Federalism: A Go or A No?

Position Paper

Respectfully Submitted to:

Prof. Atty. Cris Tenorio

prepared and submitted by:

Ma. Leanne Paula L. Mendoza

Arellano University School of Law
Freshman - 1st Sem
AY 2017 - 2018

December 14, 2017

 Federalism: A Go or a No?

Introduction:

Change is coming.

This is the campaign tagline adopted by the Duterte administration wherein he

rallied such political euphemism in the course of his campaign. Eventually, such
promising statement has propelled his ascent to power along with the support from
the Filipino people.

Majority of the Philippine electoral body seemingly acquiesced themselves in

the above slogan with hopeful hearts that the chosen leader will bring about the
promised change, progress and panacea to an ailing sleeping tiger of Asia – the
Philippines.

Among other sweet promises, Federalism, has been the talk of the town lately.

What is Federalism?

We do have various impressions on such a form of government. However, the

Filipino has been accustomed to a democratic way of life. Consequently, the mere
mention of Federalism generates a plethora of various reactions both in the positive
and adverse standing.

However, simply put, a federal government is one where there is a formal

division of functions and powers between the national and local governments.

Historical Background of Federalism:

On a global perspective, some popular federal states are the United States of
America and Canada. These are states which have been long accustomed to the
Federal system and orientation as early as the 1800s.

On the otherhand, “other governments also adopted the Federal system after
the World War II. These countries include: Germany, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan,
Spain, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Russia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Ethiopia, India,
Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Belgium, Australia, Austria, Argentina, Serbia, Mexico,
United Arab Emirates, Ireland and the Micronesian States”.1
 Locally, the concept of a Federal government has been practiced by the
ancient Filipinos. They have organized their social life in small communities and
clans.

Historically, “before the arrival of the Spaniards in 1521, the civilization along
our rivers had already displayed an earlier form of Federalism. At the banks of the
Pasig River extending to the coast of Laguna de Bay, an ancient polity existed called
the Namayan Kingdom.” 2

“The kingdom is made up of a confederation of Villages (barangay), which had

leaders ' Datu ' and warriors ' Maharlika ' on each of the villages.”3

“From the confederation of several ' Datus ', a supreme leader ruled among
them. According to Fr. Huerta, the rulers were Lakan Tagkan and Lady Buan”.4

However, the advent of the four and a half centuries of Spanish and American
colonization has superimposed the adoption of a federal system.

“When the Spaniards arrived in Manila in 1571, the two other polities that they
encountered are the Kingdom of Tondo and The Kingdom of Manila, which were
ruled by Lakandula and Rajah Sulayman. The set-up of the polities was the same. It
was a confederation of villages led by one ruler. Significantly, the ancient region of
what we now call NCR today was not governed by a unitary government or by a
single leader. There was a political division.”5

“Most ancient civilizations around the world settled along the rivers. But what
is interesting with the Kingdoms in Manila is that they had a sense of boundary and
responsibility. Until today, the confederation of villages is carried over in our current
political set-up. Villages are clustered to form LGUs or municipalities.” 6

Presently, the proposed shift from the unitary to Federal system of

government has been advocated by Senator Nene Pimentel and former UP
President Jose Abueva.

“Dr. Abueva has drafted a primer commissioned as part of the Consultative

Commission appointed by former President Arroyo in 2006. But, since it was
received by public resistance repulsive to charter change, the primer was unripe to
succeed in its proposal for a Federal system of government.”7

In a nutshell, “the primer suggested 11 states namely: Bangsamoro, Davao

Region and Central Mindanao, Zamboanga Peninsula and Northern Mindanao,
Central and Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas – Palawan, Bicol, Southern Luzon,
Metro Manila (NCR), Central Luzon, Cordilleras and Northern Luzon.”8
Drafts, Proposals and Federalism Defined:

The drafted primer defined federal system as having orders of government

(federal and regional) each in direct contact with its citizens. There is an official,
constitutional sharing of legislative and executive powers, and a sharing of resources
between the two orders of government to ensure that each has certain sectors of the
autonomy. Thirdly, there is designated presentation of district regional opinions within
federal decision – making institutions.

Moreover, “there is a supreme written constitution that is not unitarily

modifiable but requires the consent of a large proportion of federation members. In
addition, there is an arbitration mechanism to resolve intergovernmental disputes.
Lastly, there are procedures and institutions to facilitate intergovernmental
collaboration in cases of shared domains or overlapping responsibilities.” 9

“In the proposed federal system, the institutions of the Federal government
consists of the Bicameral Parliament wherein the members are from Congressional
districts – and senators, a prime minister who is head of government, a president
who is head of state and will handle ceremonial matters, a judiciary and a federal
civil service.” 10

Moreover, the institutions of the state include the State assembly and its
members shall be elected by each state governor, the local governments, the state
judiciary and the state civil service.

Efforts by Congress have geared towards the approval of the new Philippine
Federal Constitution. In a news article of the Manila Bulletin written by Clarissa M.
Luci – Atienza, four technical working groups of the House Committee on
Constitutional Amendments are eyeing the approval of the draft of the Philippine
Federal Constitution.

Consequently, the members of the working groups eye the submission of the
drafts to the House Committee on Rules chaired by Majority Leader Rep. Rodolfo
Farinas by December this year.

“The first technical working group chaired by Negros Oriental Rep. Corazon
Nunez – Malanyaon will handle provisions on the Executive – Legislative Articles
( Art VI – VIII); New Article on Federal and Regional Powers, Numbers of States and
Local Government and Taxation / Allocation of Resources ( Article X).”11
 “The second technical working group will draft provisions on Judiciary ( Article
VIII ); Amendments on Revisions ( Article XVII ); Suffrage ( Article V); Citizenship
(Article IV) and Bill of Rights ( Article III).” 12

“The third technical working group chaired by Negros Occidental Rep. Alfredo
Benitez. They are expected to prepare the Preamble; National Territory; Declaration
of Principles and State Policies ( Article II ); General Provisions ( Article XVI) and the
Transitory Provisions ( Article XVIII)”.13

Lastly, “the fourth technical working group led by Leyte Rep. Vicente Veloso,
will handle Social Justice, Labor and Others (Article XIII); Education; Science and
others (Article XIV); National Economy and Patrimony ( Article XII ); New article on
Bill of Duties; Accountability of Public officials ( Article XI ) and Family ( Article XV )
”.14

Federalism: A Go or a No?

Despite the novelty of a new structure of government and amidst the various
popular advocacies supporting the change towards a federal government, this paper
strongly opposes the said proposal. First of all, a self-ruled state may not be in the
society's best interest. Hence, adopting a firm stand against Federalism.

The shift to Federalism is a lethal experiment. It is a fatal leap, a plunge to

death and a leap to hell. It is yet again another alluring false promise.

This position paper shared the legal opinion of former Chief Justice Hilario
Davide Jr. in opposing the move toward a federal government structure in the
Philippines.

Ultimately, “the movement towards Federalism is a hasty procedure

undertaken. There is an unusual haste in rushing the drafting of the proposed
Constitution for the Federal Republic of the Philippines by a Constituent Assembly
with the proposal at hand serving as its working drafts.”15

The first proposal is Senate Resolution No. 10 filed by then Senator Nene
Pimentel during the fourteenth Congress. The second is Resolution No. 08
introduced by Rep. Aurelio Gonzales and Eugene Michael de Vera. The third is from
the PDP Laban Federalism Institute.
 The former Chief Justice Davide expressed that each of the proposals can
produce the longest Constitution the Philippines will ever have. How practicable is
that then?

“If we are going to look at the intent to expedite the approvals of the
abovementioned proposed drafts, the Filipino people have to be wary that these
measures may seek to advance institutional interests at the disadvantage of other
institutional actors.

Worth noting is the stand of the UP Diliman Political Science Department

questioning the timing of the call by President Duterte for a Constitutional Assembly
at a time 61 percent of Filipinos are either opposed to or undecided on the shift to
Federalism according to a Pulse Asia survey.” 16

Furthermore, the Filipino must not simply accept, on a positive note, that
change is coming. The proposed shift may lack the “democratic structures” and may
favor electoral systems that distort the distribution of representations and power.

Marc Jayson Cayabyab in his article in Philippine Daily Inquirer dated 16th
November 2016, emphasized that Congress, long dominated by administration
allies, may also have the tendency of favoring the federal design envisioned by
President Duterte who has expressed preference for the French parliamentarian
model with a strong presidency.

“We must heed the warning of the UP Diliman Political Science Department
that by passing such drafts, it would institute “hyperpresidentialism” which is a
complete opposite of the existing 1987 Constitution wherein it expressly safeguards
the discretionary powers of the executive branch”.17

Thus, considering these points, should we, therefore, affirm that the move
towards Federalism is a threat against upholding our 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The former Chief Justice Davide could not be more truthful in his observation
that the proposed drafts are principally geared towards decentralizing the so called
powers of the “ Imperial Manila “.

Pushing for Federalism in the guise of quashing the “Imperial Manila” that is
characterized by a centralized unitary system is deceptive.

Federalism does not necessarily solve the issue of unequal distribution of

government revenues and may potentially worsen it. The proposal to adopt a federal
system of government is not a guarantee that the low income earning localities will
have a greatly improved income resource. This is an erroneous assumption since it
is, as if, all the revenues in the current system are being swallowed by NCR and its
surrounding regions, to the detriment of the remote provinces as many federalism
supporters claim.
 The seeming unequal distribution of wealth is largely not due to a defect in the
system of government. It is due to either possible embezzlement of funds by a local
official or the development officials on the locality are sleeping on their jobs. Thus, it
is not an issue of system of government but a matter of competence of the local
government leaders.

With these, let us ponder where will the government source its funds to fuel
such change? You got it. A change in government is tantamount to more fees, debt
and taxes. State taxation is actually also a feature of federalism as implemented in
the United States of America. More changes, more costs, more taxes. The shift
towards Federalism then will further plunge the marginalized Juan de la cruz into
higher costs of living in exchange for false promises of a better life in the name of
Federalism.

Considering these, it seems that supporters of Federalism never heed the

alarming costs of such change as they failed to consider the incremental and
continuing costs of running such type of government and the potential additional
fiscal burden to citizens in the form of higher taxes.

Moreover, the present Constitution already has Article X devoted to the Local
Government which already guarantees the local autonomy and decentralization. It is
safe to say then, that the 1987 Constitution, as provided for in Article X sufficiently
addresses the so called tremendous imbalance in favor of Manila and against the
present political subdivisions or local government units.

In fact, there is no need to push for a change towards Federal government.

The 1987 Constitution is already sufficient enough to effectively implement the
relevant provisions for a strong local autonomy and decentralization. Changing
towards Federalism will be merely time consuming and costly for the government.
Overall, Federalism would increase the cost of administration and government.

Only 27% of the Filipino people know the Constitution. By changing into a
federal government, the majority will need to readjust needlessly with a federal
system. Should not our present governance then simply focus on public service?
How about implementing more social welfare laws to enable the principles
established in the fundamental law of the land?

Federalism would not be another “magical incantation” invoked by the present

administration to resolve the woeful poverty, unemployment, labor drain and poor
implementation of laws in the Philippines.
 Changing our system of government would not only exact needless costs. It
would also be time consuming. The government can be more productively devoted
into improving public service, promoting social justice and most of all, focusing on
becoming a robust economy in Asia. Hence, what this administration lacks in
economic development could not be compensated by a move towards Federalism.

There are more pressing needs that that this sovereign country must prioritize.
To mention a few, we have a horrifying state of traffic that constantly endangers the
riding public. Secondly, we have to defend our claim in Kalayaan Group of Islands.
Third, we also need to further address the alarming prevalance of terrorism and
insurgence in our homeland. Lastly, our government must intensify efforts in fighting
the moral decadence of our bureaucracy.

Federalism is not a cure towards genuine economic progress. Instead of

looking after a more unified archipelagic Philippines, Federalism will only make the
country more susceptible to abuses. The powers of various localities maybe abused
into fiefdoms.

Democracy is threatened by Federalism. Our economic provisions may be

endangered by such move to shift our government structure. The change in the
charter will overhaul sound economic policies applicable for us today.

We could therefore, conclude that not all change that is coming is good.
Worse,it can possibly disturb the well-settled systems of a free Democratic society
which we have earned as powers will be decentralized in the guise of debunking an
old “ Imperial Manila”.

Recommendation:

As a people, we must remember that a true change of government does not

only mandate a move to a shift to a “hyperpresidentialist” type of federalism.

To let change take its place, the government must implement more laws and
programs geared towards Social Justice along with a more patriotic culture instead
of propagating bureaucratic mentality peppered with an ingrained culture of
corruption and political dynasties. Additionally, the Local governments must adopt
operational excellence programs to streamline cumbersome government processes
and procedures. This will result to the non-validity of a new governmental federal
structure.

Change should come not towards our government structure. But, it must be
from within. Instead of tolerating the very decadent Filipino culture, a change in
government may change its structure. Although, it is useless if its people remain
indifferent to genuine nation building.
 In summary, we should be vigilant enough to uphold the mandate of our
paramount
1987 Constitution.

Federalism is a definite No. Federalism will not break the twin scourges of
corruption and poverty.

Hopefully, the majority has already learned the lessons from its past.
Otherwise, the ghost of a dictatorship can repeat itself in our Philippine history.

Once again, no to Federalism. Yes to upholding the 1987 Philippine

Constitution.

___________________________________________________________________

Endnotes:

1. Florangel Rosario Braid, Federalism 101, Manila Bulletin, ( May 20, 2012).

2. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

3. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

4. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

5. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

6. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

7. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

8. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

9. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.

10. Mauro Gia Samonte, Federalism and Planning, Manila Times, 15 June 2016,
http://www.manilatimes.net/ federalism-and-planning / 268024/.
11. Charissa M. Luci – Atienza, House Eyes Approval of New PH Federal
Constitution by November, Manila Bulletin, (August 28, 2017),
http://news.com.ph/ 2017/08/28/ house-eyes-approval-of-new-ph-federal-
constitution-by-november/.

12. Charissa M. Luci – Atienza, House Eyes Approval of New PH Federal

Constitution by November, Manila Bulletin, (August 28, 2017),
http://news.com.ph/ 2017/08/28/ house-eyes-approval-of-new-ph-federal-
constitution-by-november/.

13. Charissa M. Luci – Atienza, House Eyes Approval of New PH Federal

Constitution by November, Manila Bulletin, (August 28, 2017),
http://news.com.ph/ 2017/08/28/ house-eyes-approval-of-new-ph-federal-
constitution-by-november/.

14. Charissa M. Luci – Atienza, House Eyes Approval of New PH Federal

Constitution by November, Manila Bulletin, (August 28, 2017),
http://news.com.ph/ 2017/08/28/ house-eyes-approval-of-new-ph-federal-
constitution-by-november/.

15. Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., Shift to Federalism: A Lethal
experiment, a fatal leap, a plunge to death, a leap to hell ( Joint Membership
Forum of the Makati Business Club, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Management Association of the Philippines and the Employees
Confederation of the Philippines and the Employees Confederation of the
Philippines, Manila Polo Club, November 21, 2017, Part I ( November 27,
2017).

16. Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Congress Warned on Dangers of Con – ass,

Federalism, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, (November 16, 2016).

17. Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Congress Warned on Dangers of Con – ass,

Federalism, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, (November 16, 2016).