Let it be resolved: We need to change to a federal government now.

There are many forms of federal governments all around the world. Out of xxx countries, there
are xxx countries who adopted a federal type of government. In general, although they all have a
federal form of government, they are not exactly the same. Nevertheless, there are various
principles shared by the federal form of government.
A federal government, basically is a form where there is a federal government who is in charge
of national securityXXX and various states who has their ownXXX
Our country has been through ups and downs with the unitary/presidential form of government
for XXX years. There is a move to shift for a federal government for various reasons. Primarily it
is for XXX
There are many advantages as well as disadvantages. But we also need to think about its
praticability. Is it practicable to change to a federal government now? In other words, is it
feasible?
Our view is that it is impracticable for the following reasons:
1. Considering that there is only minimal possibility for success, it is very expensive.
2. Considering the high risk of its repercussions, we cannot just do it now, we will need more
time to draft a federal government.
3. Considering that it will greatly impair the imperial Manila, the big question is, can it win the
plebescite?

It is very expensive
The cost for shifting into a federal form of government is costly. This will cost us around
XXX. We have XXX pesos in our budget. Shifting to a federal form of government will take
XXX% of our national budget. Where are we going to get the funds needed so that every state
may have their own BIR, BOC, DENR, DOH and other fundamental organization of a state?
Shifting to a federal government is not an assurance to success since:
1. This is not a popular choice of government.There must be something wrong with this
type of government. There are approximately 196 countries around the world. There
are approximately 25 countries with a federal form of government. There are
approximately 130 countries with a unitary republic form of government. This means,
around the world, approximately 13% of the countries have a federal form of
government. On the other hand, 66% has a unitary republic form of government like
ours. In other words, a federal form of government is not a very popular choice of
government around the world. This fact should cause you to question why we will

change to an unpopular type of government. You should wonder why. In buying a car,
you also consider the popularity of the car. As a general rule, popular cars are good.

2. Having a federal form of government does not necessarily mean that a country will be
progressive. Thereare approximately 8 countries who belongs to the top 50 richest
countries with a federal form of government. (This is based on the ranking by Global
Finance Mgazine where Gross Domestic Product (Purchasing Power Parity is used.
This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita wealth and
when comparing economic strength between countries and living conditions or use of
resources across countries. This ranks the country based on how rich the average
resident of a country is.)1 So, there are 8 countries with a federal form of government
who are on the top 50 most wealthiest countries around the world. Wow, that is a lot
of countries with a federal form of government. However, considering that our
country is also being considered as one of the poorest countries in the world, there are
even at least 7 countries which are poorer than us which have a federal form of
government. You only take notice of rich countries with a federal form of
government. How about the Comaros, Ethiopia, India Micronesia, Nepal, Nigeria and
Pakistan? We have a greater GDP (PPP) compared to these countries with a federal
from of government.
That being said, are we going to risk XXX pesos? Are we going to use such money to
shift to a federal form of government instead of using it for making more schools,
hospitals, roads, rehabilitation centers, precinct and others considering that there is
only a minimal chance of success?

We cannot just do it now

Like buying a car, we often look at the reviews and comments of the customers regarding
such car. In the same way, if we shift to a federal government, it is also a big expense. We need
to review and analyze it well. We need to understand if this is really what we need. We cannot
just rush into a very big decision. This is not just changing your relationship status on facebook
nor changing customizing your motorcycles and other gadgets you loved. This the changing of
our government. There are many factors which we need to consider and analyze.
The change of our government form is like a drop of water to a stocked water inside a
basin. It may just be one drop but it creates too many waves and ripples. This will change a lot. It
will not only change the coverage of our bar examination but the changes will cover every aspect
of our lives.
1https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-richest-and-poorestcountries

Say for instance in XXX, (HISTORY: problematic effects on shifting into federalism)
In the U.S, it took XXX years to adopt into a federal government; In Malaysia, XXX; In
Germany, XXX. And then we will do it now?
We are not pessimistic but to believe that the change to federal government will:
a.b.c.d. (Stand/position of the affirmative side)
To believe in those end goals requires optimism bent to the highest level. It requires
optimism based on empty hope. It is like the promises of your ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends. We
cannot just disregard the history and statistics of other nations.

Will it win the plebiscite?

Here comes the constitution drafted by the CON2x or Con ASS. We will be spending resources
for this resolution but in the end it wont win the plebiscite. Based on the 1987 constitution, the
amendment by the CON2x or CON ASS shall be ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite. Based on the records of the COMELEC, there are 54.4 million registered voters in the
whole Philippines; 30 million from Luzon; 13 million from Mindanao; and 11 million from
Visayas.
So hypothetically, if all the registered voters will join the ratification of the adoption of
the federal form of government, there is a need for a vote of 27 Million 500 Thousand and One
(27 500 001) votes.
There are many factors why many will not ratify a federal form of government. They may
be afraid that it will give more power to the separatist; XXX and others
Why would the mass of people in Luzon want a federal form of government when it will
only make them poorer? They were poor when XXX percent of budget went to Luzonthem, how
much more when they will not benefit from other provinces all around the country. And take
note, during the election, the biggest chunk of voters came from Luzon with 30 million voters.

Reference
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-richest-and-poorest-countries
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html - CIA library
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/568715/news/specialreports/how-the-provinces-votedfor-president-vp
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/03/31/Philippines-federalism-debate.html

Possible points to add:

Comments ra ni sya but there are nice points here.
http://www.manilatimes.net/why-switch-to-federalism/276849/
The voting populace, in case of referendum, is also in a quandary as to how the Federalism works and
affects them to intelligently evaluate the pros and cons of this new form of government to give them idea
whether or not to choose the new system.
The people are not politically matured, prepared and conversant, either educationally or informatively, to
be governed under this new federal system especially as to processes of self-government. It may give
more opportunity the intransigent and power greedy local politicians to create a warlord-like unit of
government and family dynasty in every political unit- state, since they will be independent of the Federal
Central-National government. Although the Federal government powers control the Armed Forces,
Immigration, Foreign policy, Customs , Treasury/Central Bank, Agency that coordinates with each State
government, enforcement of federal laws (civil and criminal), each State government is independent and
virtually autonomous, free from the Federal National/Central government close control. As such, it canot
discipline or terminate or dismiss a State official for bad governance.
Federalism will be more expensive and costly for the populace as it will call for two of a kind ( Federal and
State level) or duplicated body of organization or body like for revenue raising agencies, like two
taxations, two police forces, reform of judiciary organizations (Federal and State level) two congressional
or law-making assemblies, two audit, civil service and electoral tribunals, etc..
The Federalism proponents must first thoroughly study the system and its advantages and explain,
educate and disseminate them to the people before embarking on amending the Constitution changing
the current form of government to Federalism.
For me the switch to Federalism is premature, costly and opensopportunity for family dynasty, private
armies, widespread corruption due to territorial segmentation to different political turfs and possible
unmanageability of each created State by the Federal government, and inter-state conflicts and
dissensions.
To me, the present unitary/Prsidential/Republican form is still effective for national governance but must
only strengthen the LGU by enacting laws to make them independent and free from control by central
government in performing their own infrastructure with central govt. supervisions and audit by COA.
Jun adan

http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/120166-federalism-proscons-explainer

ala man gyud amount ben ui..

(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.)

Question regarding how would it take to change to federalism.

https://bpspolitics.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/97/
According to Jose Abueva, former president of University of the Philippines and a
professor of public and administration we should take federal kind of government. He
said that the Philippines would take a period of no less than 10 years to make a successful
transition to federalism, involving a period of consolidation of several regions and
intensive socioeconomic development in each of consolidated regions.

Question regarding how many years it took for US to adopt Federalism.

E minus lang ben ang dates.
Federalism in the early Republic[edit]
Federalism was a political solution for the problems with the Articles of Confederation which gave
little practical authority to the federal government. For example, the Articles allowed the Continental
Congress the power to sign treaties and declare war, but it could not raise taxes to pay for an army
and all major decisions required a unanimous vote. [1]
The movement was greatly strengthened by the reaction to Shays' Rebellion of 17861787, which
was an armed uprising of yeoman farmers in westernMassachusetts. The rebellion was fueled by a
poor economy that was created, in part, by the inability of the federal government to deal effectively
with the debt from the American Revolutionary War. Moreover, the federal government had proven

incapable of raising an army to quell the rebellion, so that Massachusetts had been forced to raise
its own.
In 1787, fifty-five delegates met at a Constitutional convention in Philadelphia and generated ideas
of a bicameral legislature (United States Congress), balanced representation of small and large
states (Great Compromise), and checks and balances. James Madison stated in a long preconvention memorandum to delegates that because "one could hardly expect the state legislatures
to take enlightened views on national affairs", stronger central government was necessary.[2] This
convention almost immediately dropped its original mandate and instead set about constructing a
new Constitution of the United States. Once the convention concluded and released the Constitution
for public consumption, the Federalist movement became focused on getting the Constitution
ratified.
The most forceful defense of the new Constitution was The Federalist Papers, a compilation of 85
anonymous essays published in New York City to convince the people of the state to vote for
ratification. These articles, written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, with some
contributed by John Jay, examined the benefits of the new, proposed Constitution, and analyzed the
political theory and function behind the various articles of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers
remains one of the most important documents in American political science. [3]
Those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the "Anti-Federalists". They generally
were local rather than cosmopolitan in perspective, oriented to plantations and farms rather than
commerce or finance, and wanted strong state governments and a weak national government. The
Anti-Federalist critique soon centered on the absence of a bill of rights, which Federalists promised
to provide.
Because George Washington lent his prestige to the Constitution and because of the ingenuity and
organizational skills of its proponents, the Constitution was ratified by all the states. The
outgoing Congress of the Confederation scheduled elections for the new government, and set March
4, 1789 as the date that the new government would take power. In 1789, Congress submitted twelve
articles of amendment to the states. Ten of these articles, written by congressional committees,
achieved passage on December 15, 1791 and became the United States Bill of Rights. The Tenth
Amendment set the guidelines for federalism in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

Germany: Mura it started 1949 up to 1990 when they already adopted such form of government.

Constitutional merger[edit]
Fireworks at Brandenburg Gate after the reunification.

The process chosen was one of two options implemented in the West German constitution (Basic
Law) of 1949 to facilitate eventual reunification. The Basic Law stated that it was only intended for
temporary use until a permanent constitution could be adopted by the German people as a whole.

Via that document's (then-existing) Article 23, any new prospective Lndercould adhere to the Basic
Law by a simple majority vote. The initial eleven joining states of 1949 constituted the Trizone. West
Berlin had been proposed as the 12th state, but was legally inhibited by Allied objections since Berlin
as a whole was legally a quadripartite occupied area. Despite this, West Berlin's political affiliation
was with West Germany, and in many fields it functioned de facto as if it were a component state of
West Germany. In 1957 the Saar Protectorate joined West Germany under the Article 23 procedure
as Saarland.
The other option was Article 146, which provided a mechanism for a permanent constitution for a
reunified Germany. This route would have entailed a formal union between two German states that
then would have had to, amongst other things, create a new constitution for the newly established
country. However, by the spring of 1990 it was apparent that drafting a new constitution would
require protracted negotiations that would open up numerous issues in West Germany. Even without
this to consider, by the start of 1990 East Germany was in a state of utter collapse. In contrast,
reunification under Article 23 could be implemented in as little as six months.
Ultimately, when the treaty on monetary, economic and social union was signed, it was decided to
use the quicker process of Article 23. By this process, East Germany voted to dissolve itself and to
join West Germany as five new states, and the area in which the Basic Law was in force simply
extended to include them.[18]Thus, legally it was the five states, not East Germany as a whole, who
acceded to the Federal Republic. The five new states held their first elections on 14 October 1990.
The reunification was not a merger that created a third state out of the two. Rather, West Germany
effectively absorbed East Germany. Accordingly, on Unification Day, 3 October 1990, the German
Democratic Republic ceased to exist, and five new Federal States on its former territory joined the
Federal Republic of Germany. East and West Berlin were reunited, and joined the Federal Republic
as a full-fledged Federal City-State. Under this model, the Federal Republic of Germany, now
enlarged to include the five states of the former German Democratic Republic plus the reunified
Berlin, continued legally to exist under the same legal personality that was founded in May 1949.
While the Basic Law was modified rather than replaced by a constitution as such, it still permits the
adoption of a formal constitution by the German people at some time in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification

Malaysia: Lisod ang Malaysia..ala man gi state kung kanus.a sila nag sugod ug push ug federalism
pero ang ibutang kai kanus.a na establish ang government of Malaysia.

I dont know kung sakto ba akong ge research. Chatty lang ko.