented my reasons for the federalist shift while also addressing contrarian views, I also propose that the Constitutional Commission scrutinizes, adapts, and includes the American government’s model---in full or, at least, in part.  If only in part, I propose a few particular safeguards be assimilated into the new Philippine constitution.  In the meantime, it seems appropriate to scrutinize my reasons for including the U.S. model in making the transition to federalism.

Best Ideas

First and foremost, America’s republic is comprised of the best historical ideas.  Indeed, the founders scrutinized the governing systems of the predominant Western civilizations---ancient and contemporary.  These include Greece, Rome, France, and England from which the founders derived the concepts of liberty, justice, trial by jury, separation of powers, democracy, republicanism, and self-government.  The founders meticulously studied the rise and fall of tyrannical governments in those nations, as well as their own experience with King George III in framing a constitution which would preclude such occurrences in the U.S.

Preexisting Government Infrastructure

Second, since the Philippine government was largely framed after the U.S. government, the familiar preexisting federal infrastructure or apparatus of the separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches facilitates a more congenial transition to federalism much more so than abolishing it as parliamentary government advocates and proponents of PDP-Laban Federalism Institute’s model seek to do.  Even the anti-colonialist Delegate Manuel Roxas defended the ratification of the 1935 Constitution (although it is a gross variation of America’s original constitution):

Why have we preferred the Government established under this draft?  Because it is the Government with which we are familiar.  It is the form of government fundamentally such as it exists today; it is the only kind of government we have found to be in consonance with our experience, and with the necessary modification capable of permitting a fair play of social forces and allowing the people to conduct the presidential system.

It must be noted that I do not oppose a parliamentary form of government per se.  I simply would support it only as a last resort, i.e., when all reforms under a presidential federal system (e.g., the establishment of an electoral college to elect the president and a Senate elected by regional legislatures instead of at large) fail, but I digress.

Resiliency

Third, America’s system has proven to be the most resilient.  Constitutional law Professor Hugh Hewitt points out:

The work of collective genius that is the Constitution has been tested by everything from an actual civil war that claimed 600,000 lives to various panics, two world wars, the Great Depression, and the Great Recession, not to mention impeachments and assassinations, political-judicial meltdowns like Florida in 2000, and dozens of scandals---and it does not break.  It is more resilient than any other modern constitution, a remarkable, nearly perfect balance of competing powers and separated authorities that has endured and will endure.  Those who fear it is off the road and in the ditch have to ignore history’s many examples of America righting itself after trauma and setback.

Consider America’s progress in the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women, and civil rights for blacks, all of which happened within 229 years of the establishment of the U.S. government.  In spite of such turbulent occasions, the world’s oldest written supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, remains largely intact.  Contrast that with our three Philippine constitutions---of 1935, 1973, and 1987---all promulgated and implemented within a single century.  Additionally, President Rodrigo Duterte has raised the specter of a revolutionary government, which all betokens the instability of the Philippine government.

Unequivocal Language

Fourth, the language of the U.S. Constitution is very clear in distinguishing the powers of the federal government from that of the states.  Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the federal powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…To coin money…To establish Post Offices and post Roads…To raise and support Armies.

The Tenth Amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, betokens the threshold at which the states (or the people) are sovereign, which is the cornerstone of federalism.  It states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”  The American founder and principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, elaborates on the nature of these powers in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce . . . The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Indeed, it is those “few and defined” powers of the federal government which accounts for a simple, comprehensible, and short constitution.  Contrast that with our lengthy constitution of 1987, which manifests a government exceeding the size and scope imposed by America’s founders.

Based on Natural Rights

Fifth, it is the first written constitution based on our timeless, ubiquitous, natural rights, which intrinsically circumscribe the national government and betoken the vast range of our individual liberty.  Indeed, the U.S. Declaration of Independence (upon which America’s constitution is based) betokens man’s universal and intrinsic equality and endowment of “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Even the Philippine revolutionary and anti-colonialist Apolinario Mabini acknowledged such rights, stemming from “natural law,” when attributing the success of the U.S. government to the major work of two of its founders, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine:

The ruler’s success is always to be found in the adjustment of his practical measures to the natural and immutable order of things and to the special needs of the locality, an adjustment that can be made with the help of theoretical knowledge and experience. The source of all failures in government can therefore be found, not in (mistaken) theories but in unprincipled practices arising from base passions or ignorance. If the Government of the United States has been able to lead the Union along the paths of prosperity and greatness, it is because its practices have not diverged from the theories contained in the Declaration of Independence and of the Rights of Man, which constitute an exposition of the principles of natural law implanted by the scientific revolutions in the political field.

This is excerpted from “The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards” by Marcial Bonifacio.  Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are accessible by clicking on their links.

The post A Federal Philippines: The Time-Tested Model first appeared on Marcial's Law.

Second of 4 parts

Apart from the ostensible advantages of federalism, critics persist in their tenacity.  Their recalcitrance dissuades others from supporting or even learning more about federalism, hence perpetuating the status quo.  That is why I have addressed some of their criticisms below.

Economy May ‘Go to Hell’

Critics commonly point to the findings of DOF Secretary Carlos Dominguez III who stated that the national government may incur a 6.7% deficit, interest rates would rise by up to 6%, 95% of national government employees may be laid off, and the country’s investment-grade credit ratings may “go to hell.”  ConCom technical working head Wendell Tamayo estimates the cost of establishing 16 federated regions, Bangsamoro and Cordillera regions, four federal courts, and six constitutional commissions at P2.2 trillion, while Rosario Manasan of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies estimates that approximately P55 billion per year will need to be appropriated for the salaries of new federal state elected officials.

Some economists like Victor Abola (professor of the University of Asia and the Pacific) point to a few federal countries which are imperiled by hyperinflation and fear that a federal Philippines may be subjected to the same aftermath.  Due to Venezuela’s current inflation rate of 25%, things cost 250 times more today than a year ago.  Other federal countries like Mexico and Brazil have a similar result due to their localities’ reckless spending on elections, which Abola states is “the primary reason for their hyperinflation episodes . . . which exceeded 4,000% inflation.”

In spite of such negative financial analysis, there are potential measures which could preclude or mitigate some of the aforementioned effects.  For example, ConCom spokesman Ding Generoso has proposed the appropriations for implementing federalism emanate from one of several sources: regional taxes/fees, share of top revenue sources, share of equalization fund, the General Appropriations Act, or natural resources income.  Political scientist Antonio Contreras suggests that some of federalism’s additional costs can be compensated for by the lower costs of transactions, travel, and communication due to decentralization.

Another source would emanate from an expanded tax base due to increased domestic and foreign investments.  In order to be competitive, the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) suggests the corporate income tax (CIT) be lowered from 30% to 20%.  Although the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion 2 (TRAIN 2) law will lower the CIT to 25%, the average rate of the Philippines’ Southeast Asian neighbors is 22.7%.  Hence, a more competitive CIT would attract more investors and create more jobs which, in turn, would translate into more tax revenue.

Also, fiscal incentives for foreign investors in economic zones should be maintained.  For example, the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 grants free port locators a 5% tax on gross income earned.  Unfortunately, TRAIN 2 will repeal such incentives, which the AmCham claimed would “lead to an end to expansions by many foreign investors and a reversal of the success in recent decades in attracting thousands of foreign firms to invest in the country.”

Indeed, this concern is shared by Subic Bay Freeport Chamber of Commerce President Danny Piano who fears the prospect of “capital flight” and Charito Plaza, director general of the Philippine Export Zone Authority, who will continue to defend the fiscal incentives.  Aside from retaining the 5% tax, the financial giant HSBC suggests loosening foreign ownership restrictions via charter change, which would increase the Philippines’ share (currently the lowest) in ASEAN’s “FDI windfall.”

Additionally, all business tax cuts and fiscal incentives should be made permanent, as well as repealing the protectionist clause of the 1987 Constitution in order to boost long-term commitments by investors.  Indeed, such “productive investment,” stated UP professor Maria Bautista, “will generate future streams of income that will not only increase domestic output and income, but also allow the country to service its debt.”  Perhaps the anticipated 95% of laid off national government employees can be reabsorbed into the revitalized private economy or continue their public service on a local level.  Either way, different economic opportunities will abound due to the reallocation of capital precipitated by tax reform and economic liberalization.

ConCom Atty. Rodolfo Robles points out that the national budget is approximately P3.75 trillion and that 40% of it is illegally misdirected.  “Sa simple arithmetic po,” stated Robles, “ayan ay 1.5 trillion, ang napupunta sa graft and corruption.”  He continued to say that at least half of it can be retrieved with a sufficient supply of attorneys.

Recently, in the U.S., Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Mark Sanford introduced the “Penny Plan” or the “One Percent Solution.”  It mandates Congress to reduce federal spending in all departments by one cent on the dollar.  This would drastically curtail inefficiencies from wasteful spending and balance the budget over a period of five years.  Surely, the Philippines can adapt such a plan in order to cap or mitigate the anticipated deficit as a result of instituting federalism.  Call it the “Centabo Plan.”

I would add that with the regions assuming more fiduciary responsibility, the people will be able to retain more of their hard-earned income, while their region more effectively delivers services otherwise performed by the national government.  Such an arrangement would also allocate resources more efficiently and fairly, since taxpayers residing in Manila would no longer have to fund the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) or condoms for lazy, mendicant perverts residing in Zamboanga City (presuming 4Ps and the RH Law get repealed, or the regions have the option to nullify them by virtue of federalism, just as the U.S. is currently in the process of repealing the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act, putatively “Obamacare”).  Indeed, such decentralization echoes ConCom member Dr. Julio Teehankee’s sentiment that “the proposed draft federal constitution encourages the national government to go on a diet and the regions to go on a muscle-building regimen.”

In terms of hyperinflation, it is highly misleading and even disingenuous to attribute it to federalism per se.  Indeed, Venezuela’s centralized federalism (an oxymoron) is simply a euphemism for its federalized socialism, whose perpetual budget deficits and inability to borrow money, has resorted to excessive printing of increasingly devalued money.  Consequently, hyperinflation has become pervasive.  In the case of Brazil and Mexico, it is ostensibly due to poor management and or flawed public policy in election campaign financing which has led to such high inflation rates.  That could be remedied by transparency legislation or strict penalties for exceeding a fixed limit on campaign financing or outright privatization of campaign financing.  Ergo, hyperinflation need not be attributable to federalism.

Comparing the Philippines to the U.S. and Germany an Apples to Oranges Comparison

Some opponents assert that presenting the economic success of advanced, western, federal countries like the U.S. and Germany is disingenuous, since the Philippines is generally still a developing, Asian country---an apples to oranges comparison.  However, the eastern, federal states of India and Malaysia more closely resemble the Philippines and have a relatively stable government and growing economy.  Malaysia’s economic growth is at 5% with a GDP of $863.3 billion and foreign direct investment (FDI) at $9.9 billion.  India, whose history is also influenced by colonialism and the English language, has a growth rate of 7.3% with a GDP of $8.7 trillion and FDI at $4.5 billion.  Compare those economic indicators to that of the Philippines with a 5.8% growth rate, a GDP of $805.2 billion, and FDI at $7.9 billion.

Increased Power to Local Dynasties and Oligarchs

Apart from the ostensible advantages, some are fearful that federalism will enable political dynasties to dominate the regions.  However, a vigilant and informed citizenry can prevent such occurrences or take counter measures after the fact, such as passing and enforcing anti-dynasty and transparency laws as Senator Nene Pimentel suggests.  However, as I wrote in my commentary entitled Why Manny Pacquiao’s Defeat Could Be a Win for the Country, “I do not oppose dynasties, insofar as their members are fairly and democratically elected and serve the interests of their constituents. However, when they are self-serving or hold power only for namesake, I oppose them and any office holder—dynasty clan or not.”

Anyway, should all remedies fail, citizens and businesses can simply migrate to another region, which is more congenial to their own interests, values, economic preferences, or lifestyle.  Over whom would the dynastic oligarchs rule and depend on for tax revenue, if everyone migrated elsewhere?  Would they then not be compelled to compete with other regions by providing quality government services, e.g., infrastructure, public safety, property rights protection, and contract enforcement?

 Federalism Too New and Foreign to the Philippines

Some opponents stress that since federalism is a foreign concept or that the Philippines lacks historical experience in regional autonomy (in contrast to the U.S., Malaysia, and Germany), such a system would be inappropriate or not viable.  However, I contend that El Filibusterismo, a sewer system, jeepneys, smart phones, and a Red Cross did not always exist, and, indeed, did change Philippine life for the better.  Hence, should we have opted to never have introduced them as well?  A prosperous nation demands openness to positive change, and education can accommodate any kind of change, despite its drastic implications.

Anyway, as Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban points out, “The idea of federalism is not really new to us. Salvador Araneta, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention (ConCon), proposed it in his ‘Bayanikasan Constitution.’ Jose Abueva, the secretary of the same ConCon, has written several papers detailing his version of federalism.”  Even as early as 1900, an Ilocano intellectual named Isabelo de los Reyes, envisioned a federal constitution with seven states comprising the Philippines.

 A Sufficient Government Local Code

In terms of regional autonomy, critics point out that the Government Local Code renders federalism obsolete, since the Code is intended to devolve power and disburse internal revenue allotments (IRAs) to localities.  “And yet,” stated Panganiban, “these do not seem to be enough because our Constitution mandates one national police to which the local police are legally beholden, and the Department of Budget and Management which could withhold IRAs.”  Such local autonomy “with strings attached” makes them prone to corruption, or, at least, apathetically unresponsive to the demands of their populace.  Federalism will cut those strings and enable the regions or states to determine their own future.

Neglected Poor Regions

Naysayers of federalism also raise the issue of impoverished regions worsening due to reduced national support.  However, I contend that such dependency or mendicancy is precisely what has retarded their capacity to cultivate their own resources in order to produce prosperity.  It is conventional economic wisdom that prosperous economies consist of most, if not all, of the following key variables: few or no entry barriers to trade, an educated labor force, natural resources, adherence to the rule of law, sustainable infrastructure, and high-scale technology.  Those variables can be cultivated by an efficient, corrupt-free government, quality educational institutions, economic liberalization, and pro-growth tax policy.

Recent history is certainly instructive in providing the proper perspective.  Consider the economic development and growth in post-World War II Japan after the atomic bomb converted its cities into ruins, yet the nation is currently the world’s third largest economy.  Within our own borders, after the recall of American naval bases in Subic Bay and the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (wherein the territory was reduced to an ash heap), it was shortly transformed and lauded by various world leaders as a successful trade port and a paragon for economic growth.  I elaborate on Subic in my commentary entitled Why the Senate Needs More Dick.  If Japan and Subic can prosper, under such overwhelming odds, why not any other region or state in the Philippines?

Perhaps special concessions can be made to the more disadvantaged regions like Mindanao, which should be targeted and temporary as an incentive to be self-sufficient.  Indeed, I would not be averse to Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s concept of “evolving federalism” by which the lesser developed regions remain in the status of “autonomous regions” until they are capable of graduating to the status of “full states.”  In that case, benchmarks should be established instead of a timeline.

This is excerpted from “The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards” by Marcial Bonifacio.  Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are accessible by clicking on their links.

The post A Federal Philippines: Naysayers Debunked first appeared on Marcial's Law.

First of 4 parts

In this proposal, I have frequently cited America’s founders, since federalism (as a systematic study of governance wherein power is shared between a central government and state governments) is often attributable to them, and their intent is made manifest in a collection of their 1787 constitutional convention debates published in The Federalist.  “On every question of construction,” states the American founder Thomas Jefferson, “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Vertical Balance of Power

First and foremost, a federalist system would divide power between the national government and state or regional governments wherein such a dispersal of power would create a vertical, as well as horizontal balance of power.  The American founding father Alexander Hamilton elaborates:

This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.

Close Proximity of States to the People

Second, state autonomy enables each state to govern more effectively due to their close proximity to the people residing in those states.  Jefferson wrote about the U.S., “Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority.”  After all, do not our local public servants have a more accurate perspective of affairs within their own jurisdiction than those governing from Malacanang Palace?

Even President Rodrigo Duterte miscalculated the duration of his war on drugs, originally insisting on a 6-month purging operation, which he now says will require one more full year.  Such a reassessment is apparently due to his newly acquired national perspective and experience, as opposed to his provincial perspective and experience from being Davao City mayor for 22 years.  Although federalism will benefit the people in general, according to Consultative Committee (ConCom) member Eddie Alih, it will be especially expedient to “the lost and the least because shifting to a federal setup will bring government social services closer to the poor.”

Accommodation for a Vastly Diverse Populace

Third, state autonomy more easily accommodates governance of a nation comprised of more than 7,000 islands, several religious groups, and more than a hundred ethno-linguistic groups.  The conquests of Spain and Japan and the American occupation have also had a cultural influence on the indigenous people, as well as trade with the Chinese, Arabs, and Malays.  Naturally such diversity entails differing interests, modes of production, and social-ethnic concerns, all of which may require differing regulations or laws designed for the unique circumstances of each state or region.

Now consider some actual examples of federalism taking effect in America, which betoken unique variations in law, taxation, economics, religion, individual liberty, and culture.  The state of Utah is heavily populated by Mormons, while the mountainous state of Tennessee and Alabama are pervaded by evangelical Christians.  Recreational marijuana is legal in California wherein same-sex marriage and a large Filipino populace co-exist.

Massachusetts has mandatory health insurance and permits open carry of a firearm.  New York has the highest taxes, the most stringent gun control laws, business regulations, and the highest rate of fetal abortions.  (Perhaps those are the “New York values” to which Senator Ted Cruz was referring in his 2016 presidential primary run against Donald Trump.)

Florida and Texas have the lowest income tax rates, no mandatory state income tax, and they happen to be the most favorable states for bass fishermen due to their numerous lakes, rivers, and streams.  Philadelphia, the birthplace of America’s constitution, levies a sugary drink or “soda tax.”  For advocates of capital punishment, the options are varied---electrocution in Kentucky, gas inhalation in Arizona, firing squad in Utah, and hanging or lethal injection in Washington.

Cannot our countrymen relate to such varying factors? Consider similar issues of which some are controversial as well as divisive but could easily be addressed by the states or regions---the drug war, the Mindanao conflict, RH Law, the death penalty, marriage dissolution, same-sex marriage recognition and benefits, jeepney fare hikes, VAT, etc.  In terms of core competencies or comparative advantages, Cebu is the exclusive producer of dolomite and graywacke, while Capiz and Ilocos Norte exclusively produce cotton.  Palawan and Boracay are the top tourist destinations of the Philippines, due to their beaches and the latter’s party ambience.

Furthermore, possessing regional or state sovereignty under federalism, allows each state or region to address such issues pursuant to their unique geographical or demographical situation.  “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,” contends American Chief Justice Louis Brandeis, “that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”  Indeed, impoverished regions can learn from and mimic affluent regions by scrutinizing their economy, tax system, business regulations, and commerce practices, while education administrators in one region can do likewise with successful schools in other regions.  In turn, such competitive regions could eventually decongest Manila.

Such a diversity would naturally appeal to the marginalized or disaffected members of society (e.g., the New People’s Army, Abu Sayyaf, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, the Lumads, and Cordillera).  While there is much controversy over the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), the establishment of a Bangsamoro state or region (to replace the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) via federalism would render the BBL and Bangsamoro Organic Law obsolete, since all states or regions would be equally autonomous simultaneously, at least eventually.

This is excerpted from “The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards” by Marcial Bonifacio.  Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 are accessible by clicking on their links.

The post A Federal Philippines: Its Defense first appeared on Marcial's Law.

In this proposal, I have frequently cited America’s founders, since federalism (as a systematic study of governance wherein power is shared between a central government and state governments) is often attributable to them, and their intent is made manifest in a collection of their 1787 constitutional convention debates published in The Federalist.  “On every question of construction,” states the American founder Thomas Jefferson, “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Vertical Balance of Power

First and foremost, a federalist system would divide power between the national government and state or regional governments wherein such a dispersal of power would create a vertical, as well as horizontal balance of power.  The American founding father Alexander Hamilton elaborates:

This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.

Close Proximity of States to the People

Second, state autonomy enables each state to govern more effectively due to their close proximity to the people residing in those states.  Jefferson wrote about the U.S., “Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority.”  After all, do not our local public servants have a more accurate perspective of affairs within their own jurisdiction than those governing from Malacanang Palace?

Even President Rodrigo Duterte miscalculated the duration of his war on drugs, originally insisting on a 6-month purging operation, which he now says will require one more full year.  Such a reassessment is apparently due to his newly acquired national perspective and experience, as opposed to his provincial perspective and experience from being Davao City mayor for 22 years.  Although federalism will benefit the people in general, according to Consultative Committee (ConCom) member Eddie Alih, it will be especially expedient to “the lost and the least because shifting to a federal setup will bring government social services closer to the poor.”

Accommodation for a Vastly Diverse Populace

Third, state autonomy more easily accommodates governance of a nation comprised of more than 7,000 islands, several religious groups, and more than a hundred ethno-linguistic groups.  The conquests of Spain and Japan and the American occupation have also had a cultural influence on the indigenous people, as well as trade with the Chinese, Arabs, and Malays.  Naturally such diversity entails differing interests, modes of production, and social-ethnic concerns, all of which may require differing regulations or laws designed for the unique circumstances of each state or region.

Now consider some actual examples of federalism taking effect in America, which betoken unique variations in law, taxation, economics, religion, individual liberty, and culture.  The state of Utah is heavily populated by Mormons, while the mountainous state of Tennessee and Alabama are pervaded by evangelical Christians.  Recreational marijuana is legal in California wherein same-sex marriage and a large Filipino populace co-exist.

Massachusetts has mandatory health insurance and permits open carry of a firearm.  New York has the highest taxes, the most stringent gun control laws, business regulations, and the highest rate of fetal abortions.  (Perhaps those are the “New York values” to which Senator Ted Cruz was referring in his 2016 presidential primary run against Donald Trump.)

Florida and Texas have the lowest income tax rates, no mandatory state income tax, and they happen to be the most favorable states for bass fishermen due to their numerous lakes, rivers, and streams.  Philadelphia, the birthplace of America’s constitution, levies a sugary drink or “soda tax.”  For advocates of capital punishment, the options are varied---electrocution in Kentucky, gas inhalation in Arizona, firing squad in Utah, and hanging or lethal injection in Washington.

Cannot our countrymen relate to such varying factors? Consider similar issues of which some are controversial as well as divisive but could easily be addressed by the states or regions---the drug war, the Mindanao conflict, RH Law, the death penalty, marriage dissolution, same-sex marriage recognition and benefits, jeepney fare hikes, VAT, etc.  In terms of core competencies or comparative advantages, Cebu is the exclusive producer of dolomite and graywacke, while Capiz and Ilocos Norte exclusively produce cotton.  Palawan and Boracay are the top tourist destinations of the Philippines, due to their beaches and the latter’s party ambience.

Furthermore, possessing regional or state sovereignty under federalism, allows each state or region to address such issues pursuant to their unique geographical or demographical situation.  “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,” contends American Chief Justice Louis Brandeis, “that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”  Indeed, impoverished regions can learn from and mimic affluent regions by scrutinizing their economy, tax system, business regulations, and commerce practices, while education administrators in one region can do likewise with successful schools in other regions.  In turn, such competitive regions could eventually decongest Manila.

Such a diversity would naturally appeal to the marginalized or disaffected members of society (e.g., the New People’s Army, Abu Sayyaf, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap, the Lumads, and Cordillera).  While there is much controversy over the constitutionality of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), the establishment of a Bangsamoro state or region (to replace the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) via federalism would render the BBL and Bangsamoro Organic Law obsolete, since all states or regions would be equally autonomous simultaneously, at least eventually.

Apart from the ostensible advantages of federalism, critics persist in their tenacity.  Their recalcitrance dissuades others from supporting or even learning more about federalism, hence perpetuating the status quo.  That is why I have addressed some of their criticisms below.

Economy May 'Go to Hell'

Critics commonly point to the findings of DOF Secretary Carlos Dominguez III who stated that the national government may incur a 6.7% deficit, interest rates would rise by up to 6%, 95% of national government employees may be laid off, and the country’s investment-grade credit ratings may “go to hell.”  ConCom technical working head Wendell Tamayo estimates the cost of establishing 16 federated regions, Bangsamoro and Cordillera regions, four federal courts, and six constitutional commissions at P2.2 trillion, while Rosario Manasan of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies estimates that approximately P55 billion per year will need to be appropriated for the salaries of new federal state elected officials.

Some economists like Victor Abola (professor of the University of Asia and the Pacific) point to a few federal countries which are imperiled by hyperinflation and fear that a federal Philippines may be subjected to the same aftermath.  Due to Venezuela’s current inflation rate of 25%, things cost 250 times more today than a year ago.  Other federal countries like Mexico and Brazil have a similar result due to their localities’ reckless spending on elections, which Abola states is “the primary reason for their hyperinflation episodes . . . which exceeded 4,000% inflation.”

In spite of such negative financial analysis, there are potential measures which could preclude or mitigate some of the aforementioned effects.  For example, ConCom spokesman Ding Generoso has proposed the appropriations for implementing federalism emanate from one of several sources: regional taxes/fees, share of top revenue sources, share of equalization fund, the General Appropriations Act, or natural resources income.  Political scientist Antonio Contreras suggests that some of federalism’s additional costs can be compensated for by the lower costs of transactions, travel, and communication due to decentralization.

Another source would emanate from an expanded tax base due to increased domestic and foreign investments.  In order to be competitive, the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) suggests the corporate income tax (CIT) be lowered from 30% to 20%.  Although the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion 2 (TRAIN 2) law will lower the CIT to 25%, the average rate of the Philippines’ Southeast Asian neighbors is 22.7%.  Hence, a more competitive CIT would attract more investors and create more jobs which, in turn, would translate into more tax revenue.

Also, fiscal incentives for foreign investors in economic zones should be maintained.  For example, the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 grants free port locators a 5% tax on gross income earned.  Unfortunately, TRAIN 2 will repeal such incentives, which the AmCham claimed would “lead to an end to expansions by many foreign investors and a reversal of the success in recent decades in attracting thousands of foreign firms to invest in the country.”

Indeed, this concern is shared by Subic Bay Freeport Chamber of Commerce President Danny Piano who fears the prospect of “capital flight” and Charito Plaza, director general of the Philippine Export Zone Authority, who will continue to defend the fiscal incentives.  Aside from retaining the 5% tax, the financial giant HSBC suggests loosening foreign ownership restrictions via charter change, which would increase the Philippines’ share (currently the lowest) in ASEAN’s “FDI windfall.”

Additionally, all business tax cuts and fiscal incentives should be made permanent, as well as repealing the protectionist clause of the 1987 Constitution in order to boost long-term commitments by investors.  Indeed, such “productive investment,” stated UP professor Maria Bautista, “will generate future streams of income that will not only increase domestic output and income, but also allow the country to service its debt.”  Perhaps the anticipated 95% of laid off national government employees can be reabsorbed into the revitalized private economy or continue their public service on a local level.  Either way, different economic opportunities will abound due to the reallocation of capital precipitated by tax reform and economic liberalization.

ConCom Atty. Rodolfo Robles points out that the national budget is approximately P3.75 trillion and that 40% of it is illegally misdirected.  “Sa simple arithmetic po,” stated Robles, “ayan ay 1.5 trillion, ang napupunta sa graft and corruption.”  He continued to say that at least half of it can be retrieved with a sufficient supply of attorneys.

Recently, in the U.S., Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Mark Sanford introduced the “Penny Plan” or the “One Percent Solution.”  It mandates Congress to reduce federal spending in all departments by one cent on the dollar.  This would drastically curtail inefficiencies from wasteful spending and balance the budget over a period of five years.  Surely, the Philippines can adapt such a plan in order to cap or mitigate the anticipated deficit as a result of instituting federalism.  Call it the “Centabo Plan.”

I would add that with the regions assuming more fiduciary responsibility, the people will be able to retain more of their hard-earned income, while their region more effectively delivers services otherwise performed by the national government.  Such an arrangement would also allocate resources more efficiently and fairly, since taxpayers residing in Manila would no longer have to fund the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) or condoms for lazy, mendicant perverts residing in Zamboanga City (presuming 4Ps and the RH Law get repealed, or the regions have the option to nullify them by virtue of federalism, just as the U.S. is currently in the process of repealing the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act, putatively “Obamacare”).  Indeed, such decentralization echoes ConCom member Dr. Julio Teehankee’s sentiment that “the proposed draft federal constitution encourages the national government to go on a diet and the regions to go on a muscle-building regimen.”

In terms of hyperinflation, it is highly misleading and even disingenuous to attribute it to federalism per se.  Indeed, Venezuela’s centralized federalism (an oxymoron) is simply a euphemism for its federalized socialism, whose perpetual budget deficits and inability to borrow money, has resorted to excessive printing of increasingly devalued money.  Consequently, hyperinflation has become pervasive.  In the case of Brazil and Mexico, it is ostensibly due to poor management and or flawed public policy in election campaign financing which has led to such high inflation rates.  That could be remedied by transparency legislation or strict penalties for exceeding a fixed limit on campaign financing or outright privatization of campaign financing.  Ergo, hyperinflation need not be attributable to federalism.

Comparing the Philippines to the U.S. and Germany an Apples to Oranges Comparison

Some opponents assert that presenting the economic success of advanced, western, federal countries like the U.S. and Germany is disingenuous, since the Philippines is generally still a developing, Asian country---an apples to oranges comparison.  However, the eastern, federal states of India and Malaysia more closely resemble the Philippines and have a relatively stable government and growing economy.  Malaysia’s economic growth is at 5% with a GDP of $863.3 billion and foreign direct investment (FDI) at $9.9 billion.  India, whose history is also influenced by colonialism and the English language, has a growth rate of 7.3% with a GDP of $8.7 trillion and FDI at $4.5 billion.  Compare those economic indicators to that of the Philippines with a 5.8% growth rate, a GDP of $805.2 billion, and FDI at $7.9 billion.

Increased Power to Local Dynasties and Oligarchs

Apart from the ostensible advantages, some are fearful that federalism will enable political dynasties to dominate the regions.  However, a vigilant and informed citizenry can prevent such occurrences or take counter measures after the fact, such as passing and enforcing anti-dynasty and transparency laws as Senator Nene Pimentel suggests.  However, as I wrote in my commentary entitled Why Manny Pacquiao’s Defeat Could Be a Win for the Country, “I do not oppose dynasties, insofar as their members are fairly and democratically elected and serve the interests of their constituents. However, when they are self-serving or hold power only for namesake, I oppose them and any office holder—dynasty clan or not.”

Anyway, should all remedies fail, citizens and businesses can simply migrate to another region, which is more congenial to their own interests, values, economic preferences, or lifestyle.  Over whom would the dynastic oligarchs rule and depend on for tax revenue, if everyone migrated elsewhere?  Would they then not be compelled to compete with other regions by providing quality government services, e.g., infrastructure, public safety, property rights protection, and contract enforcement?

Federalism Too New and Foreign to the Philippines

Some opponents stress that since federalism is a foreign concept or that the Philippines lacks historical experience in regional autonomy (in contrast to the U.S., Malaysia, and Germany), such a system would be inappropriate or not viable.  However, I contend that El Filibusterismo, a sewer system, jeepneys, smart phones, and a Red Cross did not always exist, and, indeed, did change Philippine life for the better.  Hence, should we have opted to never have introduced them as well?  A prosperous nation demands openness to positive change, and education can accommodate any kind of change, despite its drastic implications.

Anyway, as Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban points out, “The idea of federalism is not really new to us. Salvador Araneta, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention (ConCon), proposed it in his ‘Bayanikasan Constitution.’ Jose Abueva, the secretary of the same ConCon, has written several papers detailing his version of federalism.”  Even as early as 1900, an Ilocano intellectual named Isabelo de los Reyes, envisioned a federal constitution with seven states comprising the Philippines.

A Sufficient Government Local Code

In terms of regional autonomy, critics point out that the Government Local Code renders federalism obsolete, since the Code is intended to devolve power and disburse internal revenue allotments (IRAs) to localities.  “And yet,” stated Panganiban, “these do not seem to be enough because our Constitution mandates one national police to which the local police are legally beholden, and the Department of Budget and Management which could withhold IRAs.”  Such local autonomy “with strings attached” makes them prone to corruption, or, at least, apathetically unresponsive to the demands of their populace.  Federalism will cut those strings and enable the regions or states to determine their own future.

Neglected Poor Regions

Naysayers of federalism also raise the issue of impoverished regions worsening due to reduced national support.  However, I contend that such dependency or mendicancy is precisely what has retarded their capacity to cultivate their own resources in order to produce prosperity.  It is conventional economic wisdom that prosperous economies consist of most, if not all, of the following key variables: few or no entry barriers to trade, an educated labor force, access to natural resources, adherence to the rule of law, sustainable infrastructure, and high-scale technology.  Those variables can be cultivated by an efficient, corrupt-free government, quality educational institutions, economic liberalization, and pro-growth tax policy.

Recent history is certainly instructive in providing the proper perspective.  Consider the economic development and growth in post-World War II Japan after the atomic bomb converted its cities into ruins, yet the nation is currently the world’s third largest economy.  Within our own borders, after the recall of American naval bases in Subic Bay and the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 (wherein the territory was reduced to an ash heap), it was shortly transformed and lauded by various world leaders as a successful trade port and a paragon for economic growth.  I elaborate on Subic in my commentary entitled Why the Senate Needs More Dick.  If Japan and Subic can prosper, under such overwhelming odds, why not any other region or state in the Philippines?

Perhaps special concessions can be made to the more disadvantaged regions like Mindanao, which should be targeted and temporary as an incentive to be self-sufficient.  Indeed, I would not be averse to Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s concept of “evolving federalism” by which the lesser developed regions remain in the status of “autonomous regions” until they are capable of graduating to the status of “full states.”  In that case, benchmarks should be established instead of a timeline.

Having presented my reasons for the federalist shift while also addressing contrarian views, I also propose that the Constitutional Commission scrutinizes, adapts, and includes the American government’s model---in full or, at least, in part.  If only in part, I propose a few particular safeguards be assimilated into the new Philippine constitution.  In the meantime, it seems appropriate to scrutinize my reasons for including the U.S. model in making the transition to federalism.

Best Ideas

First and foremost, America’s republic is comprised of the best historical ideas.  Indeed, the founders scrutinized the governing systems of the predominant Western civilizations---ancient and contemporary.  These include Greece, Rome, France, and England from which the founders derived the concepts of liberty, justice, trial by jury, separation of powers, democracy, republicanism, and self-government.  The founders meticulously studied the rise and fall of tyrannical governments in those nations, as well as their own experience with King George III in framing a constitution which would preclude such occurrences in the U.S.

Preexisting Government Infrastructure

Second, since the Philippine government was largely framed after the U.S. government, the familiar preexisting federal infrastructure or apparatus of the separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches facilitates a more congenial transition to federalism much more so than abolishing it as parliamentary government advocates and proponents of PDP-Laban Federalism Institute’s model seek to do.  Even the anti-colonialist Delegate Manuel Roxas defended the ratification of the 1935 Constitution (although it is a gross variation of America’s original constitution):

Why have we preferred the Government established under this draft?  Because it is the Government with which we are familiar.  It is the form of government fundamentally such as it exists today; it is the only kind of government we have found to be in consonance with our experience, and with the necessary modification capable of permitting a fair play of social forces and allowing the people to conduct the presidential system.

It must be noted that I do not oppose a parliamentary form of government per se.  I simply would support it only as a last resort, i.e., when all reforms under a presidential federal system (e.g., the establishment of an electoral college to elect the president and a Senate elected by regional legislatures instead of at large) fail, but I digress.

Resiliency

Third, America’s system has proven to be the most resilient.  Constitutional law Professor Hugh Hewitt points out:

The work of collective genius that is the Constitution has been tested by everything from an actual civil war that claimed 600,000 lives to various panics, two world wars, the Great Depression, and the Great Recession, not to mention impeachments and assassinations, political-judicial meltdowns like Florida in 2000, and dozens of scandals---and it does not break.  It is more resilient than any other modern constitution, a remarkable, nearly perfect balance of competing powers and separated authorities that has endured and will endure.  Those who fear it is off the road and in the ditch have to ignore history’s many examples of America righting itself after trauma and setback.

Consider America’s progress in the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women, and civil rights for blacks, all of which happened within 229 years of the establishment of the U.S. government.  In spite of such turbulent occasions, the world’s oldest written supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, remains largely intact.  Contrast that with our three Philippine constitutions---of 1935, 1973, and 1987---all promulgated and implemented within a single century.  Additionally, President Rodrigo Duterte has raised the specter of a revolutionary government, which all betokens the instability of the Philippine government.

Unequivocal Language

Fourth, the language of the U.S. Constitution is very clear in distinguishing the powers of the federal government from that of the states.  Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the federal powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes…To coin money…To establish Post Offices and post Roads…To raise and support Armies.

The Tenth Amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, betokens the threshold at which the states (or the people) are sovereign, which is the cornerstone of federalism.  It states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”  The American founder and principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, elaborates on the nature of these powers in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce . . . The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Indeed, it is those “few and defined” powers of the federal government which accounts for a simple, comprehensible, and short constitution.  Contrast that with our lengthy constitution of 1987, which manifests a government exceeding the size and scope imposed by America’s founders.

Based on Natural Rights

Fifth, it is the first written constitution based on our timeless, ubiquitous, natural rights, which intrinsically circumscribe the national government and betoken the vast range of our individual liberty.  Indeed, the U.S. Declaration of Independence (upon which America’s constitution is based) betokens man’s universal and intrinsic equality and endowment of “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Even the Philippine revolutionary and anti-colonialist Apolinario Mabini acknowledged such rights, stemming from “natural law,” when attributing the success of the U.S. government to the major work of two of its founders, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine:

The ruler’s success is always to be found in the adjustment of his practical measures to the natural and immutable order of things and to the special needs of the locality, an adjustment that can be made with the help of theoretical knowledge and experience. The source of all failures in government can therefore be found, not in (mistaken) theories but in unprincipled practices arising from base passions or ignorance. If the Government of the United States has been able to lead the Union along the paths of prosperity and greatness, it is because its practices have not diverged from the theories contained in the Declaration of Independence and of the Rights of Man, which constitute an exposition of the principles of natural law implanted by the scientific revolutions in the political field.

Now that I have presented my reasons for supporting the American paradigm on which the Philippines can model, in full or in part, its federal form (namely, a limited, federal, presidential government), I will henceforth present a few key features and safeguards of the U.S. government which I propose be assimilated into the new Philippine constitution.  However, it must be noted that, albeit the Philippine government was partially modeled after the American government, these key features were excluded from being incorporated into the Philippine constitution.

Such safeguards are not only what starkly differentiate the U.S. government from the Philippine government, but they are precisely what account for the general effectiveness of the former’s system of checks and balances---namely, a federalist system by which power is equally divided by a central government and the states, an electoral college to elect the president, a Senate with its members elected by their districts rather than at large, and recourse for the states whenever their sovereignty is threatened by a tyrannical federal government.  Due to much of the public’s oblivion to these distinctions, I have elucidated them in my commentary entitled “Is the Philippine Government an American Replica?”

Senate

First, I propose the restructuring of the Philippine Senate pursuant to the American model of equal regional representation, whereby each region or state will elect two senators.  Indeed, this is a drastic deviation of the current method of the populace voting for twenty-four senators nationwide or at large.  Not only would this arrangement be congenial to the unique situation of each region or state, it would empower the small states as well.  Indeed, as American founder William Davie stated, “The protection of the small states against the ambition and influence of the larger members, could only be effected by arming them with an equal power in one branch of the legislature.”  Hence, equal representation in the Senate is a safeguard against what American founder James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Since the lower chamber of Congress known as the House of Representatives is composed of members elected directly by the people, it has been characterized as embodying the unfettered “passions” of the people.  By contrast, members of the upper house known as the Senate shall be elected or appointed by the regional or state legislatures, whose members are inclined to be refined and informed.  That is why Madison wrote, “The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”  Put more simply by American founder George Washington, the scalding heat of the “tea” of the House is placed into the “senatorial saucer to cool it.”

Additionally, the election or appointment of senators by regional or state legislatures will decrease the influence of special interest groups on senatoriables, since they often fund costly state-wide races.  Political commentator John DeMaggio elaborates:

Senators would no longer be bound by allegiances to these special interests. Candidates would not be obliged to receive funding from political parties for their nonexistent campaign limiting a Senator’s obligation to the national political party. Senators would be more obligated to serve the interests of their State . . . rather than a national political party or special interests.

Hence, the republican nature of the Senate serves as a check and balance on the democratic nature of the House, a distinct feature of American federalism, which ultimately keeps an overreaching federal government at bay.

Electoral College

Second, I propose the establishment of an electoral college (EC) to elect the president as opposed to the current form of direct or popular election.  Being comprised of what American founder John Jay characterizes as “the most enlightened and respectable citizens. . . their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue. . . As an assembly of select electors possess. . . the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment . . .”

By contrast, the current presidential electoral system via popular vote is often dominated by man’s raw passion and impulse (as in the House) because as American founder Elbridge Gerry stressed, the “people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”  Perhaps that accounts for the banal election of incompetent politicians, unfavorable dynasties, and inexperienced celebrities in the Philippines.  Hence, the EC, much as the Senate, serves as a check and safeguard against the populace’s unfettered passion and impulsive drive.

The EC also serves to ensure fair representation for the small and least populated regions or states just as it does in the U.S. Senate.  Consider that of the seventeen regions, the two most populous ones are Southern Tagalog (Region IV) at 14,414,774 and the National Capital Region (Region XIII) at 12,877,253.  Naturally, a direct election of the president would be largely in their favor to the detriment of the less populous regions, such as the Cordillera (Region XIV) at 1,722,006 or Caraga (Region XVI) at 2,596,709.

That is why I propose, in addition to the equivalent number of House members, two representatives be elected or appointed by each region or state in order to constitute a Philippine electoral college (EC) similar to the U.S., whereby each region will be equally represented, regardless of its size.  In so doing, the president will be the president of the whole Philippines, not just of the largest regions or metropolitan areas.

The final purpose of the EC is to facilitate the preclusion of voter fraud.  However, in order for this to be effective, the presidential electoral system must become decentralized.  Just as in the U.S., each individual state legislates its own election laws, each Philippine region or state must do likewise.  In so doing, corrupt federal election officials would find it virtually impossible to fix or “rig” the presidential election due to the electoral autonomy of every region or state and the functioning of local election judges, tasked with multiple responsibilities.

Even when anomalies are discovered after the voting results, they can easily be isolated to one or only a few regions or states, which would make for speedy recounts, as was the case in the 2000 U.S. presidential election wherein a voting dispute occurred between George W. Bush and Al Gore in Florida for only a few weeks.  Contrast that with the dispute between Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Leni Robredo which has persisted for over two years.  Consider also how cost-effective the electoral process would be due to decentralization and curtailing of lawsuits.

The electors shall not hold public office in any branch of the federal government, be given a salary, or have tenure, and whereupon its sole function of electing the president and vice-president is executed, the EC shall immediately be dissolved.  Hence, they will be insulated from national political pressure.  Such a temporary function certainly addresses American founder Alexander Hamilton’s concern that presidential selection should not “depend on any preexisting bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes.”  The manner by which electors are selected shall be at the sole discretion of each individual state or region---e.g., via a state or region’s legislature, via a state or region’s governor on the authority of that state or region’s legislature.

It is ostensible that the EC has a positive impact and wide implications on governance.  Such a significant feature, with all its safeguards, is the cornerstone of American federalism, of which the Philippine government is bereft.  Indeed, the EC is also an alternative to a direct democracy (as is currently the case), authoritarianism, and parliamentary government.

Nullification

Third, America’s founders brilliantly concocted two checks as a remedy for the states to counter an overreaching or tyrannical national government.  The remedies are state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and an Article V Convention of States (COS).  The former is, according to Jefferson, “the rightful remedy” against “all unauthorized acts done” by the national government and was executed effectively in defiance of a federal embargo, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  In my commentary entitled The Peak of Tyranny and End of Its Destruction, I cited two more recent examples in which Montana, Alabama, and Wyoming amended their state constitutions, nullifying Obamacare.

In defiance to President Barack Obama’s executive orders to banning certain types of firearms, several governors, state legislators, and sheriffs have taken measures to quell or nullify any presidential decree, which did not conform to their own state’s gun regulations.  Some legislators have gone so far as to prepare legislation which would criminalize any attempt of federal agents to enforce the new federal gun ownership restrictions.  One sheriff in Oregon (Tim Mueller) even wrote a letter to Vice President Joe Biden in which he declared that neither he nor his deputies would enforce any federal gun law, which he deems unconstitutional.  Among the states which exercised such recalcitrant acts were Mississippi, Kentucky, Oregon, Minnesota, Alabama, Tennessee, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Florida, and Texas.

Convention of States

In Federalist 85, Hamilton alludes to the second remedy when he says, “. . . we may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”  He is referring to assembling a Convention of States (COS), which is actually embodied in Article V of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ….

Put plainly and simply, thirty-four states of the U.S. must consent to deliberation in a convention of states (not a constitutional convention, which would be a formidable option) to propose constitutional amendments.  Thirty-eight states must ratify the amendments in order for them to become binding and effective.  In this way, the states can put the national government in check regardless of who occupies the presidency, Congress, or the Supreme Court.  As of this writing, twelve states have passed a COS resolution.  Furthermore, the aforementioned remedies as state nullification and an Article V COS are essential in lawfully preserving federalism, while precluding “mob rule.”

In the Philippine context, a clause pertinent to regional or state nullification of intrusive federal laws can and should be annexed to the draft constitution in order to preclude jurisdictional discrepancies, wherein both the regions and national government purport to defend and uphold the Constitution.  Unfortunately, such a clause is nonexistent in the U.S. Constitution, which has been the cause for the aforementioned discrepancies and can thus serve as an example of unintended consequences from which the Philippines can learn.  In terms of annexing a COS clause to the draft constitution, the number of regions needed for deliberation and ratification will be smaller than our U.S. counterpart, since the number of regions created and established via federalism will be significantly smaller than the fifty states of the U.S. (e.g., eleven pursuant to LDP Institute’s model and eighteen pursuant to RBH 8).

Furthermore, a Senate elected by the regions or states, an electoral college to elect the President, and recourse for the regions or states against an overreaching federal government are checks and balances safeguarding the sovereignty of the regions or states and the people.  They are elements, which, in spite of their historical significance to American federalism, have never been assimilated into Philippine government.  Perhaps now is the time in the clamor for federalism and as an alternative to a costly and more drastic shift to a federal parliamentary system.

However, in spite of the ostensible advantages of my federalist proposal, it must be noted that it is not a “magic bullet” or the single, perfect solution to everything ailing the Philippines.  Rather it is a remedy to address certain issues, which, in order to have maximum positive impact, must be executed in concert with other measures, e.g., the enforcement of current laws, economic liberalization to curb protectionist policies and attract direct foreign investments, and cultural changes in order to cultivate an informed, disciplined, industrious, and active citizenry which will strengthen preexisting, fundamental, social institutions.  The latter is imperative, lest the electorate continues to elect incompetent or corrupt politicians, and that will occur under any system of governance—unitary or federal, presidential or parliamentary.

In conclusion, my friends and countrymen, I have herein presented my reasons for supporting a shift to an American form of federalism or, at least, an adaptation therefrom.  I have also presented the safeguards to preserve such a system of governance to be included in the draft constitution.  With such clamor for positive change—namely, the rapid creation of new jobs, the alleviation of poverty and poverty-related crime, the curtailment of corruption, the end to secession of Mindanao, a new sense of pride and civic responsibility to a responsive government, and the liberty to choose one’s life with one’s feet—coupled with a president with an iron political will and desire for federalism, a constituent assembly can take the essential measures.  I now defer to the aforementioned Constitutional Commission to deliberate on behalf of We the People of the Republic of the Philippines.

Mabuhay ang Pederalismo!  Mabuhay ang Pilipinas!

Bibliographical References

• Anastacio, Leia. (2016). The Foundations of the Modern Philippine State. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Majul, Cesar. (1996). The Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Philippine Revolution. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Featured Photo Credit: philstar.com

Facebook Comments:

Pastordonation Apolinarionianz as mindanaoans i support federalism....

Like · Reply· Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 12:00 PM (33w)

Don Manuel LopezGo federal

Like · Reply · Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 12:31 PM (33w)

Alwyn Balingit Phil Solfed

Like · Reply · Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 12:51 PM (33w)

Jose A. Acelajado Isa lang ang tanong: pwede ba nating pagtiwalaan ang ating

kasalukuyang senate super majority at house super majority na ang kanilang gagawin ay ayon sa kabutihan ng ating bansa? Malinaw ngayon na meron tayong super majority sa Senate at sa house na subservient sa mga kagustuhan ni duterte. Sabihin na natin, na magandang ang paliwanag mo, ikaw ba ang susundin ng mga senador at congressmen? Hindi ba malinaw na si duterte at ang kanyang mga aso sa senado at kongreso ang susundin ng Senate at House supermajority na mga tuta ni duterte? Ngayon, hindi mo ba narinig ang sinabi ni duterte? Na kung hindi magkakaroon ng pederalismo ay magkakagulo sa ating bansa ? Si duterte mismo na pangulo ng ating bansa ang nagsasabi. Malinaw ang pambabraso ni duterte para masunod lamang ang kanyang sariling kagustuhan. Hindi ang kagustuhan ng mga mamamayan. Yes magaling kang magpaliwanag, pero may saysay ba ang iyong paliwanag? Pakikinggan ka ba ng mga tuta ni duterte sa senado at sa kongreso? Sino ka at sino si duterte?

Like  · Reply · Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:35 PM (33w) · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio I cannot dispute the validity of your points, kaibigang Jose. I can only say

that just as we both are cognizant of the prospects you raise, surely there must be other public servants in Congress, who would sympathize with us and keep Duterte in check like Sen. Gordon.

However, I'm inclined to think that Duterte's ostensible threats are just uttered to persuade the electorate to support the shift to federalism. Sa totoo lang, it is a situation in which there is no perfect solution, ngunit naisip ko Duterte would willingly step down if federalism is implemented during his term, kahit it may be forced. Surely even his own supporters would demand it, if he refuses.

Like · Reply · Thursday, February 8, 2018 at  6:13 PM (33w) Edited

Marcial Bonifacio Hindi ako sang-ayon sa parliamentary na gobyerno, kaibigang Orion,

ngunit at least we can unite sa pagtatanggol ng federalismo. Ito ang aking huling paliwanag:

https://www.marcialslaw.com/the-philippine-case-for.../

MARCIALSLAW.COM

The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards |…

Like · Reply · Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 5:29 PM (33w)

Orion Perez D Well, whether we like it or not, Parliamentary is better than Presidential.

No ifs, no buts.

Yan ang resulta ng research ng mga experto. Kahit paano bali-baliktarin, palpak ang Presidential eh. Ba't pipilitin ang palpak, diba?Hindi yan kagustuhan. Katotohanan lang po.Eh tayong lahat gusto nating kumain ng masarap na pagkain na mamantika at maraming cholesterol... Eh ayon sa ciencia, hindi nakakabuti yung bad cholesterol na madalas naandoon sa mga masasarap na pagkain.Kasalanan ba yan ng mga nutritional scientists na yan ang nadiskubrihan nila?No choice, dude.If you want Federalism to work in the Philippines, it has to be Federal-Parliamentary.

1Like · Reply · Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 6:01 PM (33w) · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio I appreciate your tenacity for pushing for a parliamentary system as

well as concocting the food analogy. Gayunman, sa totoo lang, not all delicious foods are laden with cholesterol. There are many fruits and vegetables, which are healthful and just as delicious. Even healthful bland foods (like tofu) can be prepared, seasoned, or cooked in a way to be pleasing to the taste buds. Tungkol sa unhealthful foods, paminsan-minsan, only certain ingredients need to be discontinued or replaced, such as the cooking oil or dressing in order to make it healthful. One need only taste the food upon each modification in order to know if it is still delicious.

I am not completely averse to a parliamentary system, kaibigang Orion. Sa kabilang banda, as I stated sa paliwanag ko,I am open to it, only if all other reforms fail, such as economic liberalization, adopting an electoral college to elect the president, federalizing the government, etc. Only by making such adjustments (as with the unhealthful food combination) can we know with absolute certainty that a presidential system is truly flawed or insufficient. Until then, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater dahil meron maraming sanhi ng pagkapagtagumpay ng bayan.

Also, you mentioned the studies from "experts" who have scrutinized the subject of presidential and parliamentary systems. Gayunman, as I pointed out sa paliwanag ko, "the founders scrutinized the governing systems of the predominant Western civilizations—ancient and contemporary. These include Greece, Rome, France, and England from which the founders derived the concepts of liberty, justice, trial by jury, separation of powers, democracy, republicanism, and self-government. The founders meticulously studied the rise and fall of tyrannical governments in those nations, as well as their own experience with King George III in framing a constitution which would preclude such occurrences in the U.S." I also listed their remedies, should their checks and balances be surpassed.

Gayunpaman, as I said earlier, let's unite and focus on getting our kababayans to support federalism (whatever the form), and urge them to express it to our public servants sa Kongreso. We can focus on the form later, just as the House and Senate have postponed debate on voting jointly or separately in order to focus on the actual constitutional amendments.

Like  · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 1:45 PM (33w) · Edited

Edwin Morales Hindi ka dapat basta basta lang maging anti-parliamentary, try mo

kayang ipag-kumpara yung Presidential sa Parliamentary system, sabihin mo samin kung ano ang mas maganda base sa naresearch mo. Dapat bago maging anti ganitong usapin dapat matuto munang mag-compare ehhhh

Like  · Reply · Thursday, February 8, 2018 at  10:44 PM (33w)

Orion Perez D https://correctphilippines.org/parliamentary_info

CORRECTPHILIPPINES.ORG

Useful Information Resources on the Parliamentary System

Like · Reply · Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 3:27 AM (33w)

Warlito Nobleza Vicente I'm an anarchist, I don't believe in governments. I don't need to

pay anybody to tell me what I can and can't do with my life.

1 Like · Reply · Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:03 PM (33w)

Marcial Bonifacio Anong nangyari, kaibigang Warlito? You used to support great thinkers

Warlito Nobleza Vicente Marcial Bonifacio Those "great thinkers" were slave owners. I

woke up. Limited government does not stay limited, look at the US now, after 300 years, the limited government has become a leviathan.

2  Like · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018  at  6:42 AM (33w)

Alvin M Diesta Welcome back Bong! Looking forward to more radical views!

1 Like · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 8:49 AM (33w)

Warlito Nobleza Vicente Alvin M Diesta The faster government can act, the faster they

can raise taxes, pass regulations against you - governments in whatever shape, size, form are bullshit.

Last thing I need is someone to tell me, I have to give up x% of my income for the greater good - fuck it

1 Like  · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 10:09 AM (33w)

Alvin M Diesta I hear you. Every year what I pay in taxes could buy fully loaded BMWs.

Maybe it is time for me to work for the government. Get paid for doing nothing.

1 Like  · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 11:06  AM (33w)

Warlito Nobleza Vicente kaya ako, screw it. I stopped working my day job pata walang

makuhang tax sa akin. lahat ng transaksyon ko, in cash, para walang money trail, nothing to tax. meron naman kaming properties na nasa tabing dagat - we built the house fully paid in cash - walang mortgage, walang interest - di kikita ang bangko sa akin  I grow my own food - or buy from the farmer direct - tax-free!!! 

e di beachfront resort living ako for the rest of my life though meron pa mang di maiwasan na tax - that's on the business not on me - and we take measures to minimize the amounts paid  i've eliminated a lot of avenues for the state to tax me - mafederal man yan, ma LGU man yan, ma unitary man yan, ma parliamentary man yan - I don't give a fuck, they can kiss my ass

1 Like  · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 11:17 AM (33w)

Alvin M Diesta Nice! I hope to follow soon in your lifestyle once I retire from this. How

about those Filipino Vixens that are half our age?

Like  · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 11:25 AM (33w)

Warlito Nobleza Vicente dami dito bro kung gustuhin lang talaga.

hook up sa Tinder 😀 😀

1 Like  · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM (33w)

Warlito Nobleza Vicente am learning a lot with this new lifestyle - graudally move

towards off-grid living... lots to look forward to - tesla style free energy using magnets para ma eliminate ang bayad sa electricity 😀 😀

why be a bank slave paying car loans, my crib and my  office is so close to each other - ala namang interesting to see downtown in the first place, am too tied up sprucing up the beach, feeling ko parang nasa Sarasota pa rin ako 😀

1 Like · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 11:34 AM (33w)  · Edited

Alvin M Diesta Maganda yan bro. You are living the dream! Oceanfront property, no

taxman, no oligarchs, just nature at its finest. Parang Sarasota. Haha. Name the place Bangsarasota.

1 Like  · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 1:33 PM (33w) 

Marcial Bonifacio I cannot dispute that those great thinkers and founders 

of America  were  slaveholders, kaibigang Warlito. However, the institution of slavery was passed on to them by the British. Anyway, most of the founders opposed slavery and banning the importation of slaves was the first step in the institution's abolition. Circumstances were such that it could not be abolished immediately, but Jefferson himself called for the abolition of it in his first draft of America's Declaration of Independence, which pro-slavery representatives rescinded.

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/.../jeffersons...

I understand your position on America's overreaching government, my friend, but that is only due to an apathetic, uninformed populace, which enabled such a "Leviathan." The founders understood and expected the populace to be informed, vigilant, and always suspicious of government. I believe the American people have finally awakened, with the peak of tyranny during the Obama administration. One need only observe the resurgence of constitutional conservatism manifested at the state and federal level. Even Trump has scaled back on regulations and has been successful in repealing the individual Obamacare mandate. Therefore, be not disheartened, my friend, limited government is returning with a vengeance.

On your lifestyle, I admire you for your self-sufficient aspirations. Perhaps you have tremendous patience in having to renounce many conveniences and live like Jack Bauer from "24." I'm reading some survivalist material myself, since such knowledge is useful as you yourself are discovering.

Vindicating the Founders: Document Library: Thomas Jefferson’s Draft of…

VINDICATINGTHEFOUNDERS.COM

Like · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:49 PM (33w)

Warlito Nobleza Vicente It don't matter if it was passed on to them. 

In plain terms, America's founding fathers are hypocrites - you can't be talking about freedom - and yet have slaves.

1Like · Reply · Sunday. February 11, 2018 at 7:35 AM (33w)

 Alvin M Diesta Remember the movie 300 na ang mga Spartan daw for freedom at ang

Persia for tyranny? Sino sa dalawa ang may slaves? Ang mga gagong Greek! Mga Spartan pinagpapatay ang mga helot. Persia had no slaves. May human rights dahil kay Cyrus. They freed slaves from their conquered lands most notable the jews in Babylon. Pero sa pelikula ng Hollywood ang mga puti (Greek at Roman) daw ang for freedom. Mga gago pala sila eh.

1Like · Reply · Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 2:49 PM (33w)

 Warlito Nobleza Vicente That's Hollyweird for you, a stinking den of war mongering,

state worshipping pedophiles and sexual predators. It's nothing but a propaganda mouthpiece for the military industrial complex, a vehicle for hypnotizing the masses to become submissive braindead sheep.

1Like · Reply · Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 8:14 PM (32w)

Marcial Bonifacio Kaibigang Warlito, I concede your point about the hypocrisy of

Jefferson and Madison owning slaves. However, surely you will concede that they should not be exclusively judged by their personal life of owning slaves, but to a larger extent, in what they strategically did in order to liberate them. In the grand scheme of things, America's Constitution was the incubator of slave liberation, and the founders should be rightfully acknowledged for that, hindi ba?

Like · Reply · Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:39 PM (32w) · Edited

 Warlito Nobleza Vicente In the grand scheme of things they are still full of shit. 

The constitution they came up with ended up with a leviathan state.Moreover, the US still remains a colony of the Brit.

Like · Reply · Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:37 PM (32w)

 Marcial Bonifacio That may very well be so about America's "Leviathan" state, but

that is due to the ignorance of the American populace, not to the founders. Anyway as I said earlier, my friend, the sleeping giant has awakened, and that Leviathan will have to die inevitably but gradually. Trump and conservatives are finally starting the process.

Like · Reply · Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:49 PM (32w)

Warlito Nobleza Vicente Unfortunately for Americans, Trump is still a stooge for the               military industrial complex. Left wing and right wing belong to the same turkey 

Like · Reply · Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:50 PM (32w)

 Marcial Bonifacio Actually, it is quite fortunate for Americans, kaibigang Warlito,                      because a sufficient, well-equipped military is what has kept America safe from                      foreign  invaders. It is also fortunate for our kababayans on the West Philippine Sea              vis-a-vis China and the world in general.

1Like · Reply · Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:17 PM (32w)

 Warlito Nobleza Vicente Artificial lines drawn by racists to divide humanity have                     no appeal to me

Like· Reply · Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:01 PM (32w)

Marcial Bonifacio Do you really believe Trump is racist as many leftists do, kaibigan ko?

Like · Reply · Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 1:20 PM (32w)

Nivri Aguisanda IT WILL DISMANTLE THE POWER OF THE PHILIPPINE FILTHY FEW 

OLIGARCHS.

2 Like · Reply · Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 10:11 PM (33w) 

Marcial Bonifacio More important, it will relinquish power back to the people.

Like · Reply · Monday, February 12, 2018 at 2:32 PM (32w)

Joseph Solís Alcayde Alberici We should not be hasty about federalism under American                  style. We have to gradually devolve national government responsibilities to local one                    instead of copying any federal governments in the world without considering Philippine                context.

Like · Reply · Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:42 PM (32w)

Marcial Bonifacio Perhaps not, kaibigang Joseph, but we should certainly not hasten the

shift to a parliamentary system, although I do not completely oppose such a system when all else has failed. I did mention in my commentary that the American system of federalism should be adapted to the Philippine situation in order to be more congenial to the people. I'm also not opposed to gradually doing so, as I did mention my openness to Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban's "evolving federalism. "

Like · Reply · Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 8:09PM (32w)

Joseph Solís Alcayde Alberici Mas feasible pa nga eh ang shift to parliamentary form o

government keysa sa federal form kasi sa parliamentary, ang kailangan lang gawin ay gawing lamang ceremonial position ang pagka Pangulo samantala ang shift to federalism, taon pa ang dapat gugulin upang ang mga mahihirap na rehiyon ay hindi mapagiwanan. Kung mag federalismo tayo ngayon, baka ang Bangsamoro ay hihiwalay nang tuluyan sa bansa natin tulad nangyari sa Singapore noon sa Malaysia.

Like · Reply · Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 8:16 PM (32w) · Edited

 

Marcial Bonifacio Marahil tama ka tungkol sa feasibility ng parliamentarism,

kaibigang Joseph, ngunit that would require a drastic change sa infrastructure ng gobyerno, which could be problematic sa assimilation ng mga voters dahil sa confusion. It would also be more costly. Sa katotohanan, implementing an adapted U.S.-style federal-presidential system is more feasible and cheaper dahil sa preexisting infrastructure ng gobyerno.

Like · Reply · Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:31 PM (32w)

 

Alexander Yalung Agree..i prefer that we msintain president position with federal form..

1Like · Reply · Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:41 PM (32w)

 

Alejandro C. Patagnan Before we could commit ourselves to the change in our

government, we have to understand in the FIRST PLACE to ask WHAT IS THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT? WHAT IS THE PROPER AND ONLY FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT? WHY DO WE NEED A GOVERNMENT? iS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT? Those are the basic fundamental question we must deal with first..

Like · Reply · Sunday, February 18, 2018 at  1:58 PM (32w)

 Marcial Bonifacio My answer to that, kaibigang Alejandro, is that the government's only

function is to protect our unalienable rights and territorial sovereignty, which is why I advocate for federalism. Prosperity and other advantages should follow. What say you?

Like · Reply · Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:24 PM (32w) · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio Magandang presentation sa video mo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=Atwzud6n15I&feature=share), kaibigang Bernardo. Sa panlahat, we are in agreement. I appreciate your desire to limit the number of states to eight in order to retain the symbolic relevancy ng ating bandila, ngunit naisip ko it is more practical to have as many states as possible ganito ng balak ng LPP (League of Provinces of the Philippines), whose members seek 81 states. Sa totoo lang, that would be more congenial for such a diverse populace. We could convert the number of stars to 81 in order to accommodate the change sa bandila.

Tungkol sa Kongreso, mas gusto ko ng bicameral house in order for one to keep the other in check as it is supposed to currently work. My primary concern is on the election of senators. In order for them to represent their constituents in each state, they should be elected exclusively by the voter residing in their respective states, sa halip ng at large. That would ensure that all states are represented equally and that the larger states would not dominate over the smaller ones. That assumes that an electoral college will be established on that basis, which will ultimately elect the president.

In spite of those differences, nagagalak ako we agree on a presidential system. Syempre my proposal is based on the American model, which is discussed sa paliwanag ko.

1Like · Reply · Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 3:40 PM (30w) · Edited

Marcial Bonifacio I appreciate your passion para sa ating bayan, kaibigang Lingling, ngunit

hindi ako sang-ayon sa iyong punto na the American presidential system has failed the Philippines. Sa kabilang banda, it has not been implemented fully dahil sa malaking variations. As I pointed out sa lathala ko, we currently have no federalist system (which in itself would drastically improve our presidential system by decentralizing it), an electoral college which elects the president, or a Senate whose representatives are elected by the voters residing in their corresponding states or regions sa halip ng at large. Our country has never had those aspects essential to a successful democratic republic as in America. Samakatuwid, it is premature or even erroneous to conclude that America’s presidential system has failed us as you have done, kaibigan ko. It is comparing apples to oranges.

Tungkol sa iyong punto na the presidential system has caused gridlock, that is precisely the function of a system in which the voters are divided. Even America’s founders intended that bills do not so easily pass through Congress, which forces the people to thoroughly scrutinize all proposals before they become law dahil once a bad proposal is legislated, mahirap na iyan to repeal it. The same holds true with impeaching the president. If it were so easy, then I dare say that every presidential election cycle would precipitate an impeachment, which would simply destabilize the government. If an informed electorate chooses the president, impeachment would not be such a pressing issue.

In terms of an authoritarian presidency, that can be remedied by amending the Constitution limiting his power. I would even go so far as to say that the power of the federal government sa panlahat needs to be limited in order to maximize the liberty of our kababayans. Sa lathala ko, I hold a copy of our voluminous 1987 Constitution next to a single page of the U.S. Constitution. Maliwanag na iyan meron malaking pagkaiba, hindi ba?

Tungkol sa punto mo ng 1973 Constitution, how well did that turn out? Unang-una, it was a very short-lived form of government. It did not even endure for half a generation for our kababayans to assimilate. Pangalawa, such a government was simply the extension of Marcos’s own power. Samakatuwid, it is a moot point to say that our kababayans our sufficiently familiar with a parliamentary system.

Nga pala, kaibigang Lingling, as I stated sa paliwanag ko, I am not completely averse to a parliamentary system. Gayunman, I will favor it only when all reforms to our presidential system fail. In that case, I will even write a paper in support of a parliamentary system and actively campaign for it.

Tama ka tungkol sa position ng PDP Laban. Kaya nga mas gusto ko ng balak ng RBH No. 8 (Resolution of Both Houses No. 8).

1Like · Reply· Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM (28w)

Lingling Gandong Nahinto ang 1973 Constitution which is Semi-Presidential

System ng  dahil kay Korikong Aquino. Ayaw kasi ni Korikong Cory Aquino aka Mother of Philippine Oligarchy ng accountable government. I gonna tell you again I AM NOT SUPPORTING PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM NOR PRESIDENTIAL SYSYEM. I am in favor of SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL SYSYEM again SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM like France and Russia. It's absolutely wrong to treat Semi-Presidential System as Parliamentary System for your information France under French 3rd Republic and French 4th Republic are under by Parliamentary system and the French citizens are not satisfied with Parliamentary system because of political instability.

Like · Reply· Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:53 PM (28w)

Lingling Gandong The Presidential system cause too much gridlock because the

President can block any legislation whether the bill is constitutional or unconstitutional. Even the US leads to government shutdown even though a lots of money still flow in the government.

In France the Semi-Presidential System avoids gridlock. Do you know why? The French President have limited suspensive veto power at all once the Constitutional Council declare the bill is constitutional the President will sign the bill into law. Do you know? France Semi-Presidential System avoid the "loss of supply" or "lost of budget" like what happen in Parliamentary regime countries which trigger to snap election and France Semi-Presidential also avoid the "government shutdown" like what happen in Presidential regime countries. Because in French 5th Republic Constitution they have Article 49.3 which means if there's an disagreement of budget bill, the bill is automatically pass without reaching absolute majority vote and ONLY motion of no confidence can block the bill.

Like· Reply · Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM (28w) · Edited

Lingling Gandong Cory Aquino aka Mother of Philippine Oligarchy have no intention to

reform the 1973 Constitution. I won't deny this at all, the 1973 Constitution which is Semi-Presidential System but the President is extremely powerful because the President have decisive power to remove the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers without Parliament approval. Korikong Aquino aka Mother of Philippine Oligarchy have no intention to reduce the powers of presidency but she want to boost the power of presidency, kaya nga langaw tingin niya kay the last Prime Minister Salvador Laurel.

Like· Reply· Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 9:22 PM  (28w)

Marcial Bonifacio Lingling, kaibigan ko, I appreciate your perspective, and perhaps, I

stand corrected tungkol sa parliamentary system. I was broadly referring to any system with a prime minister and a group of lawmakers whose relationship to the executive is such that the separation of powers is not so vast unlike our American counterpart, although I am inclined to support a semi-presidential over a full parliamentary system. Gayunman, para sa akin, even a semi-presidential system sounds too complicated compared to the simple American system of three separate branches of government. Besides, France's Fifth Republic is still relatively new compared to our American counterpart, which has been extant since 1789, still using the same constitution.

Tungkol sa paksang government shutdowns sa America, they are not as severe as you might think. Unang-una, America's government is constitutionally limited to protecting the unalienable rights of its citizens and maintaining national security, nothing more. The only thing the shutdowns have prompted are the closing of offices in which federal bureaucrats work and the closing of national parks---elements which are hardly essential to the regular functioning of the federal government. Police and military operations continued. Pangalawa, most of the shutdowns have only endured for a few days or weeks, being virtually inconsequential to the lives of Americans. Pangatlo, elections will ultimately settle unfavorable policies of lawmakers. Samakatuwid, kaibigan ko, gridlock ay necessary evil sa republican government. It is a check and is preferable to the option of an overly active legislature which continually passes bad bills and precisely what America's founders understood. Kaya nga I remain firm on supporting an adaptation of RBH-8 sa ating bayan.

Like· Reply · Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM (26w)

Lingling Gandong Marcial Bonifacio Semi-Presidential System is not not complicated at

all. In Semi-Presidential System it does have a partial separation of powers not strict separation of powers same as Presidential system.

1. The executive is divided into two the President is independent from legislature whereas the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers are subjugated to confidence of Parliament.

2. The legislative powers are vested to the Parliament and limited legislative powers to the Government Ministers.

3. Judiciary are strictly separated to the executive and legislative branches of government.

Government Shutdown brings political gridlock, the government shutdown even there's still plenty of money flow in the government kung saan malaking kagagohan, in Semi-Presidential System of Government they can avoid that phenomenon what's why in France they have a constitutional provision that a budget bill is considered pass without Parliament vote and only the motion of no confidence can block it. And also it avoid the parliamentary system lost of supply when France was under by Parliamentary system they face instability when there's a disagreement on budget they dissolve the Parliament and call for snap election. In Semi-Presidential System the constitutionality of the bill is very important in order the Parliament will prevent passing bad bills. Presidential system of democracy failed us! Giving a President a too much excessive executive powers has no future to the republic. I rather say checks of the bank account of the Tongressmen I mean Congressmen for lack of political disciplinary, that's why Philippines needs to switch at Federal Semi-Presidential so that political party turncoastism will be stop and political party disciplinary should be promoted!

Like · Reply· Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:39 PM (24w) · Edited

Lingling Gandong We need a system of government where the Government Ministers

are responsible to the legislature we need an accountable government. The Presidential system has no government accountability, look if we are Federal Semi-Presidential System of Government maybe former Minister of Justice Leila Delimaw, former Minister of Social Welfare and Development Stinky Dinky Soliman and former Minister of Interior of Local Government Mar Epal Roxas, are roasted alive and humiliated to the max to the Parliament or else beat up by an Members of Parliament like in Taiwan. Since we are Presidential system they are shameless to the max! 

We need to stop the celebrity oriented presidency and cult of personality ! In Presidential system the celebrity oriented presidency and cult of personality cannot be avoided! If there's a separation of religion and Government, there must be a separation of politics and celebrity! We need to have a President who will rule and have political experience not base on cult of personality and celebrity oriented presidency! That's why in PDP Laban propose constitution it provisionize a Indirect Presidential Primary Elections, where Members of Parliament will elect who will represent a party to run for direct Presidential election in order to avoid the cult of personality and celebrity oriented presidency.In Semi-Presidential System the celebrity oriented presidency and cult of personality can be avoided if choose to, do you know why? The President of France (President of French 5th Republic) are former Prime Minister, former Cabinet Ministers, former Members of National Assembly, former Senators and former Members of European Parliament.And I am incline to support the Presidential system of government because it gives a President a excessive executive powers it sounds like an elected temporary dictator sit at the Presidential palace doing not much and less accountability. That's why President Duterte wants Semi-Presidential and Federalism to reduce more Presidential powers..I forgot to tell you this, in Semi-Presidential System the President have decisive powers such as he/she have a power to declare state of emergency or martial law in order to protect the territorial integrity, to repeal rebellion and to repeal invasion and the pattern of declaring martial law or declaring of state of emergency still pattern to our 1987 Philippine Constitution, just read the PDP Laban propose constitution, the powers of presidency are quite similar to the 1987 Constitution.

Like· Reply · Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:23 AM (26w) · Edited

Lingling Gandong And btw fuck that Two Party System! Multiparty system doesn't

work in Presidential system because every lawmaker have no party disciplinary tawag diyan may kanya kanyang trip. Hindi kagaya sa Semi Presidential system kailangan talaga ng multiparty system kasi ang mga mambabatas ay disiplinado ng isang partido. 1 political party group 1 goal. Hindi yung 1 political party group but every member have different trip.

Like· Reply · Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 5:50 PM (26w)

 

Marcial Bonifacio A semi-presidential system may not be complicated to you or

parliamentarians, Lingling, but perhaps to the masses. Currently, many citizens voluntarily waive their right to vote. How much more so if we adopt such a new system to which many of our kababayans are oblivious.

America's founders established a fairly strict separation of powers in order to preclude any one branch from amassing too much power. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote that each branch has its own ambition and that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" which is "necessary to control the abuses of government." A close connection of the legislature and the executive is the antithesis of their independence and separation.Like you, I also oppose celebrity and personality-oriented executives. Kaya nga mahalaga ang electoral college at sufficiently informed voters.The Fifth French Republic is still young. I'll give it another 200 years before considering it as a model for RP. 🙂Nga pala, what is excessively powerful about the presidency that you oppose a presidential system, Lingling?

Like· Reply · Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:32 PM (24w)

Lingling Gandong Marcial Bonifacio how does Semi-Presidential System view as

complicated towards Filipinos? I don't think so because there's a direct election of the President in Semi-Presidential System the President have a mandate. I told you many times if the Philippines becomes Semi-Presidential System, THE RIGHT OF VOTING OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC WILL NEVER LOSE TO THE FILIPINO CITIZEN, hindi mawawalan ng karapatan bumuto ng Pangulo ang sambayanang Pilipino kapag maging Semi-Presidential System tayo. Excessively powerful presidency leads to cult of personality and creeping to autboritarianism. In Semi-Presidential System since there's a partial separation of powers, THE PRESIDENCY IS INDEPENDENT FROM LEGISLATURE so it's not antithesis to the legislative, only the President's Government Ministers or Cabinet Ministers are subjugated to confidence of Parliament in general they are part of Parliament whereas the President is not. Yeah French 5th Republic still young but many countries that used Parliamentary system that suffer from Parliamentary paralysis due to political instability they switch to Semi-Presidential System, most former Soviet Union and Former communist countries of Eastern Europe are switching to Semi-Presidential System and also some Presidential system countries switch to Semi-Presidential System so that they can get a benefits from Parliamentary system and Presidential system because they want a system of government where the Government is accountable to the legislature.

Like· Reply · Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:29 PM (24w)

 Lingling Gandong Marcial Bonifacio do you think using electoral college can avoid the

celebrity and personality oriented presidency? I don't think so, look at Donald Trump he didn't have any political experience Donald Trump is a celebrity he don't have a political experience at all, then some people in US they want Oprah Winfrey to become a US President to compete with Donald Trump in next Presidential election. That's why we need Semi-Presidential System of Government to avoid celebrity oriented presidency and cult of personality presidency. Since the President must be former Prime Minister, former Members of Parliament and former Cabinet Ministers.

Like· Reply · Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:43 PM (24w) · Edited

Jose Grecia Federal form of government

Magiging autonomous ang mga states na kasapi nito.
How will you divide the coubtry into states?
Only a few areas na magiging self sufficient In Terms of money and resources.
Hindi basta basta ang federalism.
Dynasties rin issue dyan dahil what will prevent political elites from controlling the state they are in?

Like· Reply · Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:03 PM (26w)

Lingling Gandong Iba ang political dynasty ng Pilipinas at iba ang political dynasty ng

US, Canada, Singapore at France. Sa atin kapag ang pangalan popular na popular sa lahat, marami kang mauuto, maraming kang pera na kaya mo bayaran ang mga electorate at kahit walang political platform or political mandate magkakaroon talaga ng horrible political dynasty.

Like · Reply · Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at  5:40 PM (26w)

 

Jose Grecia Kaya nga think twice sa federalism na yan

Like · Reply· Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:19 PM (26w)

 

Lingling Gandong Sa PDP Laban propose constitution meron provision to strict

political dynasty.

Like· Reply · Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:21 PM (26w)

 

Marcial Bonifacio Tama si Lingling tungkol sa proposed anti-dynasty bill, ngunit naisip

ko that should be a decision left to each individual state or region. Personally, I think some dynasties are beneficial. Halimbawa, the Gordons have positively impacted Olongapo, hindi ba, Jose?

Like· Reply · Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 7:37 PM (24w)

Jeronimo Constantina "Third, state autonomy more easily accommodates governance of a

nation comprised of more than 7,000 islands, several religious groups, and more than a hundred ethno-linguistic groups." But then, Tagalog "Central Luzon" state shares the language, culture and attitudes towards non-Tagalog languages of Manila and suburbs. Clearly, Central Luzon Tagalogs should absorbed by Mega Manila.Indung Kapampangan Federal State

https://youtu.be/6phfN0Bpj-0

YOUTUBE.COM

Indung Kapampangan Federal State

1Like · Reply · Monday, February 12, 2018 at  9:49 AM (32w) · Edited

Twitter Comments:

Marcial Bonifacio‏ @MBonifacio2 Aug 11

Marcial Bonifacio Retweeted ¡CLBermejoIII!@jojo_castaneda @jeffry_dyblues @RanhilioAquino @EspyOil @GaryAlejano @BermejoCL @Marybeezzz @TonyShappy Apples to oranges. Venezuela is neither democratic nor capitalist. U.S. is both and a successful model for federalism. #federalism

Marcial Bonifacio added,

¡CLBermejoIII! @BermejoCL

Boom! #NoToFederalism (hilaw) (c) owner

2 replies 0 retweets 1 like

¡CLBermejoIII!‏ @BermejoCL Aug 12

Why the americans didn't practice federal system during their occupation in the Phils?(since,US is the most powerful fed state on that time)

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

¡CLBermejoIII!‏ @BermejoCL Aug 12

For enlightenment and learning process. Thanks. 🙂

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

attyoil‏ @EspyOil Aug 12

appreciate this discussion. pero bukas na ako uli sasali. busy pa kami sa assistance sa mga kasama namin sa company na kailangan ng assistance gawa ng sobrang ulan at baha. stay safe and dry sa lahat. g mga pros and cons, pati sa mga undecided sa pederalismo.

reply 1 retweets 1 like 1

 attyoil‏ @EspyOil Aug 14

venezuela, fed, poor = federal not good for ph. US, fed, rich = federal good for ph. Both, Non sequitur. Federal shift will cost tax payer money= guaranteed to happen. 72B; 130B. Puno draft silent on this. like many other laws, no regard where money will come from.

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

attyoil‏ @EspyOil Aug 15

likely funds will come from TRAINs 3,4 and so forth (are you ready for addtl tax) or thru debts (utang hanggang apo sa tuhod) the latter is ok if invested in federalism and will bring in +return (cash flow). up to now, proponents recites only anecdotal benefits. wala numbers

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

Marcial Bonifacio‏ @MBonifacio2 Aug 22

@BermejoCL The US did not consider PH ready for federalism or independence yet, since the people were accustomed to unitary rule galing sa Espana.

1 reply1 retweet1 like

Marcial Bonifacio‏ @MBonifacio2

FollowingFollowing @MBonifacio2

Replying to @MBonifacio2 @EspyOil and 7 others

Magandang punto tungkol sa mga costs, @EspyOil . I may have to update my commentary on such prospects: http://www.marcialslaw.com/the-philippine-case-for-federalism-its-form-and-its-safeguards/ … Gayunman, I can only assume that the increased revenue from the newly created jobs and a smaller national govt will compensate for the initial deficit.

12:08 AM - 22 Aug 2018

1 Retweet2 Likes

0 replies1 retweet2 likes

The post The Philippine Case for Federalism, Its Form, and Its Safeguards first appeared on Marcial's Law.