WHEN Marcos built "Malacañang of the North,’’ it was as a resort and not as the seat of government. But it appears that President Arroyo has that precisely in mind in her "Malacañang of the South,’’ without a single legislator questioning whether this can be done without an Act of Congress.
In this vein, she’s also moving the departments: Tourism to Cebu City, Agriculture to Davao, Agrarian Reform to Iloilo, Transportation and Communication to Clark, Pampanga, and National Defense to Zamboanga. The concept of capitol is emasculated, one more innovation in the annals of government.
These departments have regional and provincial offices (the Department of National Defense has its regional, provincial, and municipal headquarters), so "decentralization’’ can’t be the justification for Malacañang’s unilateral decision.
Whatever the pleasure the transfers may give to Cebu, Iloilo, Davao, and Zamboanga, the government is fragmented. The upper and lower houses of Congress are in Manila, which means that all the people are represented in government. The move can’t be justified by accessibility, for what is accessible to people in Cebu, Davao, Iloilo, and Pampanga is not accessible to people in Manila, Bulacan, Laguna, Quezon, and Bicol.
Fairness (if that’s the intention) should also provide these areas with their own departments.
Malacañang says that the President will hold office in Cebu for six months, implying that Luzon won’t necessarily be deprived. But a moving capitol is no capitol at all.
The Supreme Court convenes in Baguio during "summer,’’ but lawyers know when their cases are up for trial, although some of them are inconvenienced. Fortunately, their clients can afford the expense of traveling to Baguio.
Efficiency can’t be the excuse either for the transfer of the capitol, but the transfer does offer a respite from bothersome media. While major networks and newspapers can shuffle their best reporters and broadcasters whenever the President is in Cebu, the rest will be deployed in the South and Pampanga.
But, of course, government has no obligation to make it easy for media to cover its activities. The more difficult it is to cover, the better for government.
