Why shift to federalism?

CLEARLY, the advocates of federalism have splintered into various groups pushing for their
respective agendas. Still, there are no messages being done to respond to Juan dela Cruz’s
questions: What’s in it for me? Would my life be better off? After all, it boils down to making the
lives of Filipinos much better and this is where our politics will have to change because it is very
destructive. The problem today is that the citizens have been set aside with the decision to have a
constituent assembly and not a constitutional convention simply because the former is “fast and
cheap.” Now, politicians are saying why we need the revision and when it will happen and
probably, an extension of terms would from such revisions.

Nowhere in the debate do we hear the positions of citizens on the matter, as if politicians are the
only ones who can discuss and debate on the matter. Drafts are flying from one camp to another
and no one remains true to the urgent call re what is the problem we are trying to solve. One
cannot find the right solutions if we are unable to agree on one coherent problem. Sadly, in the
past administration no single political reform has passed Congress, the 15th and the 16th. No
executive order has been signed pushing for political reform. PRRD now tries to do a political
leapfrog with federalism but it has been captured by the politics and the politicians of the day.
Books are launched left and right as if the golden key to federalism can be unlocked by such
publications.

In my first and second columns for this year, I made clear that my first wish is for those
individuals involved in the Dengvaxia scandal to be meted out punishment, regardless of
previous positions. PRRD must stop talking about good faith because clearly there was malice,
from the funding to the procurement and the roll-out of Dengvaxia. My second wish is for a third
and fourth telco player to come in focusing on the last mile and connecting the same to the
various grid options rolling out soon. Globe and Smart have been given enough chances to prove
that they can service the Filipinos efficiently, effectively and economically. Spectrum audit must
be done and re-farming considered so that the real owners of the spectrum can benefit from a
patrimony resource of the nation, not some greedy duopoly or the inutile NTC.

My third wish for 2018 is for both the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) and the revision of the
Constitution be made so that a plebiscite can be set in time for the midterm elections in 2019.
Delay the BBL, we deal with the harshest reality of extremism growing and recruits increasing.
A time bomb waiting for another deadly explosion.

In a Pahayag pilot survey of Publicis Asi last August 2017, Mindanao is very much ready to
make the shift. The farther one is from NCR (or Imperial Manila), the more inequity is felt. So,
the bright boys of the PDP-Laban will have to realize that Mindanao is different from the rest
when you do messaging arcs. Convincing the whole country is not the way to go. Focus on
Luzon where federalism traction is low. Talking to barangay captains and kagawad is not
reaching the people. You are building your political base but merely talking to the choir, a waste
of public monies.
Sixty-seven percent of respondents have not read, heard or watched anything about the proposal
to change the present presidential form of government to federal. On the rating for the item
“read, heard, watched” federalism, Mindanao was at 49% and only 51% have not. Forty-three
percent in Mindanao understand the discussions about federalism while total Philippines was at
22 percent. Fifty-five percent of Mindanao wants the shift to a federal system right away while
total Philippines was at 36 percent. Mindanao wants constitutional change to happen before
2019, under the term of PRRD—a high of 81 percent while total Philippines was at 66 percent. A
transition is important for all at 64 percent, highest in South Luzon at 84 percent and lowest in
Mindanao at 45 percent. What is the effective division of regions in a federal system? Forty-three
percent of total PH wants the islands first: Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and NCR so that it is
financially viable, with Mindanao supporting it at 63 percent. Only North and Central Luzon
want to follow the present regional division at 45 percent.

In the book, Why Nations Fail, authors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue that when
you combine rotten regimes, exploitative elites and self-serving institutions with frail,
decentralized states, you have something close to a prescription for poverty, conflict and even
outright failure. “Nations fail,” the authors write, “when they have extractive economic
institutions, supported by extractive political institutions that impede and even block economic
growth.”

Lessons learned from the enactments of the Local Government Code or LGC (RA7160
signed1991) as well as ARMM (RA 6734 signed 1989) and CAR (RA 8438 signed 1997): Laws
are important in the proposed revision of the 1987 Constitution. We are shifting because the
promises of these laws failed to deliver what they were supposed to do. Indeed, “man-made
political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or the lack of it)” determines
why nations fail.

In the rush to federalism, no one has taken the route of why the aforementioned laws have led us
nowhere. The LGC would have led to decentralization, or “the process of distributing or
dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central location or authority.”
Decentralization includes political, administrative, fiscal and market decentralization.
Administrative decentralization involves de-concentration, delegation and devolution. The LGC
offers us 27 years of experience while ARMM is 29 years old and CAR 21 years, and yet the
narratives of these laws have not been revisited to learn what works and what does not. The
Internal Revenue Allotment is not released fully and would members of Congress bother? No,
because by nature, the local government officials are their natural enemies.

Filipinos should be cognizant of the fact that “audiences are shifting. Platforms are shifting. Ages
are shifting. It’s better to be in charge of change than to have to react to change.”
Federalism may fragment, weaken this country, ex-SC justice warns

By: Maila Ager - Reporter / @MAgerINQ

INQUIRER.net / 05:45 PM February 01, 2018

A former justice of the Supreme Court (SC) has warned the public of a “long lasting” effect if
this “experiment” of shifting to a federal system fails.

While recognizing that there are many provisions of the Constitution that can be amended,
former Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza said the changes should be done not in order to shift
to a federal form of government.

“A shift to a federal system will weaken our republic…” Mendoza said during the ongoing
hearing on Thursday by the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and revision of code
and jointly with the committee on electoral reforms on the Charter change initiative.

“Federalism will fragment this country … and the failure of this experiment will be long lasting,”
he added.

Mendoza said this is not the right time yet to propose such an amendment “because this is not the
Constitutional moment for making it.”

“Why, Mr. Chair? There’s just too much partisan strifes in the land that prevents a national
consensus from building up or developing,” he said.

Instead of shifting to a federal form, the former Associate Justice pushed for “greater de-
centralization,” which he said has not been fully practiced, observed and implemented yet.

“We’ve not reached the end of the road. We’ve not reached the dead end. We’ve not reached the
bottom so let’s try de-centralization instead of federalizing and dividing the country,” Mendoza
said.

On the issue of how Congress should vote on any amendments or revisions, he said the two
chambers — the Senate and the House of Representatives— should sit and discuss jointly but
separate when voting on certain sections.

“if we are to amend the Constitution, it is to improve the Constitution, make it more perfect and
to do that, as we amend the Constitution, I hope we also amend men’s nature to conform to that
Constitution,” Mendoza added. /jpv
Hontiveros: Duterte admin’s federalism bid
will go against proposed BBL
Senator Risa Hontiveros has branded as “fake” and “anti-Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL)” the
proposed federalism of President Rodrigo Duterte’s political party.

While stressing that she is in favor of a federalism that would “redistribute political power and
disperse economic development,” Hontiveros said the proposed federalism of the Partido
Demokratiko Pilipino Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) is the “opposite of this.”

“I support a federal set-up where accountabilities are clear and decentralized, and, government
institutions are made more accessible and brought closer to citizens,” Hontiveros said in a
statement.

“However, President Duterte’s federalism is the opposite of this. It is fake. Ultimately, I fear that
Duterte’s version of federalism, which his allies plan to achieve through an undemocratic and
Senate-less constituent assembly and subsequently, reward themselves with term limit
extensions, might be used as a monkey wrench to defeat the Moro people’s legitimate aspiration
for self-determination as embodied in the BBL,” she added.

Hontiveros also said the passage of the BBL should be prioritized first before the deliberations
on Charter change (Cha-cha) and federalism continue.

The Cha-cha being proposed in Congress could lead into a shift to a federal form of government,
which was one of Duterte’s campaign promises.

The BBL, meanwhile, seeks to address the longstanding issues of self-determination and peace
in the southern region, by instituting a parliamentary type of government to replace the existing
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). /kga
Will federalism address PH woes? Pros and
cons of making the shift
At least 3 presidential and vice presidential candidates in 2016 are pushing for a change in the
Philippine system of government

Pia Ranada and Nico Villarete

Some candidates in the 2016 national elections have been vocal about their support for
federalism.

Presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte, and vice presidential bets Alan Peter Cayetano (his
running mate) and Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr, in particular, have been championing it.

Supporters of federalism say it will evenly distribute wealth across the country instead of the
bulk going to "imperial" Manila. Detractors, like presidential candidate Grace Poe, say it will
further entrench political dynasties in the regions and create confusion over responsibilities.

What is federalism?

It is a form of government where sovereignty is constitutionally shared between a central

governing authority and constituent political units called states or regions.

In basic terms, it will break the country into autonomous regions with a national government
focused only on interests with nationwide bearing: foreign policy and defense, for example.

The autonomous regions or states, divided further into local government units, will have primary
responsibility over developing their industries, public safety, education, healthcare,
transportation, recreation, and culture. These states will have more power over their finances,
development plans, and laws exclusive to ther jurisdiction.

The central government and states can also share certain powers.

How is it different from what we have now?

We presently have a unitary form of government. Most administrative powers and resources are
with the national government based in Metro Manila. It's Malacañang that decides how much to
give local government units. The process is prone to abuse, with governors and mayors
sometimes having to beg Malacañang for projects they believe their communities need.
How local government units spend their budget has to be approved by the national government.

In federalism, the states will have the power to make these decisions with little or no interference
from the national government.

Examples of federal countries: United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India, Malaysia.
PROS

Locals decide for themselves. Regions have their own unique problems,
situations, geographic, cultural, social and economic contexts. Federalism allows
them to create solutions to their own problems instead of distant Metro Manila
deciding for them.

The states can establish policies that may not be adopted nationwide. For example, liberal Metro
Manila can allow same-sex marriage which the state of Bangsamoro, predominantly Muslim,
would not allow. In the United States, some states like Colorado and Washington have legalized
recreational marijuana even if other states have not.

This makes sense in an archipelago of over 7,000 islands and 28 dominant ethnic groups. For
decades, the national government has been struggling to address the concerns of 79 (now 81)
provinces despite challenges posed by geography and cultural differences.

With national government, and thus power, centered in Metro Manila, it's no surprise that
development in the mega city has spiralled out of control while other parts of the country are
neglected.

More power over funds, resources. Right now, local government units can only
collect real estate tax and business permit fees. In federalism, they can retain
more of their income and are required to turn over only a portion to the state
government they fall under.

Thus, local governments and state governments can channel their own funds toward their own
development instead of the bulk of the money going to the national government. They can spend
the money on programs and policies they see fit without waiting for the national government's go
signal.

Promotes specialization. The national and state governments can specialize in

different policy domains. With most administrative powers now with the regional
governments, the national government can focus on foreign policy, defense, and
other nationwide concerns, like healthcare and taxation.

States have more autonomy to focus on economic development using their core competencies
and industries. The state of Central Luzon can focus on becoming an agricultural hub. The state
of Mimaropa, home to Palawan, can choose to use eco-tourism as its primary launch pad.
 Possible solution to the Mindanao conflict. The creation of the state of
Bangsamoro within a federalist system may address concerns of separatists
who crave more autonomy over the administration of Muslim Mindanao.

Decongestion of Metro Manila. Through fiscal autonomy for state governments,

federalism will more evenly distribute the country's wealth. In 2015, 35% of the
national budget went to Metro Manila even if it represents only 14% of the
Philippine population.

Lessens dependence on Metro Manila. When there is political upheaval in Metro

Manila, other regions that have nothing to do with the chain of events are left
waiting for the resources that ony the national government can release. With
federalism, regions work independently of Metro Manila for most concerns.

Brings government closer to the people. If detractors say federalism will only
make local political dynasties more powerful, supporters give the argument that,
in fact, it will make all local leaders, including those part of political dynasties,
more accountable to their constituents. State governments will no longer have any
excuse for delays in services or projects that, in the present situation, are often
blamed on choking bureaucracy in Manila.

Assuming more autonomy for regions leads to economic development, there will be more
incentive for Filipinos to live and work in regions outside Metro Manila. More investors may
also decide to put up their businesses there, creating more jobs and opportunities to attract more
people away from the jam-packed mega city.

Encourages competition. With states now more self-reliant and in control of their
development, they will judge themselves relative to how their fellow states are
progressing. The competitive spirit will hopefully motivate state leaders and
citizens to level up in terms of quality of life, economic development, progressive
policies, and governance.

CONS
 Possibly divisive. Healthy competition among states can become alienating –
creating rivalries and promoting the regionalism that some say already challenges
the sense of unity in the country. It could enflame hostilities between ethnic
groups in the country like Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Bicolanos, Ilocanos, Tausugs, and
Zamboangueños.

Uneven development among states. Some states may not be as ready for
autonomy as others. Some states may not be as rich in natural resources or skilled
labor as others. States with good leaders will progress faster while states with
ineffective ones will degrade more than ever because national government will
not be there to balance them out.

But in some federal countries, the national government doles out funds to help poorer states. A
proposed Equalization Fund will use a portion of tax from rich states to be given to poorer states.

Confusing overlaps in jurisdiction. Where does the responsibility of state

governments end and where does the responsibility of the national government
begin? Unless these are very clearly stated in the amended Constitution,
ambiguities may arise, leading to conflict and confusion. For instance, in times of
disaster, what is the division of responsibilities between state and national
governments?

May not satisfy separatists in Mindanao. Separatists are calling for their own
country, not just a state that still belongs to a larger federal Philippines. Federalism
may not be enough for them. After all, the conflict continues despite the creation
of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

How the Philippines would look when federal

In some proposals, there will be 10 or 11 autonomous states. Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr
envisioned 11 states plus the Federal Administrative Region of Metro Manila.

Here's how the Philippines will look like as laid out in Pimentel's 2008 Joint Resolution Number
10.

Cost of federalism

Shifting to federalism won't come cheap. It would entail billions of pesos to set up state
governments and the delivery of state services. States will then have to spend for the elections of
their officials.

Attempts at federalism in PH
There was an attempt during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. One of
her campaign promises was to reform the 1987 Constitution.

A consultative commission she created recommended federalism as one of the goals of the
proposed charter change. But the attempt failed because of opposition from various sectors who
believed Arroyo wanted to use the reform to extend her term limit.

(Note that shifting to a federal government does not necessarily mean an extension of term limits
for the sitting president. Such an extension would only take place in a shift to a parliamentary
government.)

In 2008, Pimentel Jr and Bacolod City Representative Monico Puentevella filed joint resolutions
to convene Congress into a constituent assembly with the goal of amending the constitution to
establish a federal form of government. – Rappler.com

Understanding federalism
Although the topic of federalism has been discussed since the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
there are still many areas that are not clear even to political analysts. In the interest of full
disclosure, I will state now that I have always been in favor of a federal system of government
and I have written several columns in the past about this topic. However, today I want to focus
on clarifying certain issues.

There is a wrong impression that the choice is between a unitary form of government – which we
have now – and a federal form of government. There are actually three choices for forms of
government – unitary, federal, confederate. Federalism is actually the middle choice between
centralization and confederation.

In a unitary form of government, there is one level of government – the national government. All
other forms of government are subordinate to the central government.

In both federalism and confederalism, there are two levels of government. In a confederation,
however, the central government is subordinate to the regional governing bodies. In a federal
form of government, there is a clear division of authority between national government and the
state or regional government. The central government will remain more powerful than the state
because of its authority over national concerns.

For example, in a federal government, the national government retains sole power in the areas of
foreign affairs, national defense, monetary and fiscal policies and constitutional issues. The
central government will, therefore, continue to have sole power to make treaties, control the
armed forces, and a common currency. The Constitutional bodies will remain – Supreme Court,
Central Bank, and Comelec.

A brief look at American history might shed some light on this issue. The original United States
was actually a confederation of 13 states. When the US Constitution was being drafted, a
Federalist Party was organized to support a stronger central government while maintaining the 13
states. A group called the Anti-Federalists wanted a weaker central government. The final US
Constitution invoked federalism which was considered as being in the middle of the political
spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary government.

The American Civil War (1861-1865) was between the South who wanted a confederacy and the
North who wanted to retain the federal union. That is the reason why the Southern states that
seceded from the United States of America called themselves the Confederate States of America.

The other issue that must be clarified is that the choice of having a presidential and parliamentary
form of government is a different debate than choosing a unitary or federal government. Just for
emphasis, a parliamentary or presidential form of government can be instituted in a federal,
unitary or confederate form of government.

There are also three choices that are available – parliamentary, presidential and a combination of
the two. United States is an example of a presidential form; Japan and the United Kingdom have
a parliamentary form; and, France has a combination of both presidential and parliamentary.
Division of powers

In a federal form of government, the constitution must prevail. Therefore, the division of powers
between the federal and regional form of governments must be clearly stated in the constitution.
The constitution must also provide for powers that are not explicitly stated in the constitution. In
Germany and the United States, the powers that are not specifically granted to the federal
government are retained by the states. Other countries, like Canada and India, are different in
that powers not explicitly given to the states are retained by the federal government.

In the granting of powers to the state, there are also two ways. If all the states have the same
powers, this is called “symmetric federalism.” In a federal form of government where some
states are given different powers or some possess greater autonomy, this is called “asymmetric
federalism.” This is often done when it is clear that a state or region possess a distinct culture. In
the case of the United Kingdom, Scotland has been given greater autonomy than England, Wales
or Northern Ireland. In Spain the regions dominated by the Basques and the Catalans have more
powers than the other Spanish regions.

In the division of powers, India has four lists of powers – Union List, Concurrent List, State List,
and Residuary List. I am not advocating that we copy the India model. But I am presenting it
here as a possible basis for discussion.

In the Union List, there are approximately 100 areas which is reserved for the federal
government. Some of the areas are defense, armed forces, atomic energy, foreign affairs,
citizenship, airways, currency, foreign trade, inter- state trade and commerce, banking, customs,
elections and the Supreme Court.

In the State List, there are more than 60 items on the list. Some examples are police, local
governments, public health and sanitation, land tenures, fisheries, trade and commerce within the
state, public markets and gambling.

The Concurrent List has more than 50 items where uniformity is desired but not considered
essential. If there is any conflict between the laws made by the federal and state government, the
legislation by the federal government shall prevail. Some items on this list are criminal law,
marriage and divorce, adoption, forestry, labor unions, education, administration of justice except
Supreme Court and High Courts.

In the United States, the federal government sets the minimum wage but the individual states
have the right to enact its own minimum wage which, however, must be higher than the federal
minimum wage.

The shift to federalism, even with Charter change, will be an evolving process and not an
overnight change as some people wrongly envision. Even in the United States, the delineation of
powers between the national and the state governments is continuously changing.

There are advantages and disadvantages to instituting federalism in the Philippines. There will be
losers and winners in any shift to a different form of government. So we need to have a vigorous
national debate. But the first step is to understand what federalism really means and while
Charter change will formalize the structure, the process of federalizing can actually begin
without Charter change.

Disadvantages of Federalism
The following are the disadvantages of federalism

Federal System is a Source of Weakness for the State

Federalism makes the state weak because there is always a conflict going on between the center
and the federating units and as a result of this both the federal government and the federating
units suffer. This also results in delays and inefficiency and leads to the weakness of the state.

Federalism Prevents Uniformity of Laws

Federal system prevents uniformity of laws and policies for the countries. The reason far this is
that every federal unit remains independent and has the right to adopt any policy or any law. The
federal government does not have the authority to interfere in the affairs of the federating unit.
The result is that there is as many laws and policies as the number of federating units. This also
creates problems for the people who have to go to other provinces from time to time. This is the
case with the USA where every state has its own policies and its own laws. This has created a lot
of problems for the people of that country.

The Method of Distribution of Powers cannot be Perfect

The method of distribution of powers cannot be perfect for all times. What is of local importance
today may become a matter of national importance tomorrow. But unless the constitution is
amended (this is something very difficult) the matter cannot be resolved. American constitution
came into effect in 1789. Now more than 200 years have passed. Many things have changed
including the role of the federal government. But the powers of the federal government remain
limited. The result is that there are many fields in which federal government can do many things
but it is handicapped because these fields belong to the federating units.

Rigidly of the Constitution is Major Disadvantage of Federalism

The rigidity of the constitution is also obstacle in the way of the progress of the country because
the constitution cannot keep pace with the changes in the society. The method of amendment is
very rigid and difficult, So many things, which require prompt and quick action, cannot be done
because of the rigidity of the constitution and this, in turn, affects the progress of the whole
country.
State cannot Pursue Strong Foreign and Domestic Policies

Under a federal system there cannot be a strong foreign policy because there has to be agreement
between the federating units and the federal government on many issues. Generally there is no
such agreement and the result is that the federal government cannot follow a strong foreign
policy. Similarly in internal affairs also the central government is prevented by the constitution
from interfering in the affairs of the federating units. This also creates problems and weakness.

Expensive and Un-economical

Federalism is an expensive and uneconomical system. The reason for this is that there is
duplication of the works. This increases the expenditure and results in wastage of time and
energy. So it is not suitable for small and or states.

Danger of Secession

In Federalism there is always a danger of the federating units breaking away from the federation.
This is what happened in the USA in 1860's when the southern states started civil war to break
away from the federation. Similarly in the very recent past East Pakistan broke away from
federation and became Bangladesh. Kosovo and Russian federating units' case are other
examples.

OPINION: Federalism: Tailor-Fit for the Philippines

Imperialists and thieves. These are some of the words used by Rodrigo Duterte and the proponents of
federalism to describe Manila. As harsh as these criticisms may sound, there is some truth behind them.
For instance, all the legislation, execution, and interpretation of laws are centered in Metro Manila. This
centralization promotes the image of a distant government that holds all the power yet understands very
little of its people’s diverse cultures and needs. The physical and cultural distance of the government
from its people inhibits them from formulating targeted solutions for each region, and each ethnicity,
creating disaffection among the regions such as Muslim Mindanao.

The chunk of economic wealth and development is also concentrated in Metro Manila and the
surrounding regions. The National Capital Region (NCR) and the neighboring CALABARZON and Central
Luzon have constituted more than half of the National Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for many years. In
2014 alone, they posted a 36.3%, 17.2%, and 9.3% GDP contribution – the highest among all the regions
in the Philippines.

This disturbing reality enables many to see the appeal of Duterte’s plans for federalism. After all,
federalism does not only suit our cultural and geographical situation, but also the economic and political
dilemma of our country. Though he has not yet given a detailed roadmap to federalism, Duterte will
most likely carry the torch for Former Sen. Aquilino Pimentel’s legislative proposal; seeing as how the
latter founded the current political party of Duterte.
The Joint Resolution No. 10 was introduced by Former Sen. Pimental, Sen. Angara, and Sen. Escudero
among others. It proposes the creation of 11 states namely, Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern
Tagalog, Bicol, Minparom, Eastern Visayas, Central Visayas, Western Visayas, Northern Mindanao,
Southern Mindanao, and BangsaMoro. Meanwhile, Metro Manila will be designated as the Federal
Administrative Region and will host federal government offices with the exception of the Congress, and
the Supreme Court which will be relocated to Tagbilaran, and Cagayan de Oro City.

The federal government will have jurisdiction on international relations, national security, and monetary
system to name a few. On the other hand, the states will be granted the autonomy to govern and
legislate laws for themselves through an elected state governor and a unicameral congress. These laws
will only be legally binding within the state boundaries. Intermediate Appellate Courts will also be set up
in every state to handle state crimes.

Such an arrangement would be appropriate for our multi-ethnic and archipelagic country because the
creation of autonomous states will serve to bridge the physical and the cultural distance between the
government and the people. It will provide the means to legislate laws tailor fit to their situation. Quite
possibly, this could be the solution to bringing peace in Muslim Mindanao, a region that has endured
years of conflict between the government and the Muslim minority.

The civil unrest finds its origin in the Christian resettlement in Mindanao during the Marcos
Administration. Lands in Mindanao were appropriated to the settlers which earned the ire of the Muslim
minority. Thus, in the name of justice and egalitarianism, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) was
established. Past administrations made an effort to appease the MNLF group through the creation of the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), but due to the limitations set in the ARMM, a
splinter group called the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) was formed and is calling for a “genuine”
autonomy.

The shift to federalism will provide a win-win situation for both the government and the Muslim
minority. Through the creation of local states, particularly the State of Bangsamoro, the Filipino Muslims
will acquire that “genuine” autonomy – the capability to legislate laws for themselves – without having
to separate from the Federal Republic of the Philippines.

Federalism also suits our economic dilemma of regional inequality. Since time immemorial, economic
wealth has been concentrated in Metro Manila. Most of the income collected by the central government
are redistributed to the NCR and its neighbors, while the other regions receive a relatively meager
amount. In fact, the 2016 National Budget allocated 723.7B to the NCR and its neighbors while only a
total of 666.3B were apportioned to the whole of Visayas and Mindanao.

Federalism holds the key to regional equality because the Joint Resolution proposes that the local states
will get to keep 80% of their earnings which will provide them with the means to develop their
respective states. Of the 80%, 30% will be given to the state government, and 70% will be appropriated
to the provinces and cities. The remaining 20% of their earnings will be given to the Federal Government
to support their function. Through this arrangement, excessive economic wealth will be forced out of
Metro Manila, creating an avenue for the development of more financial centers across the country.
However, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. is concerned with the poor regions that are currently
dependent on the income generated by the other regions. Should federalism take place, their income
will not be enough to support their autonomous local government. The poor states will be left behind
and will further drive economic inequality. Nonetheless, the legislative proposal permits the federal
government to provide grants-in-aid to states. This will allow the federal government to provide funding
to the development of poor states until such time that the states are able to generate enough income to
support themselves.

Some critics of federalism also point out the possibility that federalism will deepen regionalism, and
promote rivalries. Currently, the regions are loosely united by the existence of the central government.
But, should federalism come to pass, and the central government’s role reduced, there is a high chance
that regional rivalries will worsen and shatter national unity.

Atty. Yusingco, an expert on state-building, offers a comforting counter-argument. In an opinion article

published by Philippine Daily Inquirer, he mentioned that “…[federalism] does not diminish the integrity
of the nation-state.” In fact, it is an avenue for strengthening national unity through the devolution of the
central government and the common responsibility of leading our country towards its future. With good
governance and belief in the well-being of the Federal Republic, heated rivalries will simply fade into a
healthy competition among the states.

The Filipino culture is made up of a multitude of cultures, but that reality has not stopped us from calling
ourselves Filipinos. Federalism will not shatter our national unity. It is simply a way of telling the world
(and each other) that we accept our diversity. For years, we have tried a unitary form of government,
and we have witnessed how it has disregarded the cultural and geographical situation of our country,
and exacerbated the economic inequality among the regions. It is high time that we shift to federalism
for the betterment of our country, and our peoples.

Is Federalism good for the Philippines?

Why shouldn't social media be democratically owned by its users?

This question needs to be further qualified. Good for what? Good for who?

We also need to understand what the push for federalism aims to solve.

As a political solution to break the centralized decision making (akin to the politburo of communist
states) - it is a step in the right direction. However, it is not enough. If one were to view this from the
perspective of empowering people, why limit the decision making to federal states? Why not bring it
down to the level of city states? Or down to the level of individuals instead?

The experience of anarchy in Somalia and medieval Iceland has shown that abolishing the state (unitary
or federal) has not led to a breakdown in society nor has it led to the curtailment of goods, services, and
conveniences of modern day living.
The study of Benjamin Powell[1] showed that the removal of rulers (President, Congressmen, etc) has
not led to a decline in the standard of living in Somalia. In fact, stateless Somalia has standards of living
that are comparable (if not better) to its sub-Saharan neighbors that have a state.

As an economic solution that aims to address the inequalities in the Philippines, the push for federalism
is a marginal solution at best and totally irrelevant to the bigger picture. An economic challenge needs an
economic solution. Federalism simply transfers the political decision making to the region-state but does
not address the protectionist provisions embedded in the Philippine constitution. These provisions
notably the 60/40 are not addressed by federalism.

All these region states will still be operating under the defective 60/40 protectionist provisions. We can
therefore conclude that the same economic outcomes as that which plagued the unitary Philippine state
will be present in the region states. The duopoly and oligopoly will still be present. In other words,
despite federalism the following are still going to happen:

The mass media will still be controlled by ABS-CBN and GMA 7 because the constitution does not
allow any foreign ownership of mass media

The energy industry will still be controlled by MERALCO, Aboitiz and the different energy companies
which have interlocking directorates. For instance, Davao Light owned by the Aboitiz group has
MERALCO shares. The Visayas Electric Company bought out by the Aboitiz group also has MERALCO
shares. This same phenomenon can be observed in all electric utilities operating in the Philippines. This
oligopoly has led to the Philippines having the highest electric power rates in Asia - a situation that
makes the Philippines a non-contender for manufacturing industries that use a lot of electricity.

Globe and PLDT/Smart will not have any foreign owned competitors as these are co-opted into
forming joint ventures with Globe or PLDT - a situation that has led to the Philippines having the highest
telecom and Internet rates in Asia.

As a public relations ploy, the push for federalism is an effective way to project to the public that
something is being done. It also is an effective smokescreen to distract the public’s attention to the failed
drug war policy and the outrage caused by extra-judicial killings. In other words, the federalism push is a
safety valve to preempt a seething social volcano.

What the public does not understand is that the “something being done” called federalism, does not
address the heart of the issue - the economy.

Evaluating Federalism For The Philippines: A Broad-stroke Overview

Federalism has been an important aspect and ingredient and many of the world’s community of nations.
In fact, around 70% of nations in the world are said to have at least some element of federalism, while
roughly 10% are considered federal states. Forty percent of the world’s population lives in these
countries.

Federalism has been adopted not only by developed countries like the United States, Canada and
Germany, but developing ones such Mexico, India and Brazil. Recently, the Philippines has began to
contemplate a change in its governing set up after Rodrigo Duterte, a prime advocate for federalism in
the country in the country, won the presidential national elections.

Some scholars argue that a federal system is the next logical step after devolution. In the Philippines, the
main argument of federalists is that the system allows diversity and division while promoting national
interest at the same time. It is also claimed that a shift to the system could accelerate the development
of impoverished regions in the country and end ethnic conflicts brought about by the Filipinos’ cultural
differences.

Basic Features and ‘Identity Federalism’

Federalism is a governmental system that institutes a constitutionally stipulated and specified division of
powers between different levels of government. Usually, there are two main levels: a national, central or
federal level (e.g. the federal government of Germany); and a state, provincial or regional level (e.g. the
German Länders).

There are some instances, however, where the federal system may demand a three-fold distribution of
power by recognizing the constitutional powers of the local government; or by forming compound forms
of overlapping territorial and linguistic federalism.

Therefore, federalism makes it possible for ethnic regions that have specific territorial jurisdiction to
exercise their own autonomy while remaining to be a part of larger federal union. In this arrangement,
the federal and subnational government will have both specific and shared powers.

A very good example in this respect is Canada. The federal nature of the Canada’s constitution was a
response to the diversity of the country during the colonial era, particularly the linguistic differences
between the French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada and the English-speaking inhabitants of
Upper Canada and the Maritimes. Federalism successfully eliminated violent ethnic conflicts between
the two major linguistic groups of the country. Today, Canada is one of the most socially and
economically progressive countries in the world.

‘Efficiency Federalism

Aside from its potential to resolve diversity-induced conflicts, federalism may also improve governance in
terms of efficiency, democratic representation and accountability. This can be achieved through the
decentralization of power it promotes and by allowing local people a greater control over their resources
and policies, while still preserving national unity and the ability to act coherently in issues and matters of
national importance.

An archipelago of 7,641 islands, the highly centralized government of the Philippines has been inefficient
and ineffective in dealing with contingencies in far-flung regions of the country. This results in
inequitable and uneven development of its many regions.
Decentralization of power promoted by a federal system of governance could potentially resolve this
dilemma. Federalism brings the government closer to the people, facilitates quicker delivery of needed
basic services and endorses participatory governance.

A rationale for a federal Philippines

It is due to the aforementioned features and disposition of federalism that President Duterte proposes
the system as an option for governance for the Philippines. But despite its apparent promise and
potentials, issues and concerns have to be confronted, such as the fact that Moros demand a separate
nation, not autonomy.

Moreover, the shift to federalism should profoundly decentralize the central government to promote and
develop self-reliance in the subnational governments.

Finally, it is important to understand and to take into consideration, especially by political leaders, policy-
makers and advocates, that there is no one standard model of federalism that suits all.

Countries can have varying degrees of federalism in their political system. Some may have more
centralized models than others (e.g. Australia); those where the federal state and subnational units have
clearly defined powers by the Consititution (e.g. Germany); and federal states where the powers of the
federal and subnational levels are in persistent review and movement (e.g. United States). Each country
must determine its own form of federalism according to the existing and unique conditions of their
societies.