Charter Change: Unitary to Federalism

In partial fulfilment
for the requirement in Legal Research

By
Jacel Anne Domingo

Atty. Jeanna Ongan

October 5, 2018
ABSTRACT

At present, the Philippines is under the unitary form of

government wherein the central government has the highest governing
power, on the other hand, the proposed federal system under the drafted
constitution is a form of government wherein sovereignty is
constitutionally divided between the national government and regional
states.
Basically, it will divide the nation into autonomous regions with
national government focusing only in foreign policy and defense. The
central government and states can also share certain powers.
Under the unitary form of government, most of the administrative
powers and resources are with the national government based in Metro
Manila which decides how much to give local government units. This
decision mainly centralized in Malacañang is prone to abuse, with
governors and mayors sometimes having to beg for projects their
communities need.
Budget of the local government units has to be approved by the
national government, but, under the federal system of government, the
states will have the power to make their own decisions with little or no
interference from the national government.
Many countries are already under the federalist form of government
such as the United States of America (USA), Switzerland, Germany,
Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia and Brazil.
Under the administration of Former President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo, the government had attempted to reform to federal system but
promptly failed because of the presence of oppositions who believed that
the reform was just a scheme to extend her term limit as the president.
After various attempts to revise the Constitution, in the current
administration of President Rodrigo Duterte, the government is positively
attempting to change the Constitution and make way for federalism.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution was promulgated after Martial
Law and it aims to reestablish the democracy which the Martial Law
Regime had taken.
This legal research aims to consider the if the Philippines is ready
and well equipped to follow the federal form of government. It will also
answer the problems specifically addressed in pursuing Federalism. The
advantages and disadvantages observed and experienced under the Federal
system and how the Philippines will be expected to be affected by those
considering the disparity between one nation to the other. The possible
effects, both economically and socially, of federalism will be discussed.
 The paper will also delve the current situations of countries which
recently changed to federalism.

INTRODUCTION

“I am confident that the Filipino people will stand behind us as we

introduce this new fundamental law that will not only strengthen our
democratic institutions, but will also create an environment where every
Filipino—regardless of social status, religion, or ideology – will have an
equal opportunity to grow and create a future that he or she can proudly
bequeath to the succeeding generations. “
Those were the words of the incumbent president of the Philippines,
Rodrigo Duterte, in his 3rd State of the Nation Address last July 23.
Four administrations before the present administration have tried to
revise the charter, but no one has succeeded in changing the fundamental
law of the land.
According to Vicente Mendoza, retired Supreme Court Justice, the
reason why the attempts of Congress or groups to change the 1987
Constitution failed is not by intrinsic merit, but because the attempts were
viewed as nothing but veiled attempts to extend the term of the office of
the President.
In support, under the administration of Arroyo, Charter Change was
attempted by the following means: Constituent Assembly, Constitutional
Convention, and People’s Initiative.
The People’s Initiative of Sigaw ng Bayan was junked by the
Supreme Court for lack of merit. There were also moves for Congress to
convene into Constitutional Assembly and lawmakers also called for
Constitutional Convention, but Arroyo administration’s push for Cha-Cha
failed due to lack of support from the senate and various sectors such as
the Catholic Church which strongly opposed the move. In addition,
opposition also occurred with several congressmen.
The consultative commission created by Arroyo and headed by
Political Science and Public Administration expert Jose Abueva pushed for
Federalism and liberalizing the economy among its major changes.
However, Abueva, later on his personal website, said that Arroyo
decided to push for only one amendment of changing our presidential
government with a bicameral congress to a parliamentary government that
would be unicameral.
Arroyo failed after persistently pressing on changing the form of the
government due to the oppositions who saw that her push for charter
change was only a ploy to extend her term.
 Federalism is not indeed a new issue and has been consistently
pursued by different administrations including the current administration.
President Duterte has been an active advocate of federalism even
before filing his candidacy for President. In his latest SONA, he was
honored and privileged that the draft for the Federal Constitution has
already been crafted and states that his revision will truly embody the ideals
and aspirations of all the Filipino People.
Duterte is positive that Filipinos would support his advocacy to
amend the constitution as he reiterated that he does not intend to prolong
his stay in office and he has no illusions of occupying his office one day
longer than what the Constitution under which he was elected permits. But,
despite the efforts of spreading awareness of federalism, a recent survey,
however, showed that charter change remains unpopular among Filipinos.
A Pulse Asia poll conducted last June shows that 67% of Filipinos
were not in favor of amending the Constitution while only 18% were in
favor and the other 14% were undecided. A value of 62% was specifically
against to federal system of government.
Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia warned, in his
interview with One News' The Chiefs, the country of the ill effects of
shifting to federalism on the Philippine economy, saying the regions at this
point are not ready for this system. He also added that the expenses would
result in downgrade of the country's credit ratings.

IS PHILIPPINES READY FOR FEDERALISM?

As mentioned, USA, Malaysia, Australia and Germany are some of

the many countries which transformed themselves into a unified state
through the process of federalization, but each began as a loose collection
of disparate political entities that gradually, and with painful upheavals.
The proponents of federalism kept their pedal on the promise of
enhanced autonomy without deeply considering the possibility of harsher
version of federalization and the advocates seemed oblivious to the gravity
of this sociopolitical reform.
According to Michael Henry Yusingco, a practicing lawyer and
author of the book "Rethinking the Bangsamoro Perspective", in one of his
opinions in Inquirer, increasing the autonomy of local governments will
ultimately amount to nothing if local leaders are incompetent and incapable
of properly utilizing expanded powers and resources. He has this noted as
one of the most important lessons in the discourse on the proposed
Bangsamoro Basic Law recognizing the Muslim Mindanao as Autonomous
Region.
 Secondly, he also cited that overdependence of local government
executives on the Internal Revenue Allotment and continued existence of
central-government largesse, or pork barrel funds, signify the stark reality
that the development perspective of local readers has not reached the level
of sophistication necessary to sustain a federal government structure.
Moreover, according to a study by Asian Institute of Management
Policy Center in 2012 entitled, "An Empirical Analysis of Political
Dynasties in the 15th Philippine Congress", lower standards of living,
lower human development, and higher levels of deprivation and inequality
persist in the communities governed by political dynasties. Thus, political
dynasties constitute the unequivocal proof that the quality of our local
leaders is still below par as far as federalism is concerned. This would
result to condemnation of affected communities to total poverty.
With these, it is probable that federalizing the state would only make
socioeconomic development more inequitable than it is.
The issues mentioned above are directly contradicting of what
federalism sought to achieve. Duterte believes that shifting to the federal
system will address growth inequalities in different areas of the country.
In one of the statements of Harry Roque, he exclaimed that the
President pushing for federalism because he believes that although the
economy of the Philippines is the second fastest growing economy in the
world, the growth remains unequal as provinces still lag behind cities, both
in development and public infrastructure.
With these cited allegations, it is thus doubtful whether Filipinos are
indeed ready and ripe for federalism.
In Yusingco's conclusion, he maintained that federal form is a
constitutional reform that needed effort and deep scrutiny, that the idea that
the changing to federal system will be as effortless as turning on light
switch.
Therefore, as a remedy, the primary task of the government before
seriously contemplating on federalism is to uplift the leadership standards
of the local government and to enhance the quality of their competency and
services to promote confidence to the people that the to be formulated
regional states are well equipped to handle the autonomy which will be
vested on their hands.
Economist and Former Finance Official Dr. Jesus Estanislao
believes that the Philippines is not yet ready for a federal government. The
Philippines’ economic grip of its regional clusters has to be strengthen for
federal form to work, implementing federalism this early may pose an
economic danger because the Philippines is still on the process of uniting
as one economy.
 Nevertheless, Malacañang released that Filipinos are ready for
federalism because, according to Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque,
otherwise, they would not have elected the President for this is one the
platforms of the President when he ran for office.
Former lawmaker and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
President Roan Libarios favored federalism and said that shifting to federal
government would hasten the development process and allow a better
regional governance compared to the unitary form of government.
In the unitary form of government, Libarios said that most of the
decisions in governance are made in Metro Manila, which leads to an
imbalance in resources.
The Philippines has been ruled by various leaders who had
advocated a government that will promote the common good and will
promised to always instill the welfare of the people, but, the span of their
service seemed not enough to fulfill their promises. With the previous
attempts of federalism with the objective to extend elective officials’ term
limits, it is hard not to scrutinize the present administration of the question
of whether or not federalism is a political strategy to stay in power.
The current administration pursuing the federal system to alleviate
certain issues in the Philippines will be doubtful to hear a negative respond;
but changing the form of government extremely will involve a lot of
measures that should be carefully considered.
The very thing to be considered is if the Philippines can afford
federalism without foregoing a more immediate issue to be resolved.
According to estimates made by Dr. Rosario G. Manasan, a senior
research fellow at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS),
and Senator Nene Pimentel’s proposal, estimates vary from PhP66 billion
to PhP72 billion if the number of regional government legislators proposed
in the BBL (Bangsamoro Basic Law) were adopted in all the regions.

PROBLEMS SOUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED

One of the Philippines’ main issues is the disputes over the ancestral
land and religion in Mindanao. The Moros have been fighting for their
ancestral lands which the rebel groups resulting to violence of the Moro
National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF) and demanding for a separate state.
The past administrations tried to negotiate, but none have
succeeded. The BBL is the latest recourse of the government to attain peace
and resolve the conflict in Mindanao.
President Duterte has stated several times that only a shift in
federalism will satisfy the Bangsamoro and this will correct the historical
injustice committed against the Muslim population in Mindanao.
In the last presidential election, only Duterte supported federalism
and warned that the government has to talk peace with the MNLF and the
MILF to come up with a reasonable proposal to prevent war in Mindanao
which will harm Davao eventually.
Secondly, federalism sought to address the unequal development of
the regions that has made Metro Manila to prosper economically, leaving
the other regions underdeveloped and in poverty.
Some proponents also pointed out that the current system of
democracy is failing and the electoral system does not work. The three
branches of the government which are constitutionally mandated to act
separately and distinct from one another have a lot of conflict between
them.
Furthermore, corruption is rampant because the Ombudsman, who
investigates and prosecutes any public officer or employee, and the
Commission on Audit do not have enough authority. Political dynasties
and economic power are controlled by few.
Those are the issues federalism sought to be addressed, but, on the
other hand, the questions of whether or not federalism could solve these
issues and whether there would be a strong federal government that would
keep the new regions together.
According to Ronald Goseco, one of the columnists of The Manila
Times, the shifting of the government to federal system is especially risky
because of the great disparities in economic wealth among the different
regions in the country.
Goseco even furthered that the allocation of power between the
different regions has to be well thought of and questioned that whether or
not the judiciary is strong enough to mediate overlaps in power between
the states and the federal government.
In one of the opinions in Inquirer, Miriam Ferrer, chair of
government panel in peace talks with the MILF during the Aquino
administration, opined that federalism can indeed accommodate the
proposal of the MILF, yet, the MILF continues to push for the passage of
BBL despite the limited constitutional parameters.
MILF said that it supports federalism because it will strengthen the
Comprehensive Agreement Bangsamoro (CAB), but it cannot replace it.
The following are the reasons why MILF still pursue the
Bangsamoro rather than sticking to federalism which the current president
sought to promulgate to answer the issues over the Bangsamoro problems:
1. MILF did not fight the government to change the whole
system, but only wanted their own self-governed territory in
 Mindanao and neutrality on what the rest of the country does to
itself.
2. Federalism does not resonate with the MILF. A shift to a
federal setup won't do justice to the uniqueness of the Bangsamoro
quest for their right to self-determination, their identity and
institutions. They believe that it would reduce the Bangsamoro into
an "enclave" of a Mindanao State and would not attain what the
comprehensive agreement entails to rectify this limited territorial
coverage by enabling contiguous geographic areas to join a
Bangsamoro state should they wish.
3. The reference to a Bangsamoro state in the original draft of
MILF compact was a sub state entity enjoying wide autonomy. The
MILF drew its context from Puerto Rico or the free associated state
of Palau, which are attached to the United States but enjoying nation-
state status; but that didn't require a federal system.
4. The MILF wants ownership of the outcome of the peace
process, they want a Bangsamoro entity that results from their own
struggle. Neither a constituent assembly nor a constitutional
convention is an arena that the MILF can claim as its own.
The Bangsamoro problem specifically addressed by Duterte lead to
being answered after he has signed the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL)
after three years into his presidency which created a Muslim-majority sub-
state entity within the Catholic-majority Philippines. However, residents of
Muslim-populated regions in Mindanao are yet to be approve the creation
of a Bangsamoro in a plebiscite this year.
The passage of BOL might result to tribal-ethnic divisions, poor
basic infrastructure, and an overall climate of insecurity; but, on the other
side of the coin, experts and supporters of BOL held that it may be the
Philippines’ chance to heal religious divide, which has haunted the fertile
and beautiful island of Mindanao.
With the passage of BOL, many believes that BOL could be a model
for federalism that the country could learn from. Former Chief Justice
Hilario Davide Jr. and Florangel Rosario Braid said charter change for a
shift to federalism could be postponed while the country was studying the
experience of the Bangsamoro region .
According to Richard Haydarian, contributor of Forbes, studies have
already shown that only few regions are capable of earning enough taxes
on their own and the submerging of various provinces who lack basic
administrative capacity to generate revenue into new federal states will
stress out incompatibility with federalism.
Under the federal system, the developmental gap will be deepen with
other regions because the richer states will have even more resources to
enhance and improve their competitiveness. Thus, inequalities will still
prosper and it might be aggravated.
Haydarian even cited the United States' developmental gap between
the rich coastal states of California and New York, on one hand, and the
southern and midwestern states, on the other hand, has barely narrowed
after two centuries of federalist experience.
In India, Iraq and Nigeria, as developing countries, have also failed
to close developmental gaps and ethno-communal tensions among the
federal states created.
In addition, federal system could strengthen the political dynasties
and warlords, which control the Philippines' peripheries. They are best
position to dominate and grip on power to the newly created legislature and
federal states.
According to the Consultative Committe, the Ombudsman will have
more teeth to fight against corruption in the proposed federal constitution.
The Ombudsman is proposed to be transformed into a federal one
which is tasked to prioritize complaints filed against high-ranking
government officials, complaints involving grave offenses, as well as
complaints involving large sums of money and/or properties.
The courts would be restricted from issuing a writ of injunction to
avoid delays in the investigation it is conducting. The ombudsman will also
become a collegial body and that more commissioners will be appointed
Remaining under the classification of a developing country, the
Philippines is evidently needed to be transformed to improve the economy
through financial and technical resolutions.
However, it must be noted that the nature of the form of the
government is not the sole answer for the government to succeed on its
function. The people behind the operation of the government will still be
the main player of the game, merely changing the system of government-
without changing the culture of the people who run the government-will
make the new federal system fail as well.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FEDERALISM

Federalism is not only being followed in first world countries like

USA, Australia and Canada but also in developing countries like Mexico,
India and Brazil.
The following are the advantages of federalism:
1. Localized Government. With the formulation of federal
states, local government who lives in proximity with the people has the
better position to understand their province's political, social and economic
problem, and thus, offer immediate and unique solutions for it.
 2. Local Representation. Federalism offers representation to
different aspirations, ethnicity and cultures of the federal states of their
respective provinces. The national government which adopt policies which
cater to that majority can sometimes overlook the mentioned differences.
Thus, policies under federalism will be addressed more
specifically. Rights and minorities are protected too.
3. Freedom from Policies. Under federalism, the federal states
will have the freedom to adopt polices which may not be followed
nationally or by any other state.
4. Optimum Utilization of Resources. Dividing the central and
the regional governments leads to optimum utilization of resources, for the
central government can concentrate more on international affairs and
defense of the country while the regional government can cater to the local
needs.
5. Scope for Innovation and Experimentation. Granting the
federal states autonomy over their region, federalism has room for
innovating and experimenting in policies to be adopted. Two local
governments can have two different approaches to bring reforms, then the
comparisons of the results can be a basis of which policy is better to be
implemented.
The following are the disadvantages of federalism:
1. Conflict of Authority. With the division of central and
regional states, there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion
regarding who is responsible for what.
2. Can Lead to Corruption.
3. Pitches State Vs State. Federalism leads to unnecessary
competition between different regions. There can be a rebellion by a
regional government against the national government too.
4. Uneven Distribution of Wealth. It promotes inequalities in
natural resources, industries, employment opportunities. Rich states will
offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor states which
will heighten the gap between the rich and the poor.
5. Promotes Regionalism. One state can formulate policies
which might be detrimental to other regions.
6. Framing of Incorrect Policies. Federalism does not
eliminate poverty and the reason for this may be attributable to intellectuals
and not the masses.
Thus, it must be noted that shifting to federal system does not only
include benefits, but it also includes instances which negates its primary
purposes.
POSSIBLE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FEDERALISM IN THE
PHILIPPINES
According to a research entitled, “Federalism and Its Possible
Impact to the Philippine Economy and Political Landscape”, the
Philippines is currently exposed to the threat of economic and political
instability. Thus, the government sought to transform the government into
a federal government.
Economically, federalism will bring financial independence,
specialization and distribution of wealth to the local and national
government.
In federal form of government, the state government retains its
income and is required to turn over only portion to the central or federal
government. The state government will spend its income to programs and
policies which it deems suited to the needs of its constituents. This is
advantageous to the properly established regions or local government since
they can maximize their income in the improvement of their community.
However, the poor and undeveloped regions of the country which
depend primarily to the national government for their funding will suffer
since such support will be reduced and limited. The latter will have to
depend on their own resources and will nevertheless be advantageous if
they will strive to develop and enhance their natural resources and will be
disadvantageous if they take it negatively and be left out by the developed
regions of the country.
The federal government in turn will use its share for the national
defense, foreign policy and other national programs like the national health
care.
Another edge of federalism would be the distribution of wealth
through the decongestion of Metro Manila. If the independence given to
the state government results 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 be an enough reason to keep the people in
their respective provinces.
It was previously mentioned in this paper, that Pernia warned that
the rushed implementation of federalism would impact the economy since
it would take years before most of the country’s region can adopt
federalism. Thus, Deputy Speaker and Cebu Rep. Gwendolyn Garcia said
projections made by the Economic Planning Secretary will be considered
as their “guide” in scrutinizing the draft Charter.
 In a separate interview, Isabela Rep. Rodito Albano, who is part of
the House contingent to the influential Commission on Appointments, said
“Everything will be factored in. It’s a political endeavor. It won’t affect our
economy because it will be investment friendly.”
According to a case study entitled “Impact of Governance Structure
on Economic and Social Performance: A Case Study of Latin American
Countries” by Joyce Meng of University of Pennsylvania, it has found out
four conclusions which summarized the findings on the research:
1. Diffusion of political power improves rights performance
and democratic accountability, of which federalism provides an
important institutional framework. The constitutional structure of
democratic federalism provided an important check on government
to ensure representation at local levels. In addition, the federal
reforms bred coalitions that provided an important institutional
check against existent power structures. It serves as a mechanism to
prevent political rights abuses that had occurred under military rule.
2. The contribution of federalism to aggregate economic
performance remains ambiguous. As observed through the examples
of Brazil and Argentina, Brazil’s federalism form of government
constrained the ability of the president to enact mush needed
economic reforms in the early 1980s due to a high degree of political
fragment and dissent. As a result, the federal government’s debts
increased and stalled much needed macroeconomic stabilization
policies.
However, under the other regime, Cardoso, federalism
differed dramatically. The regime managed to obtain multiparty
support and overcoming the divisive nature of political
fragmentation through creating coherency and consensus in the
Brazilian Government. Thus, managing to control inflation and
improve macroeconomic stability with broad support from
Congress.
In Argentina, centralization of tax revenues and fiscal power
under the Menem Administration resulted to an improvement in
their macroeconomy considering their earlier administration that
was under decentralized form of government.
In Mexico, federalism has proven its purpose which generated
income growth, investment and productivity through economic
liberalization and profound economic transition.
 Based on the nations’ experiences cited above, it can be
inferred that federalism is not determinative of the economic
progress of the country. In support, Chile sets an example of unitary
government with significant economic performance and it reflects
that economic abundance is not directly be yielded on the structure
of the government, but rather, on the specific polices of the
administration.
3. Decentralization improves access to public goods, in both
federal and unitary governments. Historical evolution has confirmed
that federalism has increased access to social goods, lowered
regional inequities and improved efficiency in resource allocation,
for local governments are often more attuned to the needs of their
people.
Federal government basically entails a political structure of
decentralization. Nevertheless, decentralization reforms can still be
effectively carried out in unitary governments, which use municipal
channels and other regional government networks. Conversely,
federal governments that have a degree of fiscal centralization and
limited administrative responsibilities at the subnational level do not
harness that full benefits of decentralization.
4. Federalism, however, potentially creates political
fragmentation that may block important reforms or give rise to a
power vacuum for populist leaders. As a result, rights performance,
democratic accountability, and economic and social progress may
stall or deteriorate.
In Valenzuela, the enhanced political competition, the
division between the regional and national elections, the reelection
of governors and mayors and an increase in their financial autonomy
are all characteristics of federalism which have contributed to the
fragmentation of the party system and to the personalization of vote.
The enhanced political competition, the local government
took advantage of the opportunity to magnify their own political
power and weaken the power of the party leaders.
Hence, determining the net effect of federalism requires careful analysis of
the unique political context of the country.
The research confirms that decentralization uniquely contributes to the
protection of property, political and civil rights. Federalism provides an
important institutional framework to maintain and support decentralization
with adequate fiscal and administrative support.
NEPAL AS A FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT
One of the many countries which shifted from unitary government
to federal system was Nepal. The government of Nepal, three years ago,
changed from unitary system to federal system to help address the
country’s problems on variegated demography, society and geography.
However, transition to federal system is now challenged before
Nepal. The operation of the federal structure imposed intense controversy
regarding sharing revenue between local and national levels.
Nepal has followed different forms of government over the years
and these systems were all centralized and unitary. Following the new
constitution in 2015, the country is making a monumental departure from
history, the country would now be governed by three levels of government
- federal government at the national level, and provincial and local
governments at sub-national levels. Thus, implementation of federalism is
the country’s agenda.
However, after a year toward federalism, the implementation of
constitution is at risk and federalism is mired in profound uncertainty.
There exists debate on defining power relationship among three levels of
governments, for unfortunately, the constitution is not clear in delineating
the state powers. Functions are vaguely defined on who can exercise and
to what extent cannot be distinguished. Furthermore, several functions
overlap among jurisdictions.
The transition process is supposed to redefine state-citizen
relationship. But representatives at sub-national levels seem to have no
idea of their powers and their limitations.
The constitution also has envisioned establishment of the Natural
Resources and Fiscal Commission which will determine detailed basis and
modality for the distribution of revenues between the federal, state and
local governments, but the commission has not been instituted even after
two budget sessions.
In effectively discharging the function of regional governments,
timely administrative devolution is necessary. The government, in
adherence, has enacted the Employee Adjustment Act 2017 that allows
existing public officials of the central government to be assigned and
transferred to local and provincial government. Yet, public officials
refrained to work locally or at the provincial level which has resulted in
serious shortage of manpower at sub-national levels.
Considering the political chaos in Nepal, it must be pointed out that
when the government was filling in details to the draft of the constitution,
the debate or the deliberation over federalism mainly centered on the
number of provinces and their names rather than its substance with regard
to economic viability of provinces and local governments, accountability
framework and intergovernmental relationships. As a result, breadth and
depth was missing in the discourse of federalism.
Ordinarily, federalism in Nepal is meant to address the perceived
disparities among different sections of society, but the political attention
has now shifted to prosperity and development which resulted to a palpable
disconnect between the two. This is also evident from the lack of planning
to guide the transition process from political leaders.

CONCLUSION
As a developing country, the Philippines still needs to earnestly
improve its economic, social and political aspect. Thus, many political
parties have attempted to revise or change the form of government as one
monumental step in seeking to enhance and improve the quality of the
government’s system and to effectively discharge their primary function of
securing benefits that will advantage the life of the people
The Philippines readiness cannot be perpetually compared with the
other countries who have successfully enacted and transitioned to federal
form of government. The paper continuously noted that, differences among
nations can be tremendously accounted. It can be opined that demographic
and geographic differences must also be considered, but the most crucial
element of measuring the readiness of the Philippines is the government
itself. The public officials behind the government must be intently
scrutinized and must be intelligently selected by the people, because
decentralizing the government means a closer look to the people and
greater power to exercise before the people. Thus, the government must be
well apprehended, competent and possesses an integral part which the sole
purpose is to serve the people.
The proponents of federalism in the current administration
specifically sought to answer the problem on the jurisdiction over the
ethnic lands in Mindanao which resulted to several occasions of violence.
However, the government had already approved the Bangsamoro Organic
Law, thus, the economists and other public officials believed that it will be
a great template to answer the possible outcomes of federalism once it is
already promulgated.
In addition, the government also seeks to eliminate inequalities
through giving the local government the power to govern their respective
provinces without or with little interference of the national government.
With this, the prosperity of Metro Manila is also expected to exist in other
provinces and congestion in the central is also hoped to be eliminated.
On the other hand, the other side of the story is not without a villain,
the proponents have laid down their objectives and reason behind the
promulgation of the federal government, but the citizens must be fully
aware of the various downfall that federalism might serve before us.
One of these is inequalities within the government might even be
stronger under a decentralized government which can even lead to
regionalism wherein states may adopt policies that can be detrimental to
the other. This will be a total negate to one of the objectives of the
administration. Thus, as strongly argued, the people behind the
government will still be the controlling factor of whatever form of
government they can be in.
Corruption, conflict of authority, unhealthy competition, and
framing of incorrect and defective polices are some of the disadvantages
of federalism.
With one of the researches cited above by Joyce Meng of University
of Pennsylvania, it can be concluded that after many countries have opted
to run their government under federalism and decentralization, it has
yielded positive benefit and results. It has improved rights performance,
democratic accountability, and access to public goods. Yet, amidst these,
the economic contribution of federalism remains ambiguous and it has
created political fragmentation.
Taking that the government’s utmost intention is to deliver equities
among the people in terms of resources and not to use federalism as ploy
to emanate a stronger power, federalism is a good answer, nonetheless, the
system of government will only serve within technicalities. The substance
of the government will always have the main role in cultivating the
Philippines into a developed and rich country. Unitary or federal, if
corruption still subsists, no answer will be born.
REFERENCES
1. Duterte Confident Filipinos will back Federalism, July 24, 2018, Phil
Star Global
2. Are Filipinos ready for Federalism, March 13, 2015, Philippine Daily
Inquirer
3. Road to peace in Mindanao: The Bangsamoro Organic Law, CNN
Philippines
4. Are we ready for Federal Government, April 19, 2018, Business Mirror
5. Federalism may not be the answer to regional inequality PH analyst,
June 7, 2018, ABS CBN News
6. Bangsamoro State could be model for federalism, February 6, 2018,
Philippine Daily Inquirer
7. Federalism will not solve corruption, June 6, 2916, Philippine Daily
Inquirer
8. Ombudsman to have more teeth under federalism, June 28, 2018.
Philippine News Agency
9. https://opinionfront.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-federalism
10. Impact of Governance Structure on Economic and Social Performance:
A Case Study of Latin American Countries, May 2008, Joyce Meng,
University of Pennsylvania