Stick to specific reforms, not federalism, admin told

The current system may be in need of serious change, but a University of the Philippines political science teacher stressed the practicality of pursuing specific reforms instead of rushing the proposed shift to a federal and parliamentary form of government.

Assistant professor Gene Pilapil, who delivered this year’s Jaime V. Ongpin Annual Memorial Lecture, said specific reforms were preferable to a system overhaul.

Changing the entire government structure is generally discouraged when it is unnecessary, too complex, or highly risky, he said.

Pilapil compared shifting to federalism at this stage with “trying to actually rebuild your roof under a storm.”

Regional autonomy

He pointed out that the present Constitution already recognizes regional autonomy, something “which is actually rare in unitary systems.”

Pilapil added that proponents of federalism “have never mentioned any evidence or proof” regarding their argument that it would empower local governments and stimulate development in the countryside.

“We’re going to change our Constitution based on faith, not arguments,” he said. “The same arguments would be given, but unfortunately, [there’s] no evidence yet of superior democratic performance.”

Pilapil noted that changing the government to a federal system and parliamentary (or possibly semipresidential) form through Charter change was virtually unprecedented.

Crazy enough

“No democratic country has been crazy enough to make these overhauls at the same time!” he said. “We are on our own.”

When it came to democratic countries with already functioning governments, Pilapil said the recommendation of top scholars would be “to reform rather than overhaul their systems or forms of government.”

Reforms, he said, do not call for revising the Constitution and would only need specific legislation or constitutional amendments.

This makes them less risky, because “messed-up reforms are more reformable” as it is easier to either return to the old setup or push it further through legislation, he said.

On the other hand, he noted that there had never been an instance when a country with a federal system reverted the unitary system.

“If you want to really be conservative, some scholars would say, ‘Live with the errors. You might be better with a devil you know than a devil you do not know,’” Pilapil said.

Vested interest

At the same time, Pilapil pointed out that the weakness of the party system would still allow entrenched dynasties in Congress to tweak the new Constitution to their benefit, defeating the purpose of the change in government.

“Don’t think just because your inept driver brought a brand-new vehicle, he could bring you to Sagada,” he said, referring to the popular tourist spot in the mountains some 400 kilometers north of Manila.

‘Hyperrationality’

He described this as “hyperrationality,” or the belief that “just because you change rules, you’re actually going to change a politician’s behavior.”

“I emphasize the limit of institutional design,” he said.

Pilapil pointed out that lawmakers, acting as members of the constituent assembly to write a new Charter, were the same “winners of the old unitary/presidential setup.”

He illustrated the weakness of political parties by noting how the Duterte administration’s “supermajority” swelled to more than 260 out of the 297 members of the House of Representatives, from just three winning candidates from the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan.