[ Panels by World Area Main Menu ]
[ View the Timetable of Panels ]
Political Reform in the Philippines: Is Federalism-Parliamentarism the Answer?
Organizer and Chair: Belinda A. Aquino, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Discussant: David Wurfel, York University
This panel will explore the current debate in the Philippines on the proposed shift to a federal-parliamentary system of government to replace the presidential-unitary form, which has been in existence since the Philippine Commonwealth under American colonial rule in the 1930s. This radical shift is favored by the current Arroyo government and its supporters in the Congress, local governments, and other institutions, but vigorously opposed by a whole array of groups of varying political persuasions. Called "Charter Change" or ("Cha-Cha" for short), the move seeks to amend the 1987 Constitution to install a Parliament, which will elect a Prime Minister, thus phasing out the presidency after the term of the current president expires in 2010. Instead of discussing the "pro" and "con" positions in the debate, it would be more productive for the panel to analyze the major issues in the proposed change, which can be summarized as follows: 1) Is federalism-parliamentarism the answer to the country's continuing social, economic and political problems?; 2) Can the present constitutional system be reformed to accommodate substantial doses of local autonomy? 3) What factors historically and institutionally inhibit or promote federalism?; and 4 ) In terms of the people in local communities, will they be better off in terms of standard of living under a federal-parliamentary structure? Analyzing these issues, which reach into the larger elements of the country's political culture, would provide much substance and clarity to the current debate on federalism-parliamentarism and political reform. Where appropriate, comparative cases will be introduced to enrich the discussion.
Between Legality and Legitimacy: The Debate about Constitutional Reform in the Philippines
Mark R. Thompson, University of Erlangen
An important distinction in the current debate on Philippine constitutional change should be made between legality and legitimacy. “Cha-cha” advocates seek a legal solution, while opponents argue that legal solutions do not or cannot bring about political legitimacy. This paper attempts to apply jurist Carl Schmitt’s theories of legality and legitimacy on the current claims and counterclaims in the Philippine debate.
Historical and Structural Factors in Philippine Federalism
Ronald D Holmes, De La Salle University
There have been previous discussions to introduce a federal system in Philippine political history, and at least one instance during the Marcos era to combine a presidential system with a parliamentary form of government. Distinctions must be made between federalism and parliamentarism, which are two different concepts. The current presidential system can be maintained but decentralized further to enforce local autonomy laws, which are already in the books like the 1991 Local Government Code. Shifting to a federal-parliamentary structure without the necessary conditions like a stable political party system may exacerbate rather than alleviate the current problems of the Philippines.
The View from Muslim Mindanao
Suharto Ambolodto, Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao
The continuing problems of Mindanao in southern Philippines are often attributed to its lack of adequate autonomy from Manila central control. The Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) attempts to provide a solution to this perennial problem. This paper will assess the performance of ARMM over the years and analyze whether shifting to a federal-parliamentary system will enhance local autonomy in the Mindanao region.
Beyond Federalism-Parliamentarism: A Comparative Cautionary Perspective
Belinda A. Aquino, University of Hawaii at Manoa
This paper takes the view that the persistent problems of the Philippines are “beyond federalism-parliamentarism,” which is to say that the larger and deeper political culture of the country must be examined to see what institutional values and conditions support or undermine proposed constitutional changes in a deeply divided society. Contemporary examples of success and failure in introducing constitutional changes in other parts of the world will be cited for comparative purposes.