THE PRESIDENT IS CONTRADICTING HIMSELF

By Bayawanon

The president is making some steps to get rid of some agencies which overlap functions with other bureaus by defacing the same in line with his program of downsizing the bureaucracy. This act of the chief executive of the land is very laudable since the government can economize by way of such acts.

But it is clear that he is contradicting himself because he is promoting FEDERALISM, since this type or system of government bloat the bureaucracy. Imagine if the Philippines would be divided into several regional states, there could be several executive departments, there could be several judicial departments and there could also be several legislative departments.

If the president is really serious in streamlining the government then he must forget FEDERALISM, for such type of governance, promotes gargantuan and gigantic government. It is true that the current Philippine state may gain something out of the present streamlining of bureaus by the Office of the President but the Philippines would lose big time in founding many states out of the current unitary system of governance, since in the creation of those newly federated states, we need a sizable sum of money for the realization of the same.

In connection to this, I support the president in streamlining the present bureaucratic system so that the government would save enough money out of the overlapping of functions of some existing agencies, but I oppose the planned adoption of FEDERALISM for it promotes big government, since big government means BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

I hope that the president would reconsider his proposal to shift our system of governance from unitary to federalism for the same may tantamount to a wastage of government money and may also result for the president contradicting himself, he being a sponsor of the streamlining of government bureaucracy and at the same time an advocate of federalism.

In conjunction to this, the president should not just make decisions hastily, for haste makes waste. He must instead thoroughly study matters before deciding since his position is not an ordinary position and his decisions have a big role in making or breaking a nation.

THE PROPOSED DUTERTE REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By Bayawanon

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius says a latin legal maxim, this saying means in English that "what is included is deemed excluded', this legal saying is well entrenched and well respected in the world of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution does not have any provision which provides for a revolutionary government, so why does the president insist on this matter when the constitution does not provide for it? Clearly, if the constitution does not talk about this REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT, it must follow that it is unconstitutional for INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS, " what is not included is deemed excluded".

There were, however, two instances in Philippine History that there were Philippine Revolutionary Governments namely: 1.) The Aguinaldo Regime (1898-1901) and 2.) The Corazon Aquino Regime (1986-1992). These governments existed only after a successful revolution happened against the preceding governments it followed.

In the case of the Philippine Revolutionary Government under the Aguinaldo presidency, the same was historically, properly installed after the revolutionaries with the help of the Americans outlasted the once dreaded Spanish conquistadores.

The Philippine Revolutionary Government under the stewardship of President Corazon Aquino was successfully, properly installed to power after a bloodless people power revolution against the despotic leadership of the former strongman Ferdinand Marcos, who fathered the ill-fated Martial Law.

In the case of the present national leadership, the Duterte government, it was properly installed by the people by way of the 2016 Presidential elections where the current president was elected by the Filipino people, hence the present regime cannot make use of the revolutionary government to operate in the islands because the same did not come into being via a revolution

Because of the foregoing arguments, the proposed revolutionary government suggested by no less than the Honorable President Rodrigo Roa Duterte is not in line with the constitution and is even repugnant to the history of our storied country, the Philippines, and must be downplayed by the people as NOTHING BUT A FORM OF RUMOR MONGERING.OR WORST FEAR MONGERING.

In conjunction to this, I hope that the president should stop making any statements that would spread fear to the people such as this, for his bounden duty is to protect and serve the populace of his country and not to destabilize the same nor spread fear against its people.

WHEN MORALLY WRONG DECISIONS LOOK NORMAL

By Bayawanon

The people would like to have changed in the society, but change cannot come without violence nowadays. Killings are happening in the name of change, and it seems like the people are applauding the efforts of the government in purging the community by eliminating the so-called undesirable citizens of the country, the drug personalities.

Is extrajudicial killing part of the change? Is it not that killing is bad? Can the support of the people to the Philippine government in seeking change by way of extrajudicially killing the undesirables contradict to morality and change?

If killing which is not morally right be justified to effect change, it seems like the people are contradicting themselves. If the people contradict themselves, something must be wrong with them.

This ambivalence on the part of the people looks normal anyway since it is now prevalent nowadays. Sad to say, the prevalence of morally wrong decisions looks and sounds good when the majority approves it.

When the majority of the people approve a morally flawed policy or policies by the authorities, such flawed programs of the state look legal and moral when the same is actually the other way around.

When the people who are supporting an abusive regime are the majority of the populace, an illegal act or acts by the authorities to effect change can be legal, moral, ethical and proper because the majority is always right in this modern Philippine society.

When the people like to have change in just one click of their fingertips to happen, morally wrong decisions by the state like extrajudicial killings may take place, and human rights abuses against the so-called undesirables may be committed by the government agents, anyway the public would simply approve it the name of ABRUPT or AUTOMATIC CHANGE.

FEDERALISM IS GOOD BUT VERY COSTLY

By Bayawanon

Federalism is good in the sense that it foments decentralization, devolution, and autonomy in favor of the smaller government units, but the fact that it is very costly for it to operate in a third world country like the Philippines, I instead prefer the old UNITARY FORM of government to continually operate in the Philippines.

Federalism is working well in the United States of America, Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Switzerland Malaysia, Australia and many rich countries in the world. These rich countries can afford to have federated states in their jurisdiction because they have the money to maintain the operation of their federated states, in this connection, this type of government is NOT IDEAL for third world countries since it is very costly and the passage of the same may simply bloat the bureaucracy.

The United States of America is divided into federated states, Canada is composed of several federated provinces and Australia is also composed of different federated territories because there is a necessity for them to divide their respective territories because of its vastness. These countries have also the right to divide their territories because they have enough resources to maintain their divided and federated locales. In the contrary little and third world countries may become poorer if they would divide their territories and federate the same.

WHY IS IT COSTLY?

Shifting the UNITARY FORM of government to a FEDERAL FORM would be costly on the following grounds:

1.) For one, in order for a unitary form of government to be divided and be federated, the country's constitution needs to be amended first by way of a constitutional convention or via constituent assembly by Congress (Philippine setting), and once it passes through the proper processes, it shall be approved by the people by way of a plebiscite or a referendum. Because of this the government would spend so much money, maybe by hundreds of billions for a federal state to be operative;

2.) Once the country is divided and be federated into several states, each state shall have its own government separate and distinct and independent from each other. Every federated state shall have its own executive officers like a president or a governor, it shall have its own cabinet, it shall have its own judiciary and it shall have its own congress.

The central or federal government's executive department, legislative department, and judiciary would continually function, because of this the government would be bloated and gargantuan spendings would happen to the detriment of the basic services of the same.

3) In a federal form of government, every federated state government, territory or region shall have its own TAX SYSTEM which is separate and distinct from the CENTRAL OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, hence it would be burdensome for the business people, property owners, and the taxing public by taxing their taxable income twice. first by the federated state and second by the central/federal government.

In view of the foregoing premises, I hope that the current national leadership of the small and poor government of the Republic of the Philippines should think twice or even thrice, if not a thousand times in its decision to adopt FEDERALISM as its new form of government before the PHILIPPINES would face an uphill economic repercussion by way of too much spending, which would stem from the sprouting of federated states or regions and by way of maintaining its sustenance and continued existence.