Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
Region IV-A CALABARZON
Division of Cavite
GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL
General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite

THE INITIATIVE TO
UNDERTAKE CHARTER
CHANGE
and
THE REINSTATEMENT OF
DEATH PENALTY
A POSITION PAPER

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES

SUBMITTED BY
Cuesta, Dan Moises Dave R.
Dagatan, Joshua M.
G12 – Emerald
Humanities and Social Sciences

SUBMITTED TO
Ms. Bridget L. Torralba
SHS English Teacher
 POSITION PAPER ON THE INITIATIVE TO UNDERTAKE CHARTER CHANGE

I. Introduction

Charter Change is a daunting task with both long-lasting and unintended

consequences for all. It requires a lot of labors, sweats, and time to accomplish the

change in the Constitution.

By addressing the points of concern on both the process and substance of

Constitutional change being raised in this paper, I hope that the people will be able to

understand its intentions, plans, and vision and comprehend the help it can offer to the

higher authority.

II. The Issues

The Constitutional revision is never a joke: It is a grand task to be undertaken by

the best of the best constitutional amenders. If the objective is to shift to a federal

system, this would partake of an all-encompassing break from the past and introduces

a new set of institutions that would constitute another political system altogether.

Historically, Philippine constitution-writing took a long journey before it was fully

recognized and accepted. The 1935 Constitution provided the transition and vision of a

post-American colonial regime in the Philippines. The 1973 Constitution institutionalized

one-man rule. The 1987 Constitution dismantled the dictatorship, and offered solutions

the heightened social injustices that authoritarian rule had engendered.

 It is notable that the post-Marcos constitutional revision agenda was always

executive-driven – the shift to a parliamentary system under the Ramos and Arroyo

administrations; and now the shift to federalism under the Duterte administration.

Several House resolutions favoring the federal shift claim that there is a “public

clamor” for the shift. But a July 2016 survey done by Pulse Asia indicates that 61% are

either opposed to or undecided on a shift from a unitary to a federal system.

The people need to hear from the political leadership answers that are based on

grounded and evidence-based claims as regards the constitutional revision. The

Filipino people deserve no less.

III. Actions Undertaken

Today, the Consultative Committee has drafted a Federal Constitution. Under the

draft are still lots of loopholes needed to be fixed. The various House resolutions

expressing support for a shift to federalism claim that federalism would be most suitable

to the Philippines as an archipelagic and multi-linguistic country. Moreover, federalism

would enable regions to retain locally-generated income, plan on their own without

national government interference, and manage their own affairs.

The House Resolutions argue that federalism will bring political stability, spur

economic development, unshackle the localities, and bring government closer to the

people. Some resolution sponsors consequently decried the failure of the 1987

Constitution to bring about these desired changes.

President Rodrigo RoaDuterte, for his part, has stated several times that only

federalism will accommodate the legitimate interests of Filipino Muslims in the South.
Without discounting the potential of a federal system to uplift the country as claimed by

the House resolutions and by the President, we should not be blind to its possible

negative consequences.

IV. Unintended Consequences of Federalism

The paper urge the proponents of federalism to duly consider the following

pitfalls of a federal setup as already experienced in several federal states.

Regional Discrepancies, Dependency and Resentment

Across federal states, resource endowment and levels of development would

differ. Without an effective mechanism for revenue sharing across states whereby

richer states or units subsidize poorer ones, federalism could increase inequality among

sub-national units. Subsequently, the poorer regions or states may become dependent

on fiscal transfers, causing resentment on the part of the more economically productive

states.

Disparity in the Provision and Quality of Public Services

It is assumed that federalism will deliver the public goods more efficiently. This

may be the case in high-income regions or states, but the opposite may be truer in the

poorer ones.

Full devolution of public services across the board could lead to gross disparities

in the provision and the quality of public services from one state to another, to the

detriment of the affected public.

Lack of Coordination and Cooperation, Government Paralysis and Gridlock

One documented advantage of federalism is that it creates a system of checks

and balances. On the other hand, contemporary societal concerns and key government

functions are becoming more and more interconnected, requiring government

operations to be more interdependent.

State governments may resent or fail to effectively coordinate emergency

intervention from the central authority during urgent situations like disasters or failure of

governance. Moreover, federal states may resist bold reforms emanating from the

federal government.

In the area of disasters, we can learn from our own experience with Yolanda

(Typhoon Hainan) as well as the experiences of federal systems like the United States

and Mexico in their successes and failures dealing with disasters like hurricanes and

earthquakes.

Budgetary Requirements

Obviously, creating a new territorial and political subdivision complete with its

own bureaucracy and legislative body will entail additional operating costs, and require

new infrastructure, personnel, etc.

A federal set-up also invests heavily in inter-governmental mechanisms that will

effectively coordinate shared powers, manage shared revenues, and allocate budgetary

support. All these mechanisms require highly technical human resources with complete

staffing.
 It is incumbent on proponents to undertake a serious study of the budgetary

requirements of an added layer of government. Alternately, proponents may consider

instituting an entirely different set of territorial and political subdivisions or local

governments that would constitute a federal state, other than the current provinces,

municipalities, cities and barangays. Appropriation of legislative districts for the

Philippine Congress would also have to be reconfigured.

Judicialization of Politics

Federalism may result in an increased political role for the judiciary because

disputes between the powers or competencies of national and federal institutions would

be resolved in courts instead of in the elected legislatures. This enhanced role of the

judiciary could consequently cause deadlock and paralysis in government action.

Continuing Challenges to Nation-building and National Identity

Some countries like Canada, India and Switzerland have opted for a federal

structure to bridge ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity within a divided society. Even

erstwhile non-federal Western European countries, under pressure from ethnic or

regional nationalism, have shifted to federalism (e.g., Belgium) or instituted various

modes of autonomous substates (e.g., in Spain, UK and Italy).

The textbook distinction between federal states and unitary states has become

more blurred. There is no longer a ‘pure’ form of a unitary state, just as there are

different forms of federal governments.

In any case , federalism by itself simply cannot create unity in diversity or a

sense of nationalism that transcends people’s primary and subnational political

identities. For instance, despite transforming into a full-fledged federal set-up in 1993,

Belgium has yet to create a larger “Belgian” national identity that would overlay the

divide between the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking populations.

A federal set-up, moreover, does not guarantee an end to secessionist

aspirations (e.g. the Quebec case in Canada).

Moreover, minorities within federal states may continue to experience

discrimination and marginalization, with the federal government unable to take direct

action to address the oppression.

It will take more than a shift to federalism to build a strong, united country with a

cohesive national identity, especially in multicultural settings marked by politicized

subnational identities, historical antagonisms, and even class divides.

Monopoly and Abuse of Power

The challenge to the constitution drafters is how to avoid, not perpetuating, in a

new federal set-up the abuse and monopoly of power of a few political clans and elites.

The bottom line is that we must not over-credit federalism with outcomes that it

may not be able to deliver.

V. Conclusion

Though being acknowledge that federalism has been used to address societal

problems with varying degrees of success in other countries, the Constitutional

Committee should also consider the following constitutional amendments.

 It is important to recognize the Article X of the 1987 Constitution that deals with

the political and territorial subdivisions of our country. The first sets of provisions

focuses on local governments of provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. The

second set provides for the creation and powers of two autonomous regions, as well as

other intergovernmental bodies like metropolitan political subdivisions and regional

development councils.

These recommendations are very preliminary and not exhaustive. The intent is

to stimulate alternative thinking and generate more solutions other than the one on the

table, without discounting federalism’s viability for the country and the noble aspirations

behind it.
 THE REINSTATEMENT OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Every day when we hear the news and read the newspaper, it has become a

daily routine to include articles about tons of crimes. Drugs, rape, kidnapping, murder –

these are just some of the problems that our country is facing. In line with this, Sen. Tito

Sotto is raising the reinstatement of Death Penalty.

Republic Act No. 7659 defines death penalty as “the punishment given to

people who committed heinous crimes”. It is a kind of capital punishment which refers

to the sentence of death over a person who has been decided by the government as

guilty of committing capital crimes or offenses.

From the Spanish colonization period to Marcos regime, death penalty was

being practiced. It was only then during the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

when death penalty was abolished. And now, based from the recent statements of

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, various critics have expressed their sentiments about

the pros and cons of the said issue. Not only do the lawmakers are concerned in the

reinstatement of death penalty but also the ordinary Filipinos who wish to be heard.

Some politicians argue that death penalty is the only solution to alleviate the

increasing crime rates of the Philippines. Contrary to the fact, when death penalty is

legal in our country, a drop of criminality rate was not observed. That is, to fairly say,

that death penalty had not been an effective solution or at least a deterrent to the

Filipino people ever since. In the statistical data provided by Ibn Foundation, the United

States which has states practicing death penalty, has a higher crime rate than those of

countries which are not practicing it such as Australia and Great Britain.
 According to the research conducted by Xiao Chua, there are issues of killing

innocent lives during the 1950s. Two men were sentenced to death without having

proven of doing a heinous crime. Weeks after the penalty, it was then proven that the

men convicted were innocent and were just blamed to maintain the reputation of big

people in the industry. In a “jusTIIS” system of the Philippines, poor Filipino families do

not have the ability to pay for a good lawyer and win a case. Death penalty is seen to

be “anti-poor”. Bayan Muna Representative Crispin Beltran argued that the system

of justice in the country is not suitable for death penalty. There are too many flaws in the

justice system, and the balance is often tipped in favor of the rich and the influential.

The poor, being unable to pay for the services of good lawyers, are often left at

the mercy of unscrupulous judges or to the weaknesses of the system itself. Hence,

before even convincing the Filipino people to support death penalty, the justice system

of the Philippines should be prioritized and given prior attention for it to always have a

fair, just, and equal view.

Death penalty drew various criticisms and one of those opposing is the Catholic

church. From the word of God, stated in the 5th Commandment, no one shall have the

right to kill a human being even if it is just a form of retribution. In addition, Commission

of Human Rights Chairperson Chito Gascon, death penalty destroys the opportunity of

the person who committed the crime to have a second life and change for the better.

Professor Heidarian of De La Salle University claimed that instead of reinstating

death penalty, the government should just focus on reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment. In this way, if the family of the victim is seeking for justice and revenge, it

would be better to see the person suffering and fighting his conscience each and every

single day in the four corners of the prison, and for the rest of his life.
 Death Penalty is a clear manifestation of a violation of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights. Killing, no matter in which angle viewed, is wrong and will always be

wrong. If a person committed a crime and a mistake, make it right by giving him a

punishment enough for him to suffer and regret but not to the extent of taking away his

life. A mistake can never be corrected by another mistake.