fretting over marcos burial

while fretting (and getting a headache) over news of preparations to bury marcos sa libingan ng mga bayani this coming september, i checked out my blog archives and found this post of june 2011, burying marcos, when president aquino reportedly sent vp binay to ilocos to settle once and for all the matter of the former dictator’s burial.  and this, escudero, marcos, libingan ng mga bayani, of september 2015, when vp-wannabe chiz proved very much the son of a marcos man.  ito muna.

The big letdown

Ernesto P. Maceda, Jr.

We have had two chances in our history to write a Constitution (1934 and 1986) and one to revise it (1971). All three were done through the mode of having a dedicated group, elected or appointed, working solely on the Constitution and nothing else.

The most recent attempts at Charter change (under the Arroyo and Aquino presidencies) thru the con-ass mode failed to harness popular support. This was largely due to the perception that they were self serving efforts: perpetuation in power, no genuine political dynasty resolution. They would originate usually from the House (De Venecia, Nograles-Puentevella, Rodriguez, Belmonte).

The prism of self interest. President Rodrigo Duterte was an avowed proponent of the con-con mode for his prized shift to federalism. He confirmed this before, during and after the campaign. Like the public, he believed the con-ass mode to be self serving. Other No-Chance proposals under a con-ass would be the FOI law, political party reform.

Plus, of course, would you seriously expect Congress to vote to diminish its own power? This surely happens under the federal form where the National Congress castrates itself and shares responsibilities (and funds) with the state legislatures. As for the upper house, I don’t see Senators consenting to possibly playing a lesser role in legislation much like the House of Lords in the UK or, worse, being abolished outright if no separate voting by chamber takes place. The model federalism resolution of Senate President Nene Pimentel actually proposes the election of 75 Senators and 350 Congressmen at the national federal level. Incumbents voting for a proposition that dilutes their power? That’s novel. Its also absurd to expect it would happen.

Revision by con-ass may likely bring out the worst in the Legislature. And this likelihood is doubled with the current supermajority in Congress. I can see it now – suspensions of Rules, calls for closing the period of debate, drowned out points of order, calls for a vote. Might of muscle over might of merit. Personal heroes were routinely created or unmasked by the ANC coverages lasting deep into the night of the House’s many blatant and dishonorable past attempts at con-ass. The tyranny of supermajorities on display.

Unparalleled opportunity. No one trusts the House to decide in favor of con-con. It was such pleasing news then that Speaker Alvarez, in his first press conference, turned out to be pro con-con like his friend, the President. And with the Senate firmly on board, the Filipino people had, for the first time since Charter change was openly debated (began in 1997 nearing the end of FVR’s term), an honest chance at meaningful reform.

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

This may even have been the best opportunity at crafting the Constitution that we will need for the future. The 1934 draft was intended for a commonwealth government. The 1971 version was not given a bona fide chance. The 1986 output was rushed by a President who did not want to rule by revolutionary fiat. There would be no such pressures for this 2016 or 2017 iteration.

The populist President Duterte who, time and again, in just this first month in office has shown himself to be the emblem of popular sentiment, has made a decidedly unpopular choice in this con-ass change of heart. Virtually every sector of society has come forward favoring con-con over con-ass.

Expensive if Amendment, a bargain if Revision. Our own personal position is that the economy, efficiency and expediency of a con-ass are valid arguments only when the proposal is for mere amendments – whether of one or a group of provisions, e.g. economic. For constitutional amendment, it would be inadvisable to spend the P 7 billion price tag of a Con-Con (the price goes down dramatically to around P1 billion if Con-Con elections are synchronized with the Barangay or 2019 elections).

But a Revision of the Constitution deserves more than just the sideline attention of Congress acting as a constituent assembly. If the proposal would be to adopt a new federal structure or to try out the parliamentary form, this would mean throwing out virtually the entire Constitution and all of our present constitutional history. We would be starting blind.

Not as exhaustive. A con-ass that will be taking this on as an added duty will not be as thorough as a con-con with this as its only duty. We should make sure we get the best debate. We will not be served by Congress, with its supermajority, rubber stamping the President’s telegraphed message.

Public opinion is equally crucial. But trimedia is informal and space and time compromised. Essays and researches are sterile efforts where the author, even if attempting a balanced output, basically just debates with himself.

There is no substitute for well reasoned positions presented in an impassioned debate – without the time limitations and whose only guideline is to come up with a majority after making sure all sides are ventilated. Even those with full belief in Federalism should welcome the open, thoughtful and enthusiastic exchange one gets in a Convention. This will only serve to fine tune and produce not only the best version of a Constitution but one that is strong and solid having survived the crucible of intelligent debate. In this sense, a con-con is priceless.

In the previous conventions, we were well-served by the articulate expressions, stentorian tones and ardent convictions of men like Rodrigo, Recto, Bernas, Concepcion, Munoz-Palma, Manglapus, and more. We have to listen to all arguments even if we disagree for this will create a critical history and a rich record to aid in its better understanding later on.

Not democratic. These imperatives are best served if we send delegates who, having presented to us their intentions and their qualifications (matapos mamanhikan), are entrusted with our own sentiments on what we feel we need to see in the document they will be crafting. Did we elect our Congressmen and Senators to do that for us? No. This, above all, is why the President’s change of heart was surprising. Because it confiscated from our hands the one opportunity we had of a meaningful participation in writing the next chapter of our country’s history.

 

Let a coconut farmer census be taken

Rudy Romero

A proposal has been made for the establishment of a trust fund the income of which would go toward financing projects intended to benefit the coconut farmers of this country. The corpus of the trust fund would be the proceeds of the levy on coconut farmers – the coconut levy – that was collected by the martial law authorities on every 100 kilograms of copra the farmers produced. Asked why it was necessary to take the trust-fund route, the proposal’s author said that the identities of the proposed fund’s beneficiaries have not been established.

One really has to give it to the author of the trust-fund proposal. There seems to be no end to the effort to prevent the return to the coconut farmers – or their heirs – of the coconut levy collection, which the Supreme Court in a landmark decision characterized as funds “imbued with public interest.” His disingenuousness, and that of similarly minded individuals before him, is unbelievable.

If ever there was a phrase that has been over-abused in this country, it is “the coconut farmers.” During the decades following the end of martial law, “the coconut farmers” has been used to describe a group of people said to be so large, so indeterminate and so unwieldy as to necessitate their being represented by institutions – mainly Cocofed (Federation of Coconut Farmers of the Philippines) or the ACCRA law firm – professing to be representors of the interests of “the coconut farmers.” Because the farmers are too numerous and too disorganized, the government would have great difficulty getting anything done, the Cocofed and other self-appointed protectors of the coconut farmers’ interests have consistently manifested to the government. Unfortunately for the farmers, the government accepted this argument and has from the outset dealt with Cocofed et al in the making of policy relating to the coconut levy.

Left out of the equation have been the coconut farmers’ own organizations, to which the self-professed farmers’ protectors, in coordination with the martial-law military intelligence apparatus, attached leftist organizations’ brands. Needless to say, the farmers’ organizations are not trained in and wise to corporation-law principles and maneuverings.

Another argument advanced by the proponent of the trust-fund idea is that it makes little sense to give the coconut levy funds back to the farmers because their numerousness will ensure that they will receive very little money – around P10,000 per farmer, by his estimate – if the return of the funds were effected today. That, surely, is a non-argument. The funds belong to the farmers. Their coconut levy payments were made in the form of a tax – that is really what the Supreme Court meant by its “imbued with public interest” pronouncement – and they want their levy money refunded. They have been waiting for the refund for over three decades. The amount that each of them will receive, whether P10,000 or not, is of no moment. If P1,400 of CCT monthly payments means a lot to their family budgets, how much more a refund of P10,000 (or more)?

Back to the we-don’t-know-who-the-coconut-farmers-are argument of the trust fund’s proponent. This contention is unacceptable. The nation’s record keepers are able to maintain the statistical data on 55 million voters, 32 million Social Security System members, over 4 million CCT beneficiaries and the millions of beneficiaries of GSIS, Philhealth and other government programs. They surely can cope with the need to identify and list down the names – or legal heirs – of the coconut farmers who during the martial law period had been a part of their production income taxed away from them by an unjust and insensitive regime.

Let the government conduct a census of the current coconut farmers in the approximately 47 provinces in which the tree of life is grown. Because LGUs (local government units) are the most knowledgeable in this regard, let the barangays work closely with the census-takers. And let UCPB (United Coconut Planters Bank) or CIIF (Coconut Industry Investment Fund), both of which were acquired with coconut levy funds, finance the census if funding is or should become a problem.

The census having been undertaken and completed, the author of the trust fund proposal will no longer be able to claim that “We don’t know who the coconut farmers are.” With coconut-farmer identities established, refund of the coconut levy funds can begin. At long last.

Federalism is not a solution

Ben R. Punongbayan 

First of two parts

The concept of Federalism has recently been getting special attention in Philippine political circles. Judging by the constant talk about it, it appears our elected officials are determined to push efforts to adopt a form of Federalism through Constitutional amendment as the new basis of the political and economic union of the Filipino people.

As early as 2009, however, when I organized a national political party called Buklod, I have taken the view that Federalism is not a solution to the country’s economic and political problems. As I indicated in the “Objectives and Beliefs” of Buklod, Federalism is, in fact, a step backward.

Read on…