Dela Cruz, Katleen C.

LRCN16L

FEDERALISM: A NEED OR NOT?

It is widely known that pockets in the political and social arena has been active in proposing a
federal structure of government in the Philippines. These calls have been more highlighted after
President Rodrigo Duterte’s introduction of a federal form of government in the Philippines as one
of his goals in his six-year term.

Currently, the Philippines is under a unitary form of government - this means that the central
government is the highest governing power. It receives a large part of every region's income and
redistributes it, often disproportionately so. The autonomous regions, provinces, municipalities
and barangays can also only exercise powers and enact policies that the central government
chooses to delegate to them.

As for federalism, it is a proposed type of government wherein sovereignty is constitutionally

divided between the national government and sub divisional governments (such as regions or
provinces). Federalism divides the country into several autonomous regions with a national
government. These autonomous regions are even further divided into local government units
wherein they will have the main responsibility over developing their local industries, public health
and safety, education, transportation, and culture. These regions will also have more power over
their finances, policies, development plans, and laws. (Holden de La Cruz, June 2018)

According to President Duterte, a federal government will empower the states to make their own
decisions. They no longer need to rely on the central government to decide for them which would
allow them to keep more of their income to themselves. With this, they will be able to channel
their own income for their own development, creating policies and programs suitable for them
without having to wait for the national government to approve. Since states will be able to both
make their own decisions and retain the income, it's possible for federalism to promote
specialization and competition. This affects both the national government and the states - since
the national government turned certain administrative powers over to the regional governments,
it can now funnel its resources more intensively towards the issues it is assigned to, such as foreign
policy and nationwide defense. Likewise, the states are now able to nurture their individual
strengths and selling points because the people who have the decisions and funding are the people
who are personally involved in the state's development. These self-reliant states will compare their
growth to the growth of their surrounding states which might lead to friendly competition
between states that will help raise the quality of life and economic development for everybody
involved.

President Duterte also presents federalism as a possible solution to the Mindanao conflict instead
of implementing the Bangsamoro Basic Law. According to him, "nothing short can bring peace in
Mindanao". This is likely a reference to the numerous revisions the BBL has undergone, and the
number of years it has stayed in Congress. Furthermore, Duterte said a federal constitution would
"truly embody the ideals and aspirations" of all Filipinos and create opportunities for growth. He
added that he is confident that the Filipino people will stand behind him as he introduce this new
fundamental law that will not only strengthen the 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 anyone can proudly bequeath to the
succeeding generations. But contradicting to what he believes in, a recent survey by Pulse
Asia found that 67% of Filipinos oppose the change, while only 18 percent were in favor and the
other 14 percent were undecided.

For many countries, such as the United States, Malaysia, Australia and Germany, federalization
was a state-building effort. Each began as a loose collection of disparate political entities that
gradually, and with painful upheavals, transformed themselves into a unified nation-state through
the process of federalization. But on a deeper reflection, I believe, it would essentially be the
reverse in our case. We might see Federalism well suited for the Philippines too but, it could
become a recipe for disaster in a country that is already divided by language, religion and economic
inequality. Obviously, we face a much harder, more complicated, and possibly harsher version of
federalization. And clearly, disadvantages of federalism in the context of Philippine society far
outweigh the perceived advantages.

Here are several reasons why I think that we should avoid moving precipitously in this direction and
proceed instead with extreme care and discretion:
Local political clans will gain more power and influence.

According to academic studies, around 178 so-called "political dynasties" – politicians related by
kinship and blood – control 73 out of 81 provinces across the country. They also control up to 70%
of the legislature, thus they seem likely to remove any proposed restrictions on the proliferation
of political dynasties. (Richard Heydarian, 2018) In Region 1, the Marcos clan dominates provincial
politics in Ilocos Norte. Despite the Marcos domination, the Farinas clan, a rival clan, controls
Laoag City. Ilocos Sur is at the hands of the following clans: Singson and Baterina. La Union is
controlled by Ortega clan, Dumpit clan and Nisce clan. Pangasinan is home for several clans:
Estrada and Perez clans control the eastern part of the province; the central province is dominated
by the Agbayani clan; and the north-west part is controlled by De Venecia clan. Cordillera
Autonomous Region is home for the following clans: Valera Clan in Abra; Luna clan; and Paredes
clan. Apayao is dominated by Bulut clan and Dalwasen clan. Ifugao is in the hands of Brawner and
Cappleman clans. Dominguez, Dalog, Malinas, Claver and Mayaen clans in Mountain province.
Molinas, Cosalan and Dangwa clans in Benguet. (Eric Gutierrez, Ties that Bind: A Guide to Family,
Business and Other Interest of the Ninth House of Representatives, Manila: PCIJ, 1994)

With a federal system, it could further strengthen the power of political dynasties and warlords,
which control the Philippines’ peripheries. They would be more powerful and influential because
of the decentralization of authority and power wherein they will be able to raise their own taxes,
pass their own laws, and pretty much do what they please in concealment and without being
checked. Homegrown oligarchs will tend to pursue their own parochial interests, all too often at the
expense of the interests of society. What our country needs is a system of government that will unify
our fragmented society and I believe that federalism will have the opposite effect because it will
effectively break up our already divided country into virtually self-contained fiefdoms where powerful
families can continue to hold sway.

There will be a great threat to the Press.

The media’s duty is to monitor the government and hold it to account. But under federalism, local
tyrants can pass laws to restrict and silence the press, consistent with the proposal of the current
House majority to emasculate Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, which protects free
expression and press freedom as well as freedom of assembly. Therefore, it would be easier for
them to shut down the press especially those who contradicts and mock them.

We should not forget that nowadays, journalists are already being killed, mostly in the rural
communities. Four were slain during the 19 months of the Duterte regime. In at least 61 of the
156 cases of journalists killed since 1986 for reporting and commenting on corruption, criminal
syndicates, the despoliation of the environment and other issues, local and provincial officials
including governors and mayors have been tagged as the masterminds. This is especially apparent
in the Nov. 23, 2009 Ampatuan Massacre — the worst incident of its kind in history — in which 58
men and women including 32 journalists and media workers were brutally murdered. Several
members of the powerful Ampatuan political clan are accused of masterminding the massacre,
and of using the military, paramilitary and police personnel under their pay and currently being
tried with them to do the killings.

Imagine a situation in which warlords are in control of states that they can run as their exclusive
feudal domains with even more powers. Imagine how their command over the police, paramilitary
groups and even military units will enable them to violate human rights even more, and to curtail
press freedom.

Uneven distribution of wealth among Local Units.

Federalism can lead to neglection of some regions. Inequalities in local and regional economy are
shown in the latest statistics conducted by Industry Statistics Division, National Statistics Office
(2007) stating that the combined regions of CALABARZON and MIMAROPA generated the highest
output valued at Php 1, 328.7 billion in 2005, which is nearly half (45.6%) of the total output value
of the entire manufacturing sector. This was followed by NCR and Central Luzon with Php 562.9
billion (19.3) and Php 387. 8 billion (13.3%), respectively. Altogether, the 3 regions accounted for
78.3% of the total output manufacturing sector. In terms of employment, CALABARZON and
MIMAROPA registered the highest rate of 41.1%, followed by NCR with 26.4%, Central Visayas
with 11.9%, and Central Luzon with 10.4 %.

Therefore, such uneven distribution of economic opportunities to the different regions in the
country would lead to:

 Regions which are performing well would become even more forceful because
opportunities, from the national government and those coming from within, would then
be concentrated on these regions.
 Less performing regions would remain stagnant. This is because these regions would have
fewer opportunities because most of these opportunities are already in the hands of the
well performing ones.
 Regions will be treated differently depending on the availability of their natural resources.
 Regions like NCR and Central Visayas which have big number of voters would have
advantage in terms of opportunities coming from the national leadership. This will cause a
great unfairness within the regions since national politicians would tend to concentrate
government grants to regions with big number of voters.
Poor will become poorer.

Studies show that only a few regions are capable of raising enough taxes on their own. The vast
majority of provinces, which will be submerged into new federal states, lack the basic
administrative capacity for generating revenue. It will make the poor poorer because they will be
burdened with taxes of all kinds to support and maintain the federal central government and
regional governments. Not to mention duplication in taxes and further stress on the nascent
bureaucracy of peripheral regions under a federal arrangement.

With that, richer states, who can raise enough taxes, will have even more resources to enhance
their competitiveness. They will offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor
states can, thus widening the gap between the rich and poor regions.

Federalism cannot solve the Mindanao conflict.

Many advocates of Federalism viewed federalism as the only hope for the total resolution of
conflict in Mindanao. This, I do not agree. Conflict in Mindanao is a result of multifarious factors
such as call for sovereignty and independence, terrorism, and family feuds (rido), the first factor
which is the call for sovereignty and independence would be resolved in federalism. However, the
two other factors such as terrorism and rido could not be eliminated by federalism.

In a survey conducted by Jamail Kamlian of Mindanao State University — Iligan entitled “Incidences
of Clan Conflict and Conflict Management: Survey of feuding Families and Clans in Selected
Provinces of Mindanao”, it was shown that there are 671 rido cases in nine selected Mindanao
provinces. The highest was in Lanao Del Norte with 164 reported cases, followed by Sulu with 145,
Zamboanga Del Sur with 91, Zamboanga Sibugay with 75, Zamboanga Del Norte with 62, Basilan
with 60, North Cotabato with 31, Tawi Tawi with 25 and Sultan Kudarat with 18. It is noteworthy
that most of the provinces where rido or family feuds are prevalent are the same provinces where
arm conflicts are rampant.

In a federal system, the likely scenario is this: families will continue to war against each other
because they would compete in the political arena where local control and power is the prize.
Hence, Federalism, in it’s hope to eliminate and resolve the problem in Mindanao would not be
effective instead, it would even contribute to further the proliferation of these family conflicts.
While the idea of federalism in the Philippines is attractive for most Filipinos, an abrupt shift in our
form of government is an inappropriate change strategy. Changing our system of government in one
fell swoop from the present unitary to a federal system of government, either through a constituent
assembly or a constitutional convention held for that purpose, will be very disruptive and may well
lead to a semi-permanent state of chaos. The possible benefits that are marketed by the idea will
also inevitably come at a cost and will require extensive time and effort from both governments
and citizens alike. Moreover, in the absence of well-developed social, political and economic
institutions to facilitate a smooth transition from one system to the other, such a change strategy is
fraught with unseen risks and is bound to flounder and failure.

Therefore, to achieve the ultimate goal of public policy, there is an obvious need for a centralized
administrative mechanism to holistically manage the external and residual effects of choices made
at the regional and local levels, and to ensure that these are brought into coherence. There is also a
need for an overarching mechanism to co-align and reconcile the conflicting interests of the various
segments of society, and to ensure that the pursuit of their own objectives will contribute maximally
to social well-being. We, Filipinos, must also tweak the existing dysfunctional system to correct
itself—one small step at a time—to better serve the emergent needs and aspirations of our evolving
nation. We must reassess our positions on the looming federalization of the country by focusing
more in our oneness as a people. We must highlight the positive things we have in common, rather
than our differences since the essence of nationhood is thinking, feeling, and caring for the nation
- as a whole, not only for an elite minority, one’s region or sector but for the vast majority of our
people---whether Christian, Muslim, peasant, poor, rich, women, men or other.

As what an eminent researcher, Prof. Felipe De Leon quoted, “Bound by a shared history,
languages, folklore, artistic traditions, culinary habits, kinship patterns and many other factors, it
will not be difficult for us to subordinate selfish interest to the national welfare, if we truly desire
to. Let us regain our strengths and cultivate our oneness and solidarity as a people. Let us all
participate in the noble objective of developing self-reliance, drawing from our collective spirit
all the energy and courage we need to steer the country peacefully toward its creative destiny
and sovereign majesty in the community of nations.”