By Ana Marie Pamintuan
October 29, 2008
FRIBOURG — The Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) with Islamic separatists is dead, and any final peace agreement will have to wait for a new administration to come in. This will be in 2010, unless the Arroyo administration manages to extend its stay in power.
What remains alive is federalism, which some proponents of the MOA-AD had hoped would be approved and implemented through an amendment of the Constitution.
Barely understood in the Philippines, federalism in itself does not elicit passionate reactions among Filipinos. But the mode of getting there does: changing the system of government, which will require a revision of the 1987 Constitution.
Charter change aside, we are familiar with the points raised by those cool to shifting to federalism. One is that it is supposed to bring together diverse groups into one cohesive whole, so why move in the opposite direction and turn an already united country into several independent republics?
Another is funding. Will affluent areas subsidize poorer ones in a federated state? How will servicing of the country’s massive foreign debt be divided among federated units?
A third issue is why the country even needs to change its system of government. Will the rot in Philippine politics, inefficiency and corruption be reduced under a federal system?
Before shifting to federalism — or proposing any solution for that matter — a nation must first identify the problems that the solution aims to address, according to Prof. Lidija Basta Fleiner.
The professor, a constitutional lawyer who founded the International Research and Consulting Center (IRCC) of the Institute of Federalism (IFF) at the state-run University of Fribourg here, said Filipinos should ask if federalism would be more conducive to “stabilizing” democracy.
Fleiner also noted that multiculturalism does not seem to play a big part in the Philippine debate on federalism, adding that territorial claims and ethnicity are not good arguments for shifting to a federal system.
* * *
The Swiss emphasize they are not telling anyone that their federal system is an ideal model. They realize that Switzerland’s history and circumstances are unique and there is no one-size-fits-all system that is guaranteed to bring the kind of economic, political and social progress this country has enjoyed.
“It’s not that we are trying to sell the Swiss system. We don’t think the Swiss system will work in the Philippines,” said Eva Schmassmann of the IRCC. “In the end it’s up to you to find your own way.”
IFF director Peter Hanni said they would be “very happy” if they could contribute something to relaunch debates on Charter change in the Philippines.
A Western diplomat was more blunt, telling me that federalism works in Switzerland because the Swiss are the ones implementing the system.
But the Swiss are willing to share their experience with anyone in the world who is interested. They are particularly keen to see their initiative contribute to the achievement of an enduring peace in Mindanao.
Last year marked the start of a three-year partnership between the IFF and the Center for Local and Regional Governance of the National College of Public Administration and Governance at the University of the Philippines in Diliman. I am part of this year’s batch selected by UP for briefings on the Swiss federal system.
Among my five companions is the head of the governors’ league, Loreto Leo Ocampos, whose province of Misamis Occidental was among the worst hit by the bloody rampage staged by Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) commanders after the signing of the MOA-AD was aborted.
Ocampos is no fan of the MOA-AD, which would have created a so-called Bangsamoro Juridical Entity under the MILF that would have control over its own currency, foreign affairs and natural resource exploitation.
But he says local officials are supporting the shift to federalism for several reasons, among which is that the system would allow them to obtain foreign aid directly from the source.
At present, Ocampos explained, only the national government can negotiate with other countries for official development assistance. Local officials are clueless about the criteria used for selecting the beneficiaries and projects for ODA funding, but Ocampos believes political considerations play a major role.
Though Ocampos did not say it, another aspect of the proposed shift to federalism that has tantalized local officials is the possibility of a term extension during the transition period and even the lifting of term limits.
* * *
There are no term limits for the members of the Swiss federal council. Once elected by the bicameral parliament to a four-year term, the council members cannot be kicked out through a no-confidence vote.
Countries such as the Philippines and the United States have imposed term limits on public officials as a form of check and balance. This is not so in Switzerland, where unlimited re-election is seen as a stabilizing factor in the federal system.
The Swiss federation comprises 26 cantons, with linguistic and religious borders. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over foreign relations, national defense, tariff, currency and monetary policy, postal and telecommunications services, railways, aviation, nuclear energy, water power, civil and criminal law and value-added tax collections, though VAT is redistributed among the cantons for “equalization” purposes so the poor areas do not suffer.
The cantons have exclusive jurisdiction only over the police and taxes paid to churches. They collect the income tax and can obtain ODA directly. They share with the federal government jurisdiction over labor laws as well as trade and industry. The largest cantonal budget allocation goes to education, followed by health, social welfare, traffic management and security.
Can we use this system? Professor Fleiner points out that the global trend is toward a shift from parliamentary to a presidential system, not the other way around.
What we need is to strengthen the institutions that will create a stable democracy. Without this, a shift in the system of government can simply saddle us with the same dog, different collar.