Federalism for the Philippines: Proposals and Positions

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 has been more highlighted after the
passing of the 1986 constitution, with almost every administration after President Aquino proposed,
or has been proposed to, policies for building a federal government.
Arguments for federalism for the Philippines vary - some propose it to promote autonomy,
especially in areas with cultural importance, such as Muslims in Mindanao. Others promote the
scheme for better accountability and more efficient governance, while some propose it for economic
and social reform. While the positions, methods and systems being proposed vary, these groups
have been united that a Federal Republic of the Philippines is indeed necessary.
These paper will shed light into federalism and its aspects. It will also give a briefing on the
current situation of federalization in the country and the contending views for its establishment. A
position will be made by the group at the end of the paper.

Definition of Terms
Federalism
Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal principles for dividing powers between
member units and common institutions. Unlike in a unitary state, sovereignty in federal political
orders is non-centralized, often constitutionally, between at least two levels so that units at each level
have final authority and can be self governing in some issue area. Citizens thus have political
obligations to, or have their rights secured by, two authorities.
The division of power between the member unit and center may vary, typically the center has
powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but member units may also have international roles.
The decision-making bodies of member units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.
Much recent discussion is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with
data concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federal
systems. Academics have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia and
states in Europe, among others, where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to
accommodate differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a
common, often democratic, political order.

Decentralization
It is the dispersion or distribution of functions and powers; the delegation of power from a
central authority to regional and local authorities. It includes the dispersal of administration or
governance in sectors or area such as engineering, management science, political science, political
economy, sociology and economics. Decentralization is also possible in the dispersal of population
and employment. Law, science and technological advancements lead to highly decentralized human
endeavours.
Confederation
A confederation in modern political terms is a permanent union of political units for common
action in relation to other units. Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common
constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense,
foreign affairs or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support
for all members.
The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies
considerably. Likewise, the relationship between the member states, the central government and the
distribution of powers among them, is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar to
intergovernmental organizations, while tighter confederations may resemble federations.
Local Government
Local government is a form of public administration which in a majority of contexts, exists as
the lowest tier of administration within the a given state. The term is used to contrast with offices at
state level, which are referred to as the central government, national government, or (where
appropriate) federal government. Local governments generally act within powers delegated to them
by legislation or directives of the higher level of government. In primitive societies the lowest level of
local government is the village headman or tribal chief.

Features of Federalism
One of the most important features of federalism is the presence of relatively autonomous
levels of government, the central or national government and the regional or state government.
These two governments should have a range of powers that the other cannot encroach upon.
The state government usually has a degree of executive and legislative power. Most states is
usually ruled by a chief executive, often called governor, and have a state legislative assembly. For
example, states in the United States have an elected chief executive called the governor and a
legislative assembly which make laws for the state. The same is true for states in Australia, India
and Russia, among others.
Most states should also be autonomous; and thus to keep that autonomy, they usually have
a source of revenue that is independent of the national government. States can also set up taxes on
their own.
The separation of powers and jurisdiction between the state government and the national
government usually vary from country to country. For example, in Germany it is the national
government who makes policies while it is the state government who implements them.
 Another feature of federalism emphasizes that responsibilities, duties, powers, and
jurisdiction between the two levels of government should be defined in a written constitution. Thus
the relationship between the state government and the national government can be conducted in a
legal framework. The American constitution as well as the Constitution of India and Australia have a
part that defines the powers of the two levels of governments. This feature also protects the powers
of the state government and the national government. In case of disputes between the state and the
local government, the third feature of Federalism steps in.
The third feature of federalism is the presence of a constitutional arbiter, usually the
judicial branch (the Supreme Court), on case of disputes between the state government and the
national government. An example of this is the challenge of 28 states in America against the health
care reform law of President Barack Obama which was passed through the federal government.
The last feature of Federalism is the presence of institutions that link the state and national
government together. This is done as to ensure that the voices and opinions of different states
should be heard during policy making. This is usually done through a bicameral legislature; in
which one of the houses, usually the upper house, represent the interests of the states. In the United
States, each state is represented by two senators in the US Senate. In Australia, each state is
represented by twelve senators in the Australian Senate while each territory is represented by two
senators. Both the upper houses of Mexico and Brazil represent the interest of the states.

Current Situation of Federalism in the Philippines

Decentralization in the Philippines
Acclaimed as the best and most revolutionary reform laws in Asia, the Local Government
Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) aims to equally disperse the power from the national government
to the local government units (LGUs) and allowing them to be independent in serving their people
and attaining their fullest development by using and nurturing their own resources. LGUs are then
expected to perform their designated functions to deliver quality governance, provide better public
service, and encourage public's participation for country's intensive development. With the
enactment of the 1991 LGC, Philippines took a major step forward to decentralization. (World Bank
and ADB, 2005)
Decentralization in the Philippines is divided into three dimensions: (1) Administrative
Decentralization, (2) Fiscal Decentralization, and (3) Institutional Decentralization or
Debureaucratization. Each component describes different functions of LGUs and different processes
to attain a specific political goal.
Administrative Decentralization
Administrative decentralization refers to the distribution of functions and responsibilities to
LGUs stated in the 1991 LGC. This dimension defines the strategy on how to address critical
government needs – strengthened governance, increased transparency and accountability, and
more effective and efficient production and delivery of public goods and services. There are three
different ways in implementing administrative decentralization: either by deconcentration or
delegation, or devolution. (Suzuki and Uchimura, 2009)
Deconcentration, the weakest form, redistributes decision-making authority and financial
and management responsibilities. However, there is no real transfer of power, only a mere shift of
responsibility. On the other hand, delegation is the transfer of responsibilities and authority to semi-
autonomous entities that respond to the central government but are not totally controlled by it. The
goal of devolution is to use the available powers to cater, in tailor-made ways, to the needs of the
local people. (DP, 2011) This encourages citizens to be a major influence in formulation and
implementation of policies and gives them opportunity to be part of local development. (Nath)
Fiscal Decentralization
Fiscal decentralization refers to the distribution of financial resources, and use it efficiently to
produce additional source or provide an alternative. In the Philippines, intergovernmental fiscal
tranfers (IRAs), which account for more than 60% of total local revenue, are major sources for filling
the vertical fiscal gaps.
Economic Decentralization
Economic decentralization involves the harnessing of private sector and non-governmental
organizations to promote collaborations, improve interactions to achieve the national goals. (Suzuki
and Uchimura, 2009). This also refers to the transfer of certain governmental function to them as in
the case of privatization and deregulation.

Provisions in the 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution has a separate set of provisions for local government, as compiled in
Article 10 of the act. While calling for congress to pass a Local Government Code, it also give certain
regions, specifically the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the Cordillera
provisions for autonomy. Only the ARMM had an enabling law for establishing an autonomous
government, for the CAR failed to approve the formation of an autonomous government in 1990.
(Lacdao, 2010).

Attempts in Constitutional Change

Starting from the administration of President Aquino, various attempts were made in
changing the 1987 Constitution. The proposed amendments primarily pivoted around the shift from a
unitary to a parliamentary form of government. The first attempt in amending the 1987 Constitution
can be traced back from the Ramos Administration.
Included in the proposal were the shift from presidential unitary to parliamentary federal form
of government, and the lifting of term limits of public officials. A parliament is a national
representative body having supreme legislative power within the state. Under the parliamentary form
of government, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative
department. The Prime Minister is chosen by the National Assembly from elected representatives of
the Parliament with the assistance of a Cabinet which is composed of the heads of various
departments or ministries and the executive power is vested upon him. The Prime minister and the
members of the cabinet do not have a fixed term of office. Under the parliamentary setup, the
legislature can be unicameral or bicameral and the government may either be unitary or federal.
The CHA-CHA (Charter Change) was originally part of the policy agenda of Ramos. PIRMA
(People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action) conducted a signature campaign calling for
the amendment of the Constitution through the “People’s Initiative.” Chief Justice Andres Narvasa
and the Supreme Court however dismissed the petition for lack of enabling laws in the conduct of
“People’s Initiative.” Had the PIRMA petition been successful, a national plebiscite would have been
held for the proposed changes.
Moreover, the Estrada Administration witnessed another attempt to amend the Constitution.
Coined as CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for Development, the proposal was to amend
only the 'restrictive' economic provisions of the constitution that were considered impediments in the
entry of foreign investors. Said proposal failed due to strong opposition.
Under the present Administration, President Gloria-Macapagal Arroyo and some proponents
heed the call for Charter Change. GMA even made certain the inclusion of CHA-CHA in her 2004
election campaign platform. By virtue of Executive Order No. 453, GMA created the Consultative
Commission and appointed Dr. Jose V. Abueva as its chairman. The Commission proposed, among
others, the shift from a bicameral presidential to a unicameral parliamentary-federal form of
government; economic liberalization; further decentralization of national government and more
empowerment of local governments via such transition. Such proposal to change the constitution for
the purpose of changing the form government was opposed by Makati Business Club.
In December 2006, House Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. (JDV) explicitly pushed for the
constitutional change process by convening the House of Representatives of the Philippines and the
Senate of the Philippines into a Constituent Assembly or "Con-Ass". Strong opposition once more
staged, which threatened to conduct a major massive protest through a “prayer rally”. A few days
before the scheduled prayer rally, Speaker JDV however gave up on the Constituent Assembly mode
and gave way for a Constitutional Convention mode for CHA-CHA. None of which pushed through.

The Recent Federalism Debate

Recently, there have been discussions of changing our form of government from the unitary
system of government to the federalist form of government. What could have triggered the debate?
 The Federalism Debate is traced back from the dire need to bring peace in Mindanao. The
Government of the Philippines, led by the Government Peace Negotiating Panel, and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the creation of
a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). The MOA, supposedly signed on 5 August 2008 in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, contained the framework for the creation of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity
wherein the entire Muslim-Palawan-Sulu geographical territory will be ceded to the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front—an establishment thereof of a separate and distinct Republic of the Philippines.
The creation of the BJE is henceforth analogous to federalism, which apparently is
unconstitutional. The MOA grants the will-be-expanded Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) its own basic law, an internal security force, a system of banking and finance, civil service,
education and legislative institutions, full authority to develop and dispose of minerals and natural
resources. As coined by legal and political scholars, the BJE will be “a state within a state.” This is
unconstitutional because our present Constitution does not recognize the creation of such entity.
Making it constitutional entails the revision of the 1987 Constitution —the changing of the form of
government from unitary to federalism. Therewith, the Philippine form of government has to be
shifted from unitary to federalism.
Pursuant to the MOA, Rep. Monico O. Puentevella on May 7, 2008, filed House Concurrent
Resolution No. 15 which supported Senate Resolution No. 10 of Senator Nene Pimentel which was
backed by 16senators.The joint Senate resolution called for the creation of 11 federal states in the
country, by convening of Congress “into a constituent assembly for the purpose of revising the
Constitution to establish a federal system of government.”
Senator Aquilino Pimentel, a major proponent of the move to adopt a federal system of
government, in a primer presented at the annual convention of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
at Tacloban City last April 2002 identified two main reasons why the federal system is better than the
present unitary system. According to him the federal system has the structures needed to:
a) hasten the economic development among the various regions of the country by allocating
power which at present is concentrated in the central government to the regions that will be
converted to federal states. The devolved powers will allow the federal states to mobilize
their resources for development without being hindered or controlled by the central
government; and
b) dissipate the causes of the recurrent armed Moro challenges against the government and,
thereby, lay the basis for a just and lasting peace in Central and Southwestern Mindanao.

In a research report of the Center for Social Policy and Governance of the Kalayaan College,
Abueva enumerated the theory behind Philippine federalization. The following are some of the
hypotheses for the proposed shift from a unitary system to a federal system.
1. The Philippines has already achieved sufficient national unity and democratization, including
a measure of decentralization and local autonomy. The latter will follow about a decade’s
transition of “regionalization” and increased local autonomy involving both the national
government and the local governments.
2. The 1987 Constitution’s design for the development of participatory democracy, local
autonomy, and an active role for civil society in governance was a result of the growing
difficulties and frustration with the country’s highly centralized unitary system during the
authoritarian regime that started in September 1972.
3. Federalism will respond to the demands of local leaders for their release from the costly,
time-consuming, stifling, and demoralizing effects of excessive centralization and controls by
the national government in the present unitary system.
4. The structures, processes, and responsibilities of the federation will challenge and energize
the people and their state and local governments. Such further democratization will
encourage creativity, initiative and innovation, spur interstate competition, and foster state
and local self-reliance instead of continued dependency.
5. A federal system will greatly increase the capacity of the people and the government to deal
with the country’s problems. They will be more interested in state and local governance
because it is closer to them and will deal with under-development – local poverty,
unemployment, injustice, inadequate social services and infrastructure, and low productivity.
6. Consolidating the 80 provinces of the Philippines into 8 to 10 larger, integrated and more
efficient and viable regions called states, substantial, faster and equitable development for
the whole country is more likely to be achieved.
7. By participating in meaningful and challenging politics and governance at the state and local
levels, the people will be more empowered than if they continued to be alienated from their
weak local governments and spectators in the affairs of far away national government
institutions in the nation’s capital. Moreover, the people’s liberty will be protected by the
further dispersion of power in the government and the society.
8. By governing the nation through interdependence and interaction with the states as regional
governments, the federal government will be better able to achieve and sustain national unity
and identity. At the same time, the states will be able to nurture, protect and enhance their
regional cultures and contribute to national cultural development. Together, the federal
government and the states will be able to develop and sustain the nation’s cultural diversity
and social pluralism.
9. A federal system will also be better able to respond to the external threats to national security
and the challenges of globalization by strengthening the nation-state’s capacity to deal with
its critical internal problems and development.
 10. As a special metropolitan government, Metro Manila, the present national capital, will have
the structure of a state and will be able to deal more effectively with its problems as the
nation’s principal metropolis. A planned new federal capital at the former Clark Air Base in
Central Luzon will enable the federal government to function more efficiently by having the
principal institutions and offices of the federation located in proximity to one another.

Advantages and Disadvantages

One advantage in a federal government is that the government remains close to people.
Each province has political, social and economic problems peculiar to the region itself. Provincial
government representatives live in proximity to the people and are most of the time from the same
community, so they are in a better position to understand these problems and offer unique solutions
for them. This expands government on national, state, and local levels, giving people more access to
leaders and opportunities to get involved in their government.
A federal government encourages development of the nation in a decentralized and regional
manner and allows for unique and innovative methods for attacking social, economic and political
problems. It offers representation to different populations. Citizens of various provinces may have
different aspirations, ethnicity and follow different cultures. The central government can sometimes
overlook these differences and adopt policies which cater to the majority. This is where the regional
government steps in. While formulating policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due
consideration by the state governments. Rights of the minorities are also protected.
State governments have the freedom to adopt policies which may not be followed nationally
or by any other state. This gives federalism a room for innovation and experimentation. Two local
governments can have two different approaches to bring reforms in any area of public domain, be it
taxation or education. The comparison of the results of these policies can give a clear idea of which
policy is better and thus, can be adopted in the future.
Division of work between the central and the regional governments leads to optimum
utilization of resources. The central government can concentrate more on international affairs and
defense of the country while the provincial government can cater to the local needs.
Federalism also ensures the separation of powers and prevents tyranny. Even if one person
or group took control of all three branches of the federal government, federalism ensures that state
governments would still function independently. Federalism, therefore, fulfills the framers’ vision of a
governmental structure that ensures liberty.
Lastly, it fosters state loyalties. Many people feel close ties to their home state, and
federalism maintains that connection by giving power to the states and it provides a barrier to the
dominance of the majority.
However, the sharing of power between the central government and the states includes both
advantages and disadvantages of federation. Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and
subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for what. It can lead to duplication of
government and inefficient, over-lapping or contradictory making of policies in different parts of the
country.
Another disadvantage would be that federalism can lead to over-government that will
eventually result to corruption because of the too many elected representatives with overlapping
roles.
Federalism can also lead to inequality between the states and lead to unhealthy competition
and rivalry between them. There can be a rebellion by a regional government against the national
government too. Both scenarios pose a threat to the country's integrity. Also, natural resources,
industries, employment opportunities differ from region to region. Hence earnings and wealth are
unevenly distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor states
can. Thus, the gap between rich and poor states widens.
Federalism can make the state governments selfish and concerned only about their own
region's progress. They can formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions. For
example, pollution from a province which is promoting industrialization in a big way can affect
another region which depends solely on agriculture and cause crop damage.
It is also said that federal system of government is very expensive as more people are
elected to office, both at the state and the center, than necessary. Thus, it is often said that only rich
countries can afford it.

Challenges to Philippine Federalism

Research has shown that the Philippines has a long tradition of a unitary form of government
since the Spanish period, and with this tradition, it seems that people are stuck thinking that it is the
appropriate form of government for the country (Brillantes and Moscare, 2002). While "imperial
Manila" has taken steps in promoting local autonomy, including the introduction of a local
government code in 1959, 1983 and 1991, it has been noted that overcentralization of powers still
exist. Local governments, expected to act entreprenurial and be bold in developing their
communities, still depend on "allotments" to fund their operations rather than generating their own
resources. Lack of resources and capabilities at the local level and the inability of local institutions to
cope with the demands of a decentralized set-up can be blamed for this.
In the preparation for a federal system in the country, the national government must start to
be more decentralized. By allowing the local governments (and later on, states) to be self-reliant,
local leaders will be trained on the different roles they will have to fulfill in a new, federal set-up.
Capability-building, and not just mere changes in structure is needed for the local governments to
function effectively. They must also be oriented to respond to community needs.
 By introducing federalism in the Philippines, there are issues and concerns regarding it that
has yet to be confronted. (Brillantes, 2002). Federalism, for most people, is seen to be a solution for
regional aspirations for autonomy and end war and regional disparities, especially in Mindanao. But
for the most part, some groups such as the Moros, want a "separate nation", and not autonomy. In
this case, there is a need for space to define issues between the future federal government and the
separatists, convincing them that a federal state is an acceptable alternative.
Another challenged to be faced in pushing for a federal system is the need for a broad and
participatory engagement in the deliberation process. While members of the academe, civil society
and other interests groups were engaged in pushing for reform, most of them had to "back off".
(Rodriguez, 2011) More than just pushing for federalism by stating its advantages and how it can
reform political and social institutions, there is a need to convince people on how federalism will
impact their everyday lives. Various sectors must be allowed and encouraged to participate, and time
must be given to thoroughly discuss and debate the different proposals being proposed.

Conclusion
After the Philippines promulgated a new constitution in 1987, the country has faced a
number of proposals and attempts to change the country's form of government from a unitary to
federal form of government. None of these proposals have been successfully passed or put into a
national referendum.
Examining the literature on federalism, whether in the Philippines or abroad would show why
federalism is, indeed, needed for the country. Federalism would ensure better accountability, for
elected officials are closer to their districts and will better represent their interests. It can spur
economic growth as states determine ways that is applicable to local resources and strengths.
Finally, a federal government can ensure social and cultural development, as regional aspirations
and cultures can be protected and developed while still ensuring national unity.
The group concluded that a federal form of government should be introduced in the
Philippines. However, we reserve giving a comment on the form of the federal government to be
established, for we believe it should be determined and debated in a constitutional assembly or
convention.

Works Cited
Abueva, Jose (2002). Towards a Federal Republic of the Philippines with a Parliamentary
Government: A Reader. Manila: Kalayaan College.
Alinio, B. F. (2008). Philippine Local Government Officials Perceptions of Decentralization and Its
Effects on Local Governments' Administrative Capabilities. Washington, D.C.: The George
 Washington University.
Breul, Jonathan. (2008). Federal Government Reform: Lessons from Clinton's "Reinventing Government"
and Bush's "Management Agenda" Initiatives. New Jersey: American Society for Public
Administration.
Brilliantes, Alex Jr. and Moscare, Donna. (2002). Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines:
Lessons from Global Community. International Conference of the East West Center. pp. 1-13.
Carlos, Clarita and Lalata, Dennis. (2010). Democratic Deficits in the Philippines: What is to be Done?
Makati: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
Congress of the Philippines. (1991). Local Government Code of 1991.
Constitutional Convention of 1986. (1986). Article 10: Local Government. In: The 1987 Constitution.
Decentralization in the Philippines. (2010). Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26605926/%EF
%82%A7-Decentralization-in-the-Philippines-%EF%82%A7-Local. Last accessed 11 May 2012.
DP - Decentralization Program (2011). Political Decentralization: Advocating Participatory
Governance. Available: http://www.decentralization.org.ph/. Last accessed 11 May 2012.
Heywood, Andrew. (2002). Chapter 8. In: Heywood, Andrew Politics. New Hampshire: Palgrave
Foundations.
Kincaid, John. (2001). Economic policy-making: advantages and disadvantages of the federal model.
Paris: UNESCO.
Lacdao, Dona Dee. (2010). Cordillera Autonomy. Available:
http://www.scribd.com/dlacdao/d/44273115-Cordillera-Autonomy. Last accessed 11 May 2012.
Merriam-Webster. (2012). Decentralization. Available: http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/decentralization. Last accessed 11 May 2012.
Nath, Vikas. Political Decentralisation – a complementary rather than a substitution approach. London:
London School of Economics.
Pimentel, Aquilino, Jr. (2002). Why Adopt the Federal System of Government?
Available: http://www.nenepimentel.org/speeches/. Last accessed 11 May 2012.
Rodriguez, Agustin. (2011). Rethinking Federalism In the Light of Social Justice. Manila: Code NGO.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2003). Federalism. Available:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/. Last accessed 11 May 2012.
Suzuki, Y. and Uchimura, H. (2009). Measuring Fiscal Decentralization in the Philippines. Chiba,
Japan: Institute of Developing Economics, JETRO.
World Bank and Asian Development Bank. (2005). Decentralization in the Philippines.