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鈥檚 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 鈥渢rying to actually rebuild your roof under a storm.鈥�
Regional autonomy
He pointed out that the present Constitution already recognizes regional autonomy, something 鈥渨hich is actually rare in unitary systems.鈥�
Pilapil added that proponents of federalism 鈥渉ave never mentioned any evidence or proof鈥� regarding their argument that it would empower local governments and stimulate development in the countryside.
鈥淲e鈥檙e going to change our Constitution based on faith, not arguments,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he same arguments would be given, but unfortunately, [there鈥檚] no evidence yet of superior democratic performance.鈥�
Pilapil noted that changing the government to a federal system and parliamentary (or possibly semipresidential) form through Charter change was virtually unprecedented.
Crazy enough
鈥淣o democratic country has been crazy enough to make these overhauls at the same time!鈥� he said. 鈥淲e are on our own.鈥�
When it came to democratic countries with already functioning governments, Pilapil said the recommendation of top scholars would be 鈥渢o reform rather than overhaul their systems or forms of government.鈥�
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 鈥渕essed-up reforms are more reformable鈥� 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.
鈥淚f you want to really be conservative, some scholars would say, 鈥楲ive with the errors. You might be better with a devil you know than a devil you do not know,鈥欌�� 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.
鈥淒on鈥檛 think just because your inept driver brought a brand-new vehicle, he could bring you to Sagada,鈥� he said, referring to the popular tourist spot in the mountains some 400 kilometers north of Manila.
鈥楬测辫别谤谤补迟颈辞苍补濒颈迟测鈥�
He described this as 鈥渉yperrationality,鈥� or the belief that 鈥渏ust because you change rules, you鈥檙e actually going to change a politician鈥檚 behavior.鈥�
鈥淚 emphasize the limit of institutional design,鈥� he said.
Pilapil pointed out that lawmakers, acting as members of the constituent assembly to write a new Charter, were the same 鈥渨inners of the old unitary/presidential setup.鈥�
He illustrated the weakness of political parties by noting how the Duterte administration鈥檚 鈥渟upermajority鈥� 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.