CenPEG Situationer No.

06
06 June 2019

ANOTHER TRY FOR CHARTER CHANGE

Can federalism take off during the last 3 years of Duterte?

T he acrimonious and divisive national debate on a constitutional shift to a federal form of

government was sidetracked over the past several months for at least three reasons: The
priority given to the ratification of the proposed Bangsamoro Organic Law in Muslim
Mindanao, the deadlock in Congress over the proposed national budget, and preparations for the
May 13, 2019 mid-term national and local elections which preoccupied Congress and the
executive department.

The push for a federal form of government to replace the present unitary and presidential
system came to a standoff when the House of Representatives led by Speaker Gloria M. Arroyo
on Dec. 4, 2018 passed on third reading Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) 15 on the chamber’s
federalism version amid protests from some minority congressmen. Key leaders of the upper
House or Senate warned the House bill will be “dead on arrival” when it reaches their chamber.
A gridlock had earlier divided Congress when House leaders argued that changes to the
constitution should be voted by a joint session of both houses in a Constituent Assembly (Con-
Ass) which was strongly rejected by Senate leaders insisting that there should be a separate vote.
In the present 17th Congress, the House of Representatives has 297 members against the Senate’s
24. For their sheer number, the lower House will decide alone on any constitutional revision.

The draft constitution on federalism proposed by the presidential Consultative Committee to

Review the 1987 Constitution led by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
which was submitted to President Rodrigo R. Duterte on July 9, 2018 was not acted upon by
Congress. Duterte has been the chief proponent of federalism. In all, there are three versions on
charter change: the House version, the draft of the ruling political party, PDP-Laban, and the
draft of the Puno consultative committee.

Proponents of federalism had originally envisioned to come up with a draft of a new

constitution in late 2018 followed by a national plebiscite in early 2019. The next three years of
Duterte’s presidential term would have been devoted to a transitory implementation of the new
constitution with the election of the first officials under the new federal republic slated in 2022.
This did not materialize for reasons that were already mentioned aside of course from delays
ensuing from sharp disagreements between House and Senate leaders including on the mode of
constitutional change – between one that convenes the entire Congress into a constituent
assembly against another calling for an independent constitutional convention with delegates
elected by the people.

Among the current major political parties, Duterte’s ruling political party - Partido
Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) - is the main and strongest advocate of

1
federalism. PDP-Laban had allowed only pro-federalism politicians to be admitted to the
party. Conversely, the opposition Liberal Party is against the movement. The current de facto LP
leader, incumbent Vice President Leni Robredo, has stood against charter change and federalism
which is a position shared by various opposition senators and representatives as well. Left-wing
political parties such as the Makabayan bloc, the broad coalition Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (Nationalist People’s Alliance) along with Akbayan and other groups have voiced
disapproval to charter change.

Not giving up, key architects of the proposed shift to a federal government and Duterte’s
political allies plan to give the constitutional change another try when the new 18th Congress
convenes in July 2019. They had anticipated that the May 13 mid-term elections would give
them more numbers for federalism particularly in the recently-adjourned Senate where the votes
needed for the proposal were not enough. Will the proposal muster enough votes in the new
Senate in support of federalism? Will there be a more receptive public platform to make
constitutional change not just an act of a few legislators and politicians but of a significant
percentage of the public? Can it be accomplished in the last three years of the Duterte presidency
(July 2019 – June 2022)?

The move for federalism rolls on

Early this year, the responsibility to pursue the proposed shift to federalism fell on the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) headed by former armed forces chief and
now DILG Secretary Eduardo Ano. Ano heads the Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) on
Federalism and Constitutional Reform. 1 DILG Undersecretary Jonathan Malaya said as soon as it
finishes its work to drum up support from the public particularly the local government units
(LGUs) the IATF will collaborate with the 18th Congress to have the proposal approved during
the second half of the president’s term. 2

Equally optimistic is reelected senator, Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III. The former senate
president said in March 2019 that federalism will gain traction in the new Senate of the 18th
Congress. Pimentel III said he will give federalism another shot expecting the shift to garner
more allies in the new Senate. "It will have a sense of urgency knowing we are already on the
second half of the term (of Duterte)," he said. 3

Challenges

What bears watching is that when the proposed constitutional shift to federalism is taken up
once more in July, the three major drafters of federalism need to reconcile their differences and
settle on a common draft that will be the subject of charter change. The draft of the Puno
committee – “Bayanihan Federalism: Constitution for a Strong, Indissoluble Republic”
completed in July 2018 was supposed to be the presidential reference for charter change. But this
was pre-empted by the House version initiated by former president, Duterte ally and outgoing
House Speaker Gloria M. Arroyo.

Penned by Arroyo herself together with 35 other House members, RBH 15 which calls for a
presidential-bicameral-federal system of government went through nominal third reading

2
approval in December 2018. RBH 15 provides for major constitutional amendments that drew
strong reactions from the Senate, opposition members of the lower House, and other
stakeholders. Some of the most contentious are that the RBH, first, does not set the specific
number of federal states; second, removes the anti-dynasty provision enshrined in the 1987
Constitution; third, throws away the term limits of all members of Congress; fourth, revives the
old two-party system which had been replaced by multi-party system; fifth, requires candidates
for president, vice-president, and Congress to have a college degree; and sixth, the House
speaker replaces the Senate president as chair of the powerful Commission on Appointments. 4

The House draft, said to have been railroaded by the House majority despite protests from
some opposition or minority congressmen, was rebuked as being self-serving and shrouded with
a political agenda. Reynato S. Puno, chairman of the consultative committee to review the
constitution which came up with the “Bayanihan Federalism,” earlier said the proposed charter
was designed for the congressmen’s “best interests.” The House charter, he said, serves no
purpose to change the constitution since it does not include the presidential committee’s
proposed anti-political dynasty provisions and the division of powers between the federal
government and its states. The House draft, disguised as “federalism,” retains the unitary form of
government, Puno added.5 The House version, Puno also said, will only worsen the political
problem in the Philippines as the power of politicians who belong to political dynasties will be
"unlimited."

Mode of charter change unresolved; Sotto’s “hybrid”

Yet another rift between House leaders and many senators is on the mode of charter change.
As mentioned earlier, Senate members thumbed down the House leadership’s argument that
constitutional amendments should be voted upon by a joint session of both houses for the simple
reason that they are easily outnumbered by the House membership. This has been apparently
resolved in RBH 15 where House members agreed to a separate voting. Still there is no final
resolution on the modality of charter change, with House leaders (under the 17 th Congress)
batting for transforming the entire Congress into a constituent assembly to decide on charter
change. This has been resoundingly rejected not only by some senators but also
constitutionalists, NGOs, and other stakeholders who posit that constitutional change – if it pulls
through – should be decided in a constitutional convention whose delegates are chosen in a
national election. Charter change, some critics said, is too sensitive a political exercise that
should be insulated from the partisan politics of Congress.

To settle the impasse, Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III proposed a "hybrid"
constitutional body composed of 12 senators, 12 members of the lower House, 12 nominees by
the president, and 12 nominees from the civil society to deliberate and vote on the proposed new
charter. In the same vein, Puno supports a "hybrid" constitutional convention to be composed of
delegates elected by the people, and experts from different disciplines without self-interest.6

Outside Congress, the strongest opposition to the Con-Ass mode comes from
constitutionalists including law professors. Dante Gatmayten, University of the Philippines law
professor, notes that Duterte pro-federalism allies dominate Congress. A constituent assembly
beholden to the President will not produce the best document, he said. “Any project that involves

3
drafting the fundamental law of the land will benefit from serious deliberation founded on
contending views, not a mere collection of yes men,” Gatmaytan condends. A former Supreme
Court associate justice, Vicente Mendoza, prefers a Con-Con even if the process is costlier. “A
change to a federal system is a real paradigm shift in our constitutional order requiring the
calling of a Con-Con, and the expense of holding it in order to have a real representative
assembly of the people to undertake such a momentous change should not deter us from holding
one,” Mendoza argues.7

Uphill battle: Doubts raised on the wisdom of federalism, groups opposed

Critical to any charter change by federalism is whether there will be enough votes in the
Senate to support it. The results of the mid-term elections show that proponents of federalism
may need to wage an uphill battle as only seven senators - all of them endorsed by Duterte in the
recent mid-term elections - can be counted upon to vote in favour of federalism. The rest of the
Senate members are expected or are inclined to vote against charter change. At least two have no
clear stance. Seven votes are enough to derail charter change. Without the Senate, charter change
– which is expected to be approved by the administration-dominated lower House8 – may
crumble.

Still, the Duterte administration can use its own resources and political influence to swing a
“yes” vote in Congress and marshal the support of local government units (LGUs). As things
stand, however, even some members of Duterte’s cabinet along with many other stakeholders
and political players have fairly strong reasons to either doubt the wisdom of a charter change or
exert political pressures to put brakes on it.

Duterte’s chief economist, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, saying that
shifting to federalism could wreak havoc on the country’s fiscal situation has cautioned against
rushing it. Pernia said that while federalism could unlock economic benefits it could also spell
disaster for some regions that are unprepared for such a transition and “wreak havoc” on the
country’s balance sheet. Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III sees eye to eye with Pernia on
the potential fiscal risks of the proposed change in the form of government. “If we don’t manage
this correctly, this can end up to be a fiscal nightmare,” Dominguez III told the Senate last year.
On a side note, the international debt watcher Moody’s Investors Service alerted that federalism
could present downside risks to the country’s institutional and fiscal profile. 9”

The federalism risks pointed to by the two cabinet secretaries found support from the
country’s influential business groups last year. In a joint statement, the Makati Business Club
(MBC), Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), Philippine Chamber of Commerce
and Industry (PCCI), Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), Philippine Exporters
Confederation (Philexport), and Cebu Business Club (CBC) expressed similar concerns over
how the government would implement and fund the proposed shift. “We echo the
concerns…about the ambiguous provisions on the division of revenue and expenditure
responsibilities between the proposed federal government and its federate regions,” the groups
said. They also called for dialogues on federalism “keeping in mind its long-term impacts on
future generations of Filipinos.” The groups buttressed their joint position by citing the
“alarming cost” estimated by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) amounting

4
to P72 billion and the P130-billion projection of the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA). 10 (PIDS is an economic think tank attached to the government’s NEDA.)

From the academic community, the University of the Philippines’ School of Economics
(UPSE), commented also in 2018 that federalism is “on the wrong side of inclusion – in terms of
both poverty reduction and greater income inequality.” In a briefing paper “Federalism and
Inclusion in Developing Countries,” economists Raul V. Fabella and Sarah Lynne Daway-
Ducanes disputed the federalism proponents’ claim that the new government structure will cause
poverty to fall and equalize income distribution. “On the contrary,” they said, “federalism
strongly predicts greater income inequality in developing countries. Our results show that
federalism strongly predicts higher poverty incidence and severity on average: it does not reduce
poverty incidence and severity in developing countries.” 11 Their paper showed that federalism
“negatively associates” with income inequality on average and has an “inequality-increasing
effect” in developing economies – defined in the study as those having a real gross national
income (GNI) per capita of not more than $10,000 in 1992. 12

Some prominent members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission came out in the open
against tampering with the present constitution. Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, who was
part of the 1986 Con Com, pointedly said, "I am willing to die for the 1987 Constitution...I
would also be willing to die against any moves to amend this constitution." Davide explained
that the 1987 Constitution is the only charter in the whole world that is “pro-poor, pro-people,
pro-God, pro-marriage, pro-family, and pro-environment.” On the other hand, "Federalism is
anti-poor, anti-Filipino. You divide the country…then poor areas will have to impose more
taxes… disastrous." Another ConCom member, former Commission on Elections Chair
Christian Monsod, also opposed amending the 1987 charter. He defended the 1987 Constitution
“as a reflection of the Filipino people's struggle for democracy" and carries the themes of social
justice, rejection of authoritarian rule, and that national destiny rests on Filipinos themselves. 13

Panelists at a national conference on federalism organized by the Center for People

Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) on Nov. 16, 2018 also refuted claims that federalism
will pave the path to development particularly in the proposed federated regions and level up
economic growth between relatively developed regions and the great many that are not. In his
paper, CenPEG Board chairman Temario C. Rivera noted:

Our most compelling problems, namely: industrial development for sustainable growth and development;
agrarian reform; the provision of basic social services (universal health care, free education for public tertiary
levels, mass affordable housing, etc.); professionalizing the police and military; reforming our political and
electoral system by replacing dynastic family rule with stronger accountable political parties; negotiating a
political solution to armed conflict; and improving bureaucratic governance capabilities at all levels, are best
addressed through coherent national policies and strengthened national institutions working closely with LGUs.

An outright shift to federalism with all its attendant risks and uncertainties, while arguably beneficial to two
or three of the best advantaged proposed regions, will most likely lead to an uncoordinated, narrowly region-
centric developmental process that will worsen regional inequalities, entrench the regional power of
unaccountable political families and further disable the country from pursuing nationally coherent policy
responses in an increasingly complex global environment.

5
 In the same conference, economist Jose Enrique Africa argued that instead of a shift to
federalism which its proponents claim can be the panacea to the country’s fundamental
weaknesses ranging from dominance by the central government over the local governments to
uneven growth among the provinces there should be structural reforms in the country’s political,
social, and economic institutions. Africa’s paper summarizes this point:

The seemingly audacious solution is however a non-starter. Philippine underdevelopment most of all stems
from the lack of structural transformation in the economy -- particularly unresolved and even worsening
industrial backwardness astride increasingly market-oriented social policy. Regional differences and neglect exist
but they are not the cause of underdevelopment.

The country does not need to federalize to develop and a wide range of measures can immediately and
progressively be taken to advance the economy and improve the lives of tens of millions of Filipinos across the
country. Among others this includes correcting the historical lack of national industrialization which is arguably
the biggest factor in national and regional underdevelopment. Indeed, shifting to federalism now even invites
grossly unnecessary political and economic risks and sets back the cause of Philippine development and progress
even more.

In a similar vein, public sentiments are either critical of or squarely oppose the proposed
shift to federalism. Public opinion surveys capture such attitude as illustrated by a Pulse Asia
survey released on July 16, 2018 where 67 percent of 1,800 respondents said no to constitutional
change, 18 percent said yes, while 14 percent said they didn't know or couldn't say. The same
survey showed 62 percent not in favor of a shift to federalism against 28 percent who were in
favor. Seventy-four (74) percent said they had "little to no knowledge" of the proposed federal
form of government while 26 percent said they knew a "great deal to sufficient."14 A previous
survey showed that 75 percent know little about the content of the present constitution.15

In the final analysis, the proposal to shift to a federal form of government lacks powerful
arguments to be able to amass broad public support including opinion makers. The proposal
explains that the country’s endemic problems including the inability of regions to develop,
poverty and corruption are rooted in the country’s long-drawn unitary system and the power
monopoly by the “colonial” central government over the local governments. The ultimate
solution, it argues, lies in overhauling the present political system and replacing it with
federalism whereby 18 federated regions will be created with each region administered by a
regional assembly which elects the governor. It expands, however, the national legislative
department with the Senate having 36 members (each region is represented by two senators) and
the House of Representatives having 400. As a whole, the new federal republic will have a
bigger government and bureaucracy which demands humongous expenditures.

The catch is that while federalism purports to give more powers to regional governments the
president has the power to intervene and take all measures necessary to ensure every region’s
compliance with its federal obligation as well as to preserve national unity. Meanwhile, members
of the Puno consultative committee are firm on the self-executory provision prohibiting all
political dynasties under federalism. This will intrinsically generate “war” with most members of
Congress including Duterte who sees nothing wrong with the dynastic system. A federal republic
devoid of an anti-dynasty provision, critics argue, will make political dynasties even more
entrenched in all regions which they can claim to be their own exclusive domains. Some

6
members of the Puno committee have threatened to withdraw from any constitutional change
that lacks such a provision.

In the first place, countries that have federated have retained more powers to the central
authority. In Germany, only when lander territories became one and stable did federalism take
roots; yet it preserves a strong central leadership. On the other hand, the archipelagic Philippines
remains divided into provinces and regions by geography, political clans, and uneven growth so
that introducing federalism may even make such weak coherence and unity in a worse shape.

Prospects of the shift to federalism

The administration-initiated move to revise the constitution and shift from unitary to a
federal form of government remains fraught with complexities, ambiguities, and uncertainties.
After nearly three years of debates particularly among the leading advocates of charter change,
nothing substantial has been achieved except to convey a message that their versions –
particularly that of the Puno committee and the RBH 15 – remain miles apart. There being no
common grounds reached on what should be the substance of a new constitution and on how
charter change should be approached, Filipinos are left in the dark on what these lawmakers are
really up to. Do the public opinion surveys which reveal a low awareness but a high disapproval
of constitutional change underscore a public behaviour that finds no meaning to constitution for
lack of clarity whether it benefits the people at all?

The present move to change the constitution and shift to a federal form of government
radically departs from past historical attempts to adopt a constitution in the sense that these acts
were nuanced by major epochal events. The Malolos Constitution – the first charter crafted by
Filipinos – was promulgated two days before the inauguration of the first Filipino Republic on
January 23, 1899 or seven months following the proclamation of independence from nearly 400
years of Spanish colonial rule. The constitution was promulgated upon the victory of Asia’s first
anti-colonial revolution (1896) which was, unfortunately, cut short by America’s forcible
annexation of the Philippines. Patterned after the American constitution, the 1935 Constitution
became the legal basis of the Commonwealth Government – a transition government before the
granting by the US of the Philippine independence (1946). That constitution came into force with
the inauguration of the commonwealth in November the same year. Replacing the Marcos
martial law constitution of 1973, the 1987 Constitution was drafted by a 48-member
Constitutional Commission appointed by new President Corazon C. Aquino under a
revolutionary transitory government following the fall of the Marcos dictatorship by people
power uprising in February 1986. On paper, the constitution enshrines a bill of rights, pluralist
politics, protectionist economic provisions, a Party-list system for marginalized sectors, and an
anti-dynasty provision for which no implementing law has been successfully enacted.

Moves to review the 1987 Constitution (charter change or “Cha-cha”) came about after
1992, from the term of Fidel V. Ramos through Gloria M. Arroyo until 2010. All the moves that
polarized the whole country came to naught after being exposed as being propelled by political
agenda – from a restoration of authoritarian rule to extending the terms of presidents and
members of Congress. The attempts were aborted by resounding public protests and pressures
that had been previously galvanized by historic struggles against Marcos authoritarian rule and

7
unbridled dynastic politics. To some degree, those attempts remain vivid in the minds of many
Filipinos.

With this backdrop in mind, questions have arisen whether the present move to revise the
constitution and adopt a federal system of government bears the imprints of a political agenda.
RBH 15 has been criticized for its “self-serving” objectives, an attempt to create a better
constitution but perpetuates and expands the power of political dynasties: not only does it do
away with the current charter’s anti-dynasty provision it also removes the term limits of major
elective officials.

Another mode of constitutional process is through a people’s initiative whereby a petition on

this accord is signed by at least 12 percent of the registered voters. Such change, however, is
limited to amending provisions of a constitution. Because the route taken by the movers for
constitutional charge is simply through of a presidential directive or a resolution forged in the
lower House, such act falls short of a significant public support. A change in the basic law
should claim a “public ownership” otherwise it can always be interpreted as bearing a narrow
political agenda or is exclusivist. What brings complexity to the proposal is the equally
contentious issue on the modality of charter change – should it be through a constituent assembly
(Con-Ass) where the long-term political interests of Congress will prevail? Or should it be by a
constitutional convention which opponents say is costly and will even be longer? Certainly,
powers can be wielded to ram through a charter change in whatever design but it will be even
more divisive and deemed unconstitutional.

With all the polarizing differences among the movers of charter change themselves and
given the absence of an informed, broad support for such and federalism what then is the
alternative? Can federalism be rushed within the last half-term of Duterte which he himself had
originally envisioned? Even if theoretically federalism would have won in the complex process
of constitutional change, what guarantee is there that the new system which had never been
tested will bring about the positive transformation that its promoters promise to offer? Is Duterte
willing to stake his presidency to campaign strongly for federalism even if this means sowing
more divisions within the country?

Rather than being locked in an endless debate over charter change and federalism other
options are proposed by some sectors which are less discordant. One is to just amend whatever
provisions in the present constitution should be reformed such as on political parties especially
the Party-list system along with the electoral system rather than overhauling the form of
government. Another is a reform of the country’s Local Government Code (1991) by Congress
to make it more viable for local administration such as ensuring more revenues and effective ,
social services. Some organizations and NGOs raise the question, to begin with, why the need for
charter change when there has been no full compliance with the 1987 Constitution by one
presidency to another while pro-federalists have not presented any convincing proof about its
failure.

Others argue that the shift to federalism is too simplistic and formalistic a solution – an
epitome of 19th century western-centric thinking – which has long been replaced by new theories
regarding the paramount importance of societal change alongside the consolidation of state

8
institutions. No amount of constitutional change can work for the people without addressing the
imperative of a comprehensive transformation of the country’s social, economic, and political
structures that have brought about the systemic problems of poverty, social injustice, economic
disparities, marginalization of many Filipinos, as well as elite rule, corruption, and retrogressive
oligarchic politics.

END NOTES
1
IATF members come from the Department of Justice, the Presidential Communications Operations
Office, the Department of National Defense, the Civil Service Commission, the Presidential Legislative
Liaison Office, the Office of the Cabinet Secretariat, the Presidential Management Staff, the Presidential
Legislative Liaison Office, the Commission on Higher Education, the Development Academy of the
Philippines, the University of the Philippines Law Center, and the Department of Finance, among others.
2
Orellana, Faye, “DILG to Misuari: Gov’t still committed to pushing for federalism,”
INQUIRER.net, March 23, 2019
http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1065475?fbclid=IwAR1RoAQBvL6qALOHS3f0YHqqWyXwtPd27AaTObV
DxHX-sB1G3uQ9z8dhv8M
3
Ranada, Pia, “Pimentel sees hope for federalism shift in Senate after 2019 elections,” Rappler.com
March 22, 2019
4
Cepeda, Mara, “Major constitutional changes the House wants under federalism,” Rappler.com
December 17, 2018.
5
Ramirez, Robertzon and Emmanuel Tupas, “Reynato Puno slams Congress’ proposed federal charter,”
The Philippine Star, October 13, 2018.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/10/13/1859660/reynato-puno-slams-congress-proposed-
federal-charter#Qc3OmbsEdm5QgGsH.99
6
Torres, Sherrie Ann, “Sotto proposes 'hybrid' constitutional body to break Cha-cha deadlock,” ABS-CBN
News, June 14, 2018.
7
Gavilan, Jodesz, “What you need to know about Charter Change,”Rappler, January 16, 2018
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/193718-charter-change-explainer-philippine-constitution
8
Based on the May 13, 2019 mid-term election results, the seats for House district representatives are
led by Duterte’s ruling PDP-Laban Party (82 seats or 34%) followed by the Nacionalista Party (NP, with
42 seats or 17%), Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC, 36 or 15%), National Unity Party (NUP, 25 or 10%),
and Lakas-CMD (11 or 4.5%). The opposition Liberal Party (LP) which used to dominate Congress during
President Benigno S. Aquino III’s term has only 18 seats (7%).
9
Cigaral, Ian Nicolas, “Economic managers warn of federalism rush's fiscal risks,” philstar.com, August 7,
2018. //www.philstar.com/business/2018/08/07/1840488/economic-managers-warn-federalism-rushs-
fiscal-risks#wBI4yzASdGAgfZRg.99
10
Rivas, Ralf, “Business groups support economic managers over federalism risks,” Rappler, August 13,
2018

9
11
The study covers 105 economies during 1987-2016 and used the Gini coefficient as a measure of
inequality while the poverty gap ratio and povety head count ratious were used as measures of poverty.
See: http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/dp/index.php/dp/article/view/1517
12
Uy, Leo Jaymar G., “Federalism linked to greater inequality, UP study finds,” BusinessWorld,
September 9, 2018.
13
Torres, Sherrie Ann, “Davide: I am willing to die for 1987 Constitution,” ABS-CBN News, Feb. 02, 2017.
14
____ “2 in 3 Filipinos against charter change now, majority oppose federalism shift: Pulse Asia,” ABS-
CBN News July 16, 2018. See also “Cha-cha body sees more federalism support once proposal is
presented,” ABS-CBN News, May 3 2018.
15
Tadalan, Charmaine A. and Camille A. Aguinaldo, “Poll shows 64% of Filipinos opposed to charter
change,” BusinessWorld, May 2, 2018.

10