By DANNY O. SAGUN

EXPECT federalism as one hot issue to dominate discussions in various fora in the coming days. We wonder why this renewed interest for a Charter Change after the failure to get public support of an earlier similar plan to change the system of government from the present presidential to parliamentary form.

This corner maintains the view that what matters most is the kind of persons who will run the government - be it unitary or federal, parliamentary or presidential, or a modification or combination of the various systems.

We could not subscribe to the claim that this country would prosper and develop if it adopts the parliamentary system. Nor to the other claim that progressive nations are under parliamentary governments while those with presidential systems are lagging poorly. We could only laugh when proponents of the parliamentary system cite as proof of their claim the status now of our developed and developing neighboring countries.

If you haven’t noticed, they deliberately omitted from their list the struggling nations of other parts of the world. They also deliberately failed to mention the United States, the most powerful in this planet Earth, which has a tested presidential government.

Having failed to get enough people’s attention on the proposed shift to parliamentary system, the pitch is now on federalism, which basically refer to a government structure that grants more powers to local governments, either as states or provinces. Such local governments are given much leeway to govern and develop themselves with little intervention by the central or federal government.

But there are litany of issues to be addressed and answered by persons to be designated speakers for it. How can poorly developed provinces or regions stand on their own without the support of government? How can wealth be evenly distributed when large taxpayers are based in metropolis? How will the regional government be organized? Will it become another layer of bureaucracy and drain the government’s coffers? Will provincial governments continue even with the creation of regional governments? Yes, a lot of questions will crop up that a single discussion is not enough to answer all of them.

We think, the better move would be to separate the issue on federalism from that of parliamentary. What happened before was that the shift to parliamentary as a better form of government was given much emphasis with federalism as a mere side issue. Remember that the U. S. has a federal-presidential form of government with a bicameral legislature and see what is has become. The Philippines can have that too. Stop claiming that this country will progress if it goes with a parliamentary system, with a prime minister heading both the executive and legislative branches of government.

We don’t know what would happen to this country if we adopt that system considering the extent of corruption now that the system of check and balance is there. Panon to no sikasikara la ey, soloen dalay kayamanan?

We repeat. The fault lies not in the system but in the kind of people who run the government.