i Report Issue No. 3 2005 - Philippine Center for Investigative ...

For Visayans, the
center does not hold
RESIL B. MOJARES
T
HE IDEA of a Fed-
eral Republic was
already raised at
the time of the Philippine
Revolution.
In 1898, when the
Aguinaldo government
had not yet established its
presence in the Visayas, leaders
in Iloilo took the initiative of
forming “The Federal State of
the Visayas,” anticipating the
formation of a federal republic
with three states: Luzon, Visayas,
and Mindanao.
In 1899, a group of “eminent
Filipinos” submitted to the US
Philippine Commission a draft
for a Federal Republic of the
Philippines, which proposed
to divide the country into 11
regions or states. In 1900, the
maverick Ilocano intellectual
Isabelo de los Reyes also published
a proposal for a federal
constitution that would divide
the country into seven states.
These ideas were not developed
because of the Aguinaldo
government’s need to create a
unitary state with strong central
powers to fight a war. The federal
alternative was also rejected by
the US Philippine Commission
(on the grounds of Filipino
unpreparedness for the system)
and the idea was completely
swamped as the United States
consolidated its rule and set the
country on track toward a unitary
form of government. The
goal of federalism, however, has
persisted as a recurrent theme
in debates on the best structure
of government for the country.
In the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, for instance, the
shift to a federal system was
strongly supported by many of
the Muslim delegates as well
as other Christian and Muslim
leaders and intellectuals. In the
1980s, Reuben Canoy’s Mindanao
Independence Movement
proposed a “Federal Republic
of Mindanao” and produced as
part of its propaganda campaign
a constitution, passports, and the
Mindanao dollar.
The accumulation of experiences—enabling
as well as disabling—under
the 1991 Local Government
Code and the creation
of autonomous regions has built
a consensus that decentralization
GOING FEDERAL. Those living
in the country’s periphery,
like these Negros sugarcane
workers, have always felt
neglected by “imperial” Manila.
has to be pushed forward. There
are those who hold the view of
“maximum decentralization short
of federalization” and there is
genuine anxiety over the prospect
of such a radical structural shift
as federalization. There is lack of
consensus about the exact shape
of federalism to be adopted, and
the discourse has stayed largely
at the level of leaders rather than
among the people themselves.
Yet federalism has moved
clearly to the center of discussions
on constitutional reform.
It has become even more urgent
because of today’s crisis at the
center. At no other time has the
level of public frustration about
how our unitary presidential
system works been highest as
now. Disillusion with the system
is such that there are leaders in
Davao, Cebu, and the Ilocos who
have publicly declared that if
the present crisis in Manila spins
out of control, their respective
regions will “withdraw” from
Manila and declare their “independence.”
This is not just political
theatrics but an expression of
deep frustration over the central
government. This has made federalism
a vital concern.
A CENTRAL VISAYAN
STATE
Central Visayas may be among
the best positioned for a transition
to a federal state. This is
because it is a fairly definable,
self-conscious unit on linguistic
cultural (high degree of homogeneity
in language and religion),
geographic (it is internally well
connected), economic, and political
grounds.
Cebu, the region’s de facto
capital, has a tradition of local
autonomy supported by such
factors as geographic location
(distance from Manila, strategic
location in the South), cultural
difference (chiefly, language),
and economic and political base
(southern economic hub, Cebuano
cultural “homeland”).
Its leaders have built on Cebu’s
reputation as a rival center
to Manila and styled themselves
political vanguards of “local autonomy.”
This is clearly illustrated
by the Osmeñas, the region’s most
influential and enduring political
family. In the early 20 th
century,
when unitary state-building was
the imperative, Sergio Osmeña
Sr. styled himself as the “apostle
of national unity.” In the postwar
period, when the inefficiency
of central government was the
popular lament, Sergio Osmeña Jr.
(gearing up for a national position
as chair of the League of Provincial
Governors and City Mayors in
1957) billed himself “champion
of local autonomy.” With the
distrust of central government
heightened by the experience of
martial rule and the perceived
weakness of the post-EDSA governments,
other Osmeñas put
themselves at the forefront of the
local autonomy movement. In
1991, Emilio ‘Lito’ Osmeña, running
for vice president under Fidel
Ramos’s Lakas-NUCD, formed the
Local Autonomy Movement of the
Philippines. In the same election,
his brother John, also eyeing the
vice presidency (later settling
for a senatorial seat), formed a
registered political organization,
Pilipinas 1992, that advocated
federalism.
Yet while the relation between
the region and the center
is contested, the discourse on
politics in the region has always
been one of local power in the
context of the unitary state. The
region has never harbored a
secessionist movement; it is the
seat of what may be called “conservative
anti-centralism.”
26 PHILIPPINE CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM I REPORT