Options for federalism

Federalism requires a fundamental reallocation of powers and

functions. In the end, we must design it according to the evidence available
on what will work best for our common interest. In this article, the third of a
four part series on constitutional change and federalism, I suggest some
directions even as I am open to how to other ideas.

What is a federal form of government? Federalism is a system where

government authority is exercised on three levels: the national (or the
federal), the regional (or state), and local. Each is assigned specific and
distinct functions. Each state or region exercises individual autonomy with
powers assigned by the Charter. In essence, federalism aims for the
distribution of powers and resources between the federal government and
the states. Specifically, the federal government usually have jurisdiction
over foreign affairs, armed forces, currency, national finance, national
taxation, customs and federal justice (althought for the Philippines, I woild
propose a single national legal system with some space for Shariah and
indigenous customary law). The federal government will also be
responsible for the stability of the currency through an independent federal
central bank and the collection of personal income taxes. Other taxing
powers like sales and business taxes which are vested in the states.
Finally, the federal government will also help ensure the balanced and
equitable development of the whole country and the welfare of all citizens.
Other areas of governance involving social and economic
development will be placed in the hands of the states/regions, like health,
housing, agriculture, trade and commerce, natural resources, power,
transportation and communications, public works, and the police. The
states/regions and their component local government units will be
responsible for economic planning and development. Basic infrastructure
like roads, railways, hospitals, airports, schools, and harbors are each
states responsibility.
Under a federal set-up, the Philippines can be reconstituted into any
appropriate number of states or other regional entities, each one having its
own constitution. This will allow each state to address its peculiar and
particular condition, but all functions flow from the basic framework defined
in a federal constitution. One proposal is to make the existing
administrative regions as the countrys states. The Citizens Movement for
a Federal Philippines proposes proposes the creation of 11 states, while
Gaudioso Sosmena, Jr. proposes the cration of 7 states. Another proposal
made by former Senator Pimentel is to consolidate the existing regions into
ten states with Metro Manila as a Special Administrative Region. Each
state will have a governor, a state assembly and state high courts and
lower courts.
In our present centralized structure of government, much of the
power emanates from one source, the central government. The
administration of government rests on this central authority and is
cascaded to local government units with the assistance of the departments
and agencies of the executive branch. The flow of government mostly
follows a single line from the national government to the regional units then
to the local governments.
As for the exact form, my current view is aligned with that of
President Duterte Feralism with a French style parliament where we will
still have a strong President responsoble for foreign affairs and for defense.
That will maintain unity of the islands before external threats. I am also in
favor of a regional senate that can be designed to counter the influenced of
the richest and most populated states/region.
Proponents of federalism believe that it is the answer to the age-old
problems of inequitable distribution of wealth, the slow pace of
development in the countryside, and the conflict situation in Mindanao. It is
argued that federalism will bring about peace and unity in ethnic, religious
and cultural diversity. It will hasten the countrys development. Since
planning and policy-decision making will be given to the states, there will be
less bureaucratic obstacles to the implementation of economic programs
and projects. There will also be inter-state and regional competition in
attracting domestic and foreign investments and industries. Resources will
be distributed better among the provinces/regions since government
revenues will be devolved.
Critics contend that the shift to a federal structure entails another tier
of public financial costs. It would require additional appropriations for the
establishment of the state governments, courts and legislatures.
Considering the prevalence of the patronage system, there is a possibility
that political clans will strengthen their foothold in the regions and
perpetuate their political dynasties. The states may just turn into feudal
lands of the rich and the powerful. It may also result into turfing among
the political and economic elites.
Given the varying degrees of development in the different regions,
the poorer regions may be further left behind in development. This will
cause greater migration to richer regions which will aggravate conditions in
regions where social ills are already prevalent. The economic
preparedness of the national government, the regional groupings, and the
local governments is also another issue. Creating the mechanism that will
redistribute wealth among regions will be another challenge. One
prominent constitutionalist says that federalism might only promote
regionalism and divide the country instead of uniting it. The country may
not be prepared to face the economic conundrum of the reallocation of
resources of government. Emigration, migration and capital flow patterns
might even go out of control.
With President Duterte pushing for a shift to federalism, we can
expect a renewed impetus towards charter change and the restructuring of
government to suit his federalist agenda. Presently, there seems to be no
problem given his strong support in Congress and the enthusiastic backing
by the majority of the population.

As argued in the second of this series of articles, the best approach

for constitutional change is by convening a constitutional convention. In
recent days, because of the cost, it has been suggested that a
constitutional assembly will be the mode taken. I think that is very risky.

What's needed to change the constitution is 3/4 vote of each

chamber of Congress voting separately. For sure, we will not be able to
pass reforms that would reduce the influence of political dynasties given
the current composition of both Houses. A 3/4 vote in the Senate is also not
an assured thing. I doubt for example if the Senate would agree to the
abolition of a Senate that is nationally elected. I trust Senator Koko
Pimentel's leaderhip and that he will be able to steer the Senate to a good
conclusion. But definitely it will be tough. Moreover, convening Congress
into a constituent assembly will also be a huge distraction to the legislative
work of both Houses.
 As for the cost of a constitutional convention, I echo the words of my
Dean at the Ateneo School of Government, Dr. Ronald Mendoza who
posted in Facebook this comment: How ironic that many of us welcomed
Federalism precisely to correct the trust and accountability issues of some
of those who will now try to craft Federalism itself. Breaking out of this
impasse -- characterised by the dynasties, the lack of local accountability,
the high dependence of LGUs to the central government, the opportunism
of "imperial Manila", the poor fit of some overly-centralised public policies,
the imbalanced growth and growing inequality, and the wild swings in policy
and lack of long term policy consistency and coherence -- aren't these the
main motivations why many of us are interested to explore Federalism in
the first place? Spending PhP5 billion for a ConCon might be the best
investment this country ever made.