Bayanko’s crowdsourcing movement continues to draw in supporters and members. There is no mystery about it. What is being done is to get as many Filipinos as possible behind constitutional change that would change our system of politics and governance. In the past, political support was manifested by the number of people that can be massed into a crowd, regardless of whether they understand and agree with the cause or not.
But times have changed. We now live in a technological world when it has become possible to draw masses of people behind a movement, not by coming to a place and time, but through technology and tapping organized groups. That means using the internet to get at sectors, especially in labor and the church, the primary organized groups with the capacity to influence politics.
Last Friday, Jan. 23, the 200,000-member Federation of Free Farmers led by its president Leonardo Q. Montemayor and the 1.8-million card-bearing members of the OFW Family Club led by its founder Ambassador Roy Seneres joined Bayanko’s movement for constitutional change.
More importantly, the partners of Bayanko agreed to organize the Executive Committee composed of the heads of all the federations and groups that comprise the rainbow coalition.
The number of members in our coalition is now close to 20 million which was the target of Bayanko.
It is not surprising that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) rejected the Bangsamoro Basic Law as it is presently framed under the Aquino government.
The Association of Generals and Flag Officers (AGFO) of the armed forces had expressed its misgivings about the same law.
The question of the constitutionality of this law is now before the Supreme Court.
“We cannot have two systems in the same country. It would be discriminatory. What the Aquino government should have done is shift to a parliamentary federal system before granting autonomy,” Bayanko’s adviser Jose Alejandrino told this column.
To many who have been following peace talks between the Muslim groups and the Philippine government from administration to administration, it can be frustrating. No sooner had President Aquino met with Murad Ibrahim of the MILF in Tokyo, a breakaway group led by Ameril Umbra Kato began their attacks. So let’s face it: there were peace talks, but there was no peace.
The MOA-AD which former President Gloria Arroyo pushed and the Aquino substate are both unconstitutional.
Arroyo was willing to call a spade a spade and knew that there was just no other way to satisfy the demands of MILF without constitutional reform.
The MOA-AD, drafted under President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s administration, was intended to create a Bangsamoro homeland. The term used for the agreement was Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). PGMA became the fall guy for the solution that was hammered in Kuala Lumpur. She was accused of just wanting “Charter change” to extend her term.
Nothing came of it and the Kato forces went berserk burning and sacking villages. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were misplaced not to speak of troops from both sides who were killed.
We are back to square one. This time it is not called “Bangsamoro Juridical Entity” but a substate. Can such a substate in fact be created without violating the Constitution? President Aquino faces the same dilemma as former President GMA if the government were to create a substate as demanded by the MILF.
This column is not against a substate or a Bangsa Juridical Authority however it is called. The underlying premise is to give political power to the substate and that is inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.
Federalism is nothing new and has been studied and sought as part of constitutional reform needed by the Philippines to energize the country and bring peace to Mindanao.
At present it is hamstrung by the misconception that once federated, the Manila government loses control.
During discussions in the Constitutional Commission created by PGMA, one idea put on the table was to distinguish between the federal principle and a fully created federal state. With that distinction the group agreed to use the term “evolving” federalism. If a parliamentary federalism were sought it would evolve slowly and taken in small steps. It would depend on how ready the region was to take up the responsibilities of a federated state.
A federated state, a substate or a Bangsa juridical entity, has long been on the table even before either the Tokyo or Kuala Lumpur peace talks.
When we went to the University of Marawi and met with leaders of the Muslim region sometime in 2005, federalism received a standing ovation with our audience declaring that “federalism” originated in the Muslim region. It was the only way to go if the Muslims wanted freedom of religion, a shariah law and a homeland they can call their own without secession.
When Misuari and the MNLF were the main players, the Organization of Islamic States cautioned them that they would not have any support if independence were sought. That was what gave federalism a push. It would be a compromise between secession and an unsatisfactory local autonomy. That’s why I was surprised at reports that the Tokyo talks were the reason why the MILF has stopped seeking independence.?
A federated state was the compromise sought by the Muslims since Misuari entered into negotiations with the Philippine government. Indeed, critics of federalism said it would be dangerous to give political power (however it is called) because that would lead to secession. That is the exact opposite of what it means. Federalists reasoned that it is the solution because it would give political capacity without having to be an independent state.
A number of people have the impression Bayanko is part of the National Transformation Council, probably due to the appearance of NTC postings in our website. There are some issues on which both groups collaborate, but on the whole, Bayanko has its own strategy and objectives.
As the founder of Bayanko, I wish to make it clear we are not part of NTC. We are a separate and independent movement from NTC aiming for constitutional change towards a parliamentary federal system of government through crowdsourcing.
We have a completely different strategy from NTC to achieve our goal. As a crowdsourcing movement we have a wider constituency based on our partnerships with federations of workers, farmers, women and other marginalized sectors of society.
We share and support Cardinal Tagle’s aims to renew the nation’s morals and values, fight poverty and corruption, and include the marginalized sectors in a just and prosperous nation under God.