RESEARCH PAPER:

FEDERALISM: A DIFFERENT SET-UP IN

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

(In partial fulfillment of the academic requirements in

MPA 201: Philippine Administrative System)

Submitted by:

GEMINE AILNA P. NUEVO

G18-0043

Submitted to:

MR. RAUL DE GUZMAN, LLB, MPA

Professor

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

INTRODUCTION

The concept of a federal government for the Philippines was first suggested by Jose Rizal where
the country’s national hero outlined his vision of federalist governance on his essay "Las Filipinas
Dentro de Cien Anos" that was published by the Barcelona-based propaganda paper La Solidaridad
in 1889. Thus, proposals to adopt a federal system of government in the country are not a recent
phenomenon. Filipinos at different critical historical periods have made attempts to do this in
various forms: 1) proposals in the constitution/s; 2) political campaign platforms; and 3) advocacy
through the formation of an alliance for a federalist movement. The earliest discussion on
federalism for the Philippines began in 1899 and has persisted through the 1946 Republic, Martial
Law, and People Power.

The first proponents of federalism in the country include Professor Jose Abueva from the
University of the Philippines and former Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., who both argued that a
federal form of government is necessary to efficiently cater to the needs of the country, facilitate
better delivery of services to the people and a key component in alleviating the Mindanao crisis
and appeasing Moro insurgents.

In 2016, when President Rodrigo Duterte assumed presidency, a proposed shift from a unitary to
a federal form of government marked a wide‐ranging and significant political and socioeconomic
reforms. He also openly promoted and called for support from policymakers towards this shift,
primarily to maximize regional growth potentials and to resolve decades of unrest in Mindanao.

This paper aims to discuss the Philippine geography and its current Philippine Government
Structure, the concept of federalism and its issues and challenges in the Philippine Government.
In addition, a comparison between a unitary form of government and a federal form of government
will be discussed as well as the drafting of Philippine Constitution, and the previous campaigns
for federalism.

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Proponents of federalism are, understandably, focusing on the benefits of this system of

government, which is in use by several countries, among them the US, Canada, Germany,
Switzerland, Australia, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and, in Asia, Malaysia, India, and
Pakistan. On the other hand, those who are resisting federalism have expressed both valid reasons,
as well as concerns that come with fear of the unknown.

Basically, the shift to federalism means having two levels of government controlling the same
territory. At present, what we have is a unitary system, where the national government is sovereign
and the states are administrative arms of the central government. In the American federal system,
the people retain their basic sovereignty and they delegate some powers to the national government
and reserve other powers to the states. Individuals are citizens of both the general government and
their respective states. But like many other form of government federalism has also its own
advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of having a federal form of government are as
follows:
1. The sharing of powers in a federal system will ensure that the federal states will have ample
powers to develop their own social, economic, and political potentials. With adequate
powers the federal states will be able to modernize themselves. As they modernize, the
political stability of the whole country will be strengthened.
2. The creation of a BangsaMoro Federal State is the only constitutional and legal means of
dissipating the causes of Muslim rebellions and of laying the foundations of a just and
lasting peace in Mindanao. The adoption of the federal system will enable the BangsaMoro
a fuller opportunity to promote their own identity and culture and their own economic
development at their own pace without the need of seceding or declaring their
independence from the republic.
3. The concentration of power and resources in the president of the Philippines over fiscal
resources and appointments in the bureaucracy can be used to secure economic rents and
accumulate wealth which can be easily abused, ushering in corruption. When corruption
reaches intolerable limits, political conflicts intensify and instability emerge.
4. The Philippine experience under a unitary system of government limits the space for local
governments to take initiatives and become self-reliant.
5. In a unitary government, the people are ruled by dynasties, run by economic elite,
threatened by criminal syndicates. It is far more difficult to capture powers of government
in a federal state than a unitary state.

In contrast, below are the disadvantages of having a federal government:

1. Establishing a multilayer of government structure consisting of central and regional
governments will be costly, creating an enlarged and bloated bureaucracy.
2. The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) puts the additional cost in the
range of P44-72 billion, not even counting changes in the judiciary, if there is a shift to a
federal system.
3. Federalism will strengthen political dynasties in the regional governments, perpetrate
themselves in power and amass vast wealth through corruption.
4. Federalism 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.

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

 5. The principle of federalism – local autonomy, subsidiarity and decentralization – are
already in the 1987 Constitution. What needs to be done is to operationalize these principles
of federalism.
6. The unitary system has carried this nation through tests of fire: the Filipino – American
War (1898-1902), World War II against Japan (1941-1944), rebellion, coup attempts and
war in Marawi.

Noting the advantages and disadvantages of federal type of government. There are some issues
and challenges in federalism concerning the Philippines. First is to iron out the overlaps in
jurisdiction. Unless responsibilities of state governments and national governments are very
clearly stated in the amended Constitution, there will be ambiguities that can lead to conflict and
confusion. Next, there is always a chance that it will bring more division than unity in the
Philippines. It can arise from more than just increased hostility between ethnic groups -
competition between states can quickly become unhealthy, and can lead to the regionalism that is
currently already challenging the unity of the country Another concern in pushing for a federal
system is the capacities and capabilities of the state and local governments. While preparing for
federalism, the government should be more decentralized. It is necessary to promote and develop
self-reliance in the local governments that will be converted to states. They should have the
capability and resources to function effectively as states under a federal government. They should
be enabled to respond to the needs and demands of the community and fulfill their roles under a
federal set-up. Parallel movement, therefore, of devolution and federalism is vital.

RELATED THEORIES AND STUDIES

Philippine Geography and Government Structure

The Philippines is a South East Asian archipelago of more than 7,100 islands. It has a land area of
about 300,000 square kilometers and has one of the longest coastlines in the world. The country’s
population of 103 million consists of 110 different ethnic groups. Its official languages are
Filipino and English, although it has more than 170 spoken dialects. About 92 percent of the
population are Christians, 5 percent are Muslims, and the remaining 3 percent include Buddhists
and animists.

The Philippines has a presidential unitary government system. The national government has three
independent branches, namely, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. The executive is
headed by a popularly elected president. It is functionally organized into sectoral departments,
each headed by a cabinet secretary appointed by the president. The legislature, or Congress, is
bicameral and composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate consists of
24 senators who are nationally elected for a six‐year term. The House of Representatives currently
consists of 294 members elected for three‐year terms, representing legislative districts and party
list organizations. The judiciary is composed of the Supreme Court and the lower courts.

The political subdivisions are the 81 provinces, 145 cities, 1489 municipalities, and 42,036
barangays. They are collectively referred to as local government units. The barangay is the lowest
tier of local government. A group of barangays comprise a municipality. The more urbanized and

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

developed barangays comprise a city. A city is classified either as component or highly urbanized,
with the latter being independent of the province. A cluster of municipalities or municipalities and
component cities, comprise a province. Each local government is headed by directly elected
officials, namely, a chief executive and legislative council members.

A group of contiguous provinces with a common history, cultural heritage, socioeconomic

structure, or natural resource, form a region. The country currently has 17 regions. All but ARMM
are administrative regions. Administrative regions mainly serve as focal points for the de-
concentration of some planning and administrative functions of the national government, with
each executive department having regional offices. Regions are not political units, and they do not
have elected officials.

The Federal Form of Government

Daniel Elazar in 1987 book, Exploring Federalism defined federalism as self-rule plus shared-rule.
In his definition, it can be implied that federalism means that powers are divided and sovereignty
are shared.

Another famous definition of federalism is by William H. Riker in his 1975 article, “Federalism”
in Handbook of Political Science. He defined federalism as a political organization in which the
activities of government are divided between regional governments and a central government in
such a way that each kind of government has some activities on which it makes final decisions.
Moreover, International IDEA in its 2015 primer “Federalism”, defined it as a system of
government that establishes a constitutionally specified division of powers between different levels
of government.

Thus, Federalism is a form of government where there are two levels of government: federal or
national, and states or regional governments. In theory, federalism is the sharing of sovereignty
between two levels of local government. “The idea is the federal government and state
governments are equal.”

Professor Ronald Watts of Queen’s University, Canada, has drawn up a list of structural
characteristics distinctive to federations:

1. Two orders of government, each in direct contact with its citizens;

2. An official, constitutional sharing of legislative and executive powers, and a sharing of
revenue sources between the two orders of government, to ensure that each has certain
sectors of true autonomy;
3. Designated representation of distinct regional opinions within federal decision-making
institutions, usually guaranteed by the specific structure of the federal Second Chamber;
4. A supreme written constitution that is not unilaterally modifiable but requires the consent
of a large proportion of federation members;
5. An arbitration mechanism (in the form of courts or a referendum) to resolve
intergovernmental disputes;
6. Procedures and institutions designed to facilitate intergovernmental collaboration in cases
of shared domains or inevitable overlapping of responsibilities. (Watts, 2002, p.8)

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

In addition, he mentioned that federalism provides a constitutional organization that allows action
by a shared government for certain common purposes while permitting for autonomous action by
constituent units of government for purposes that relate to preserving their distinctiveness, with
each level directly responsible to its electorate. He also cited three major lessons from the various
experiences on federalism since 1945:

1. Federal political systems do provide a practical way of combining, through representative

institutions, the benefits of unity and diversity, but they are no panacea for all of humanity’s
political ills.
2. The degree to which a federal political system can be effective will depend upon the extent
to which there is acceptance of the need to respect constitutional norms and structures and
upon an emphasis on the spirit of tolerance and compromise,
3. Effectiveness also depends upon whether the particular form or variant of federal system
that is adopted or evolved gives adequate expression to the demands and requirements of
the particular society in question.

A federal government would enable the needs of a nation to be achieved while providing a space
for diversity. As a phrase goes, it provides “unity in diversity”. The federal structure devises a
flexible arrangement for varying forms of self-government to suit different circumstances and
contingencies. History would show us several countries that used federalism in dealing with
diversity. In Switzerland and Canada for instance, the adoption of federalism was, to some extent,
a result of a need to accommodate diverse communities. After World War 2, India, Malaysia and
Nigeria used the federal mechanism to settle ethnic diversity. Pakistan also used the federal design
to manage ethno-national diversity after it emerged as an independent state.

Federalism versus Unitary Form of Government

1. The Unitary Form of Government

The unitary system, which revolves around a central authority, is the system used in most
presidential and parliamentary countries today. Some refer to this type as a top-to-bottom
government since the power comes from the top and trickles down to the bottom.

This central government is in fact in charge of policy making and is the ultimate law
making body in the land. In many cases like the Philippines, it delegates these tasks to
subsequent provincial and local government units. These units implement enact laws as
mandated by the central agency.

The main advantage of the unitary system is uniformity among the different local and
provincial governments. All major laws and policies are then implemented the same
regardless of the level of government.

Local and national disputes are also less frequent. Since the national government is the
ultimate governing body, local government units cannot enact their own laws that could

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

 duplicate services or undermine laws in effect. Much like a father with his family, it is the
central government’s house, so its rules must be followed.

The unitary system is not without skeletons in its closet. One huge problem with this
structure is that the central agency cannot tackle local problems head on. This is a problem
since upon being carried out by the local governments, specific needs are easily overlooked
in the smaller case analysis. Like a stressed, overloaded brain of the human body, the
higher government is not able to specifically address many local issues as it tries to balance
its many other responsibilities.

Local government units up to the provincial government may also be ill-equipped to tackle
local concerns. Since the national government deals with national problems and is
responsible for budgeting of sectors, it may allocate funds for bigger projects and programs,
leaving the local governments to fend for themselves.

2. The Federal Form of Government

Unlike a nation under a unitary form of government, a federal state is divided into several
smaller, self-governed states or regions. These states function almost like independent
countries, and may even have their own set of state-specific laws – same-sex marriage may
be allowed in some but not in others, for example – but are directly concerned with
nationwide issues such as national defense or foreign policy. Those issues are handled by
a central government, which acts like a governing body of the smaller, state-governing
bodies. The states and the central government follow a set of rules and policies that define
their relationship and what can and cannot be done by both.

The federal type of governance has many advantages. Geoffrey de Q. Walker, Emeritus
Professor of Law at the University of Queensland, explains some of these advantages. One
of these is the right of choice and exit by the citizens. A federation citizen has greater
freedom of choosing and moving to a state that he or she considers satisfactory. In a sense,
movement by citizens in-between states is an act of “voting with their feet,” allowing
people to “compare different political systems in the same country.”

Another advantage is the possibility of experimentation. Though experimentation is

definitely not a pleasant word to hear for a leadership role where lives and resources are at
stake, the fact that states have some degree of autonomy allows the central government to
determine which political system, laws, and policies in effect work positively and
maximize welfare.

The third advantage according to Walker, and arguably also one of the most important, is
the accommodation of regional preferences and diversity. This advantage holds much
more significance in larger countries where culture and lifestyles can differ across regions.
“By these means, overall satisfaction can be maximized and the winner-take-all problem
alleviated,” particularly in policies wherein the populace’s opinions are divided. By not
forcing culturally and ethnically different people to make decisions that would go against
their beliefs and opinion, solidarity as a whole federation may be achieved.

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

 However, a federation is not without its blemishes. Because each state government has its
own style of governance, citizens all over the federation will be experiencing different
levels of welfare. The competencies and efficiency of each state government will also not
be the same, potentially creating further disunity. A policy exercised across different states
may differ in magnitude, like penalties for criminal offenses. Finally, there is always the
possibility of disagreement and conflict between state and central governments over
authority and power.

Drafting of the Philippine Constitution

The earliest discussion on federalism for the Philippines began in 1899 and has persisted through
the 1946 Republic, Martial Law, and People Power.

1. The Malolos Constitution (1899)

As early as 1899, federalism has been in the consciousness of constitution writers. Quimpo
(2000) wrote that in the process of framing the Malolos Constitution, Apolinario Mabini
and Emilio Aguinaldo proposed before the convention there (3) federal states representing
the country’s three island groups: Luzon-Visayas-Mindanao. Another proposal was not for
three (3), but ten (10) federal states still distributed according to the island groups. Luzon
would have four (4) federal states, Visayas three (3), and Mindanao three (3), one of which
is a Bangsamoro state. The proposals were however dismissed to give way to the more
critical issue of unification. At that period of war, it was agreed that the new Republic
would not last nor would it present a unified front against the American colonizers if at the
very start, the country is seen to be subdivided politically and administratively. The idea
was to present a solid country with power firmly held at the center.

A year earlier, Resil Mojares (as cited by Coronel 2005) wrote that Iloilo leaders had
initiated the formation of a Federal State of Visayas. On December of 1898, a ‘politico-
military government’ was instituted in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo by Gen. Martin Delgado, the
Governor-General-President (Bin Abdulhaqq 2005). About a month before the birth of the
Federal State of Visayas, another
‘provisional revolutionary government’ was set-up at Negros presided by Roque Lopez.

Coronel also mentioned Mojares’ writings about the corresponding proposals for
federalism in 1899. A group of Filipinos offered the Philippine Commission (the American
colonial government in the Philippine islands) a constitution for a Federal Republic of the
Philippines. This draft recommended eleven (11) state subdivisions. Another attempt was
made in 1900 by Isabelo de los Reyes, trimming the number of proposed states to seven
(7). The Americans rejected the idea because deconcentrating power would make it
difficult for them to secure their control over the country.

As it turned out, the Malolos Constitution did not contain the federal concept. The closest
thing one could get to this was provided under Article 57 of Title VII (The Executive

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

 Power) where it was stated that the ‘most liberal policy of decentralization and
administrative autonomy’ will be observed.

2. The 1935 Constitution

Stevens (1993) noted that a substantial portion of the ideas embraced in the Philippine
Commonwealth Constitution were taken from the American Constitution. This is seconded
by the results of the United States’ country studies report on the Philippine government
structure. The 1935 Constitution is said to have differed from the US Constitution only in
2 important respects, one of which is on the form of government. The Philippines adopted
a unitary form instead of the US’ federal system. Nonetheless, local governments were
formalized though they were still subject to the supervision of the president.

The 1935 Constitution supposedly instituted policies that support local autonomy but in
reality, it simply preserved the concentration of authority in the central government
(Brillantes and Moscare 2002).

3. The 1973 Constitution

Brillantes (2003) highlighted that the 1973 Constitution ‘rhetorically’ asserted local
autonomy when it decreed that ‘The State shall guarantee and promote autonomy of local
government units, especially the barrio, to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities.’ On the positive side, this constitution gave some taxing powers to the local
government units.

The Marcos administration was also responsible for the enactment of the first Local
Government Code (Batas Pambansa 337), however, its implementation was not carried out
effectively.

The 1973 Constitution may then be viewed simply as a scheme to legitimize the
dictatorship of then President Marcos but it is still valuable to look into the federalism
proposal presented at the constitutional convention. A draft constitution calling for the
establishment of a Federal Republic of the Philippines after a period of 10-20 years was
prepared by Salvador Araneta and proposed to the 1971-1972 Constitutional Convention.
Araneta named the document the Bayanikasan Constitution from the words Lakas ng
Bayan, referring to a strong nation concerned with the protection of the rights of each
individual. The proposal puts forth a federal republic made up of 5 states: Northern Luzon,
Southern Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, and Christian Mindanao. It touched on critical issues
like election, absolute power, parliamentary system, judiciary, martial law, participatory
democracy, and even democratization of wealth (Araneta-Santiago, Inquirer, 28 July
2005).

4. The 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution is a product of 48 delegates to the 1986 Constitutional Commission.

Pressed for time, President Aquino opted to forego the election of Commission members

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

 and appointed them instead. Stevens (1993) notes that among the controversial issues
debated upon were 1) Sabah claims; 2) land reform; 3) labor rights; 4) policy on foreign
investments; 5) military base rights; and 6) presidential emergency powers.

Strikingly, the discussion on the form of government was not breached. This is
understandable since the prevailing opinion at that time was to stay as far as possible from
the Marcos’ model of government. Further attempts to amend the Philippine system of
government were viewed with wariness because of the experience with the Marcos
dictatorship. The delegates’ consensus was to adopt most provisions from the 1935
Constitution.

Campaigns for federalism did not surface except for the position of the now members of
Citizen’s Movement for a Federal Philippines who pushed for the adoption of a federal
system in the series of public hearings conducted in Davao. Evidently, the idea did not
generate strong support then.

Previous Campaign Platforms of Federalism

Political party platforms have also included the federalist agenda for several decades already.
Partido Demokrasya ng Pilipinas during the 1970s has already raised federalism as its platform of
government. Like the others, it failed to win considerable support. During the 2004 elections two
other political parties that prioritize federalism in their platform, PROMDI and PDP-Laban.

1. Partido Demokratikong Pilipino – Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) Platform Partido

Demokratikong Pilipino – Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) Platform

The Partido Demokratikong Pilipino - Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) was organized in

1982 in opposition to the dictatorship of then Pres. Marcos. One of its founders, Sen.
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. remarked that the restitution of democracy in 1986 led to the
redefinition of the Party’s objective. By 2002, Pimentel, in one of his speeches stated
that the Party’s new thrust is to fight for freedom, justice and peace. Consistent with
this thrust is the call for federalism which he thinks, provides a solution to the lingering
Muslim rebellion in the country.

PDP-Laban again made noise in 2002 when Pimentel started pushing for the creation
of 10 federal states. In a paper he presented at a UNDP Paragon Regional Governance
Program, he elaborated on this proposal. He envisioned the creation of 4 states from
Luzon (Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog, Bicol); 3 from Visayas
(Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, and Central Visayas); and 3 from Mindanao
(Northern Mindanao, Northeastern Mindanao, and BangsaMoro State). Metro Manila
maybe treated as a special federal administrative center. He even ventured into the
power-sharing scheme where power of the federal republic may encompass foreign
affairs, national defense, customs, immigration, federal taxes, basic justice, and basic
education while constituent units would handle the rest.

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

 During the 2004 elections, Pimentel proposed Fernando Poe, Jr., presidential candidate
of the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP), PDP-Laban’s platform called
FREEDOM. This stands for Federalism, Reforms, Economy, Education, Debt,
Overseas Filipinos, and Mindanao. Poe accepted the platform except for the component
on federalism (Cruz, Inquirer, 23 December 2003).

2. Promdi Platform

Promdi stands for Probinsya Muna (Province First) Development Initiative, sprouting
from a regional political party. Promdi is a Tagalog colloquial term adopting the
English phrase “from the province.” It is said to have a ‘well-defined national
constituency’ (GR 147589). The main idea behind the platform is to redefine the center
of power, moving it from the current capital - Metro Manila - to the less congested
locations in the provinces.
Emilio Mario Osmeña, party chairman, founded the party on 1998 when it first
participated in the national elections. It again became active in the recent 2004
elections. The core of the sphere of influence of PROMDI is 182 Federalism Initiatives
in the Philippines Cebu, one of the country’s largest and richest provinces situated in
the central part of the Philippines. He stands firm in campaigning for a Republic of
Cebu. The Republic of Cebu plan calls for the province’s declaration as an
‘independent nation on its own.’ This stems from his impression that Cebu does not
need national government supervision. In fact, it could increasingly generate
investments and resources upon its separation from the mother country (Wikipedia,
April 2006).

The Republic of Cebu plan could be treated as reflective of PROMDI’s belief on local
autonomy and faith on the capacity of the local governments to competently govern
themselves. On a larger scale, the party goes for the decongestion of Metro Manila to
promote its urban renewal and ‘add value to the provinces.’ To be able to do this,
PROMDI finds its imperative to move government offices and support services from
the private sector out of Manila (Tecson, 2004).

Actually, PROMDI’s sentiments coincided with the intensified federalist call of the
Cebu local leaders in the 1970s. The call was further heightened by the rush of
developments in the province during the late 1980s. This demand was a result of the
Cebuanos belief that the province’s economic development is impaired by its link to
Metro Manila (Coronel 2005).

3. Citizen’s Movement for a Federal Philippines (CMFP)

The Mindanao people, specifically the Moro (Muslim) population, are one of the strong
proponents of federalism. It is somehow viewed as a panacea to the deteriorating
relationship between Muslim groups with the Philippine government. According to
CMFP, ‘there is a resurgence of the federal question brought about by the Mindanao
conflict.’ No other than the Chair of the Mindanao Coalition of Development NGOs

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

 noted that federalism ‘offers a considerable promise for peace-making,’ (Okinlay-
Paraguya, MindaNews, 5 September 2004).

CMFP is roughly 6 years old and at present, have organized at practically all regions
in the country. Some of its first members are Kusog Mindanaw and the Philippine
Community Organizer’s Society. CMFP relies on expanding the coalition to further the
advocacy for federalism. It maintains connections with various political groups. It even
lauded the current administration (Pres. Arroyo) for ‘publicly articulating in her
platform her intention to lead the country in the establishment of a federal system of
government,’ (Inquirer, March 2004).

CMFP’s aggressive push for federalism is further strengthened by the results of the
May-June 2003 survey by the Social Weather Station. The results show that 50% of
Filipinos were said to favor a shift of power to regional governments (Deang, Inquirer,
March 2004).

Since the 1970s, Mindanao has been the hotbed of secessionist movements clamoring
for a Republic of Mindanao or a separate Moro state (Coronel 2005). However, CMFP,
particularly members from Mindanao, believes that having an autonomous Moro
homeland would be enough.

CONCLUSION

For many countries, such as the United States, Malaysia, Australia and Germany, federalization
was actually 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.

It would essentially be the contrary in our case. Consequently, we face a much harder, more
complicated, and possibly harsher version of federalization. It is thus disconcerting that purported
advocates of federalism seem oblivious to the gravity of this sociopolitical reform. They quickly
harp on the promise of enhanced local autonomy without even considering the readiness of the
local leadership to assume the big responsibility of local governments under federalism, as if the
fitness of the current crop for this form of government were already a given.

In fact, the overdependence of local government executives on the Internal Revenue Allotment
and the continued existence of central-government largesse, or pork barrel funds, signify the stark
reality that the development perspective of local leaders has not reached the level of sophistication
necessary to sustain a federal government structure. And because of the inherent economic and
social inequalities among the regions, cities, municipalities and towns as well as the Filipino
people in such places, for example, the market value of the lands in the provinces outside Metro
Manila are cheap which meant lower income incapacity of the people living there, Federalism will
not succeed in the country as of today.

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

RECOMMENDATION

The pressing problem that should be addressed by national leaders is improving the economy not
changing the system of government. But if the shift to federal government will be pursued,
identified measures should be undertaken in preparation for the transformation. We have to
accelerate first the process of government decentralization under the 1987 Constitution both ways:
by de-concentrating national government administration to the regional centers and by devolving
more national government functions to the local government units through continuing amendments
to the Local Government Code of 1991. At the same time, we have to reorient our people…
towards greater self-reliance and responsibility through local governance and development,
including developing their capacity to raise more local revenues and generate funding for local
development, and to attract investments. Lastly, the move toward federalism should be purposive
and deliberative. The process should also be participatory, broad-based and various sectors of
society must be involved to effect change that will be beneficial to the nation.

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure

REFERENCES:

Alex B. Brillantes, Jr. and Donna Moscare, Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines:
Lessons from Global Community

Domini M. Torrevillas (The Philippine Star), Federalism: Good or bad? - August 23, 2018

Elyzabeth F. Cureg and Jennifer F. Matunding, Federalism Initiatives in the Philippines

Emil L. Samaniego, Federalism and the Haunting of the Philippine Constitutions: Philippine
Nationhood and the Specters of Federalism in Malolos Congress to 1986 Constitutional
Commission

Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco (Inquirer.Net), Are Filipinos ready for federalism? – March 13, 2015

Romulo E.M. Miral Jr., Federalism: Prospects for the Philippines, Discussion Paper Series No.
2017-29, September 2017

Ronnel Tumangday and Roy Loyola Jr., Head to Head: Governance: Unitary vs Federal, June 12,
2013

Sunil Malhi, Democratic vs. Federalism (2016)

Federalism: A Different Set-up in Government Structure