"I think their (government’s) plans are to go to parliament first then to federal. At the moment, there is nothing federal. The issue of federalism is not being discussed very much but eventually it will," he said.
The former dean of Ateneo Law School cited the benefits a federal government can have, more particularly on the line where the national government can exert its power and influence at the local government level.
"In a federal government, power is divided between central government and local government units. There is the empowerment of communities," Bernas explained.
He said several countries have realized the benefits of having a federal form of government. Among the countries that have federal governments are the United States, Switzerland, Australia, India, Belgium, Canada and Spain.
The concept of a federal government for the Philippines has grown popular among local government units, particularly in remote areas in the south which apparently have grown tired of waiting for doleouts coming from the national government.
Several lawmakers also noted a federal government is an ideal political setup for the country, given its ethnic and cultural differences spread in the entire archipelago.
Local government chiefs made plain their desire to push the Charter amendments for stronger local autonomy, a move wholly supported by President Arroyo.
Bernas earlier conceded the possibility that the Supreme Court would reverse its 1997 ruling that declared illegal the people’s initiative campaign to amend the Constitution.
Bernas told a forum on Charter change at the Ateneo de Manila University last Thursday that part of the private sector and local government units that went into overdrive in their signature-gathering are hoping that the ruling would be overturned by the new Supreme Court justices.
He said the magistrates are divided over the issue of people’s initiative. He noted senior magistrates Reynato Puno and now Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban wrote their powerful dissenting opinions wanting the signature gathering drive to push through.
Bernas also noted a majority of local chief executives are spearheading the signature gathering campaign parallel to the people’s initiative drive by the group "Sigaw ng Bayan."
These signature gathering campaigns are openly supported by the government, Bernas noted.
Bernas, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, still maintained any move to amend the Charter for a parliamentary form of government entails revision and not just amendment, or simply changing a provision.
He argued the move of the government to shift from presidential to parliamentary is not a call for an amendment, but an overhaul the entire Constitution.
Bernas also expressed pessimism about predictions of Charter change proponents led by Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Constantino Jaraula that the "great shift" may take place in July or August this year.
He said this was unlikely to occur based on the history of the Supreme Court.
"I do not see the revision (of the 1987 Constitution) coming this year. If you look at the trend of the SC, the justices are also conscious of their own place in history," Bernas said.
He said he is anticipating a big number of petitions to be filed before the Supreme Court, all questioning the legality of the people’s initiative move.
Opponents are expected to put up the 1997 ruling that thumbed down the similar signature gathering campaign drive as illegal in the absence of an enabling law from Congress.
Bernas branded the signature drive, which reportedly reached more than eight million signatures, as a "deceptive" activity.
"That’s really deceptive. That means they (government) are asking for a blank check." Bernas said.
The Jesuit priest claimed he has yet to see a copy of the questionnaire being presented by the signature gathering campaign group "Sigaw ng Bayan."
He said his impression of the drive is wholly coming from the government.
He also noted the move by pro-Cha-cha advocates in the House who have gathered 173 signatures, 22 votes shy of the needed 195 congressmen to possibly rewrite the Charter.
The advocates have been pushing for Congress to convene as a constituent assembly to introduce amendments to the Constitution on a do-it-alone basis without the concurrence of the Senate.
Bernas expressed his opinion that the move is unnecessary, insisting the Senate must be consulted.
He emphasized the country’s woes should not be attributed to perceived defects in the Charter and the institutions, but rather on the people themselves.
Having a parliamentary-unicameral legislative system of government would not really make any difference, he said.
Bernas cited electoral reforms, which is one good argument for improving the current system. "But it will be a long process," he predicted.