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

Published 9:30 AM, January 31, 2016

Updated 2:18 AM, February 01, 2016

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.

Read on to find out more about federalism and its perceived advantages and
disadvantages.

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.

n 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 Malacaang that
decides how much to give local government units. The process is prone to abuse, with
governors and mayors sometimes having to beg Malacaang 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 Zamboangue os.

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