THE advantages of federalism as trumpeted by its proponents are as follows:

1. Encourages local initiatives

Federalism permits diversity. Local governments may deal directly with local problems. The
entire nation is not straitjacketed with a uniform policy to which every state and community must
conform. State and local governments may be better suited to deal with specific state and local
problems. Washington bureaucrats do not always know the best solution for problems in
Commerce, Texas.

2. Pursuit of local goals

Federalism helps manage conflict. Permitting states and communities to pursue their own
policies reduces the pressures that would build up in Washington if the national government had
to decide everything. Federalism permits citizens to decide many things at the state and local
levels of government and avoid battling over single national policies to be applied uniformly
throughout the land.

3. Allows for power redistribution

Federalism disperses power. The widespread distribution of power is generally regarded as a
protection against tyranny. To the extent that pluralism thrives in the United States, state and
local governments have contributed to its success. State and local governments also provide a
political base for the survival of the opposition party when it loses national elections.

4. Increases political participants

Federalism increases political participation. It allows more people to run for and hold political
office. In the US, nearly a million people hold some kind of political office in counties, cities,
townships, school districts, and special districts. These local leaders are often regarded as
closer to the people than Washington officials. Public opinion polls show that Americans believe
that their local governments are more manageable and responsive than the national
government.

5. Cuts red tape

Federalism improves efficiency. Even though we may think of 80,000 governments as
inefficient, governing the entire nation from Washington would be even worse. Imagine the
bureaucracy, red tape, delays, and confusion if every government activity in every community in
the nation—police, schools, roads, fire departments, garbage collections, sewage disposal,
street lighting, and so on—were controlled by a central government in Washington. Even in the
Soviet Union, where centralized discipline and party control are a matter of political ideology,
leaders have been forced to resort to decentralization simply as a practical matter. Moreover,
federalism encourages experimentation and innovation in public policy in the states.

Opponents of Federalism have cited the following disadvantages:

1. Protects special interest groups

Federalism allows special interests to protect their privileges. For many years, segregationists
used the argument of states’ rights to avoid federal laws designed to guarantee equality and
prevent discrimination. Indeed, the states’ rights argument has been used so often in defense of
racial discrimination that it has become a code word for racism.
2. Uneven distribution of benefits
Federalism allows the benefits and costs of government to be spread unevenly. Some states
spend more than twice as much per capita as other states on education. Even in the same
state, some wealthy school districts spend two or three times as much as poorer districts. The
taxes in some states are much higher than in other states; five states have no state income tax
at all.

3. Creates disadvantages in poorer states and communities

Poorer states generally provide lower levels of education, health, and welfare services; police
protection; and environmental protection than wealthier states and communities.

4. Obstructs action on national issues

For many years, decentralizing the issue of civil rights allowed segregation to flourish in
America. Only when the issue was nationalized in the 1960s by the civil rights movement was
there any significant progress. Minorities can usually expect better treatment by national
agencies than by state or local authorities.

Political federalism idealistic

Political federalism adds an additional layer of bureaucracy assuming that regional governments
are omniscient social planners forgetting that. Policymakers at any level are primarily politicians
in this framework, motivated by prospects of reelection, the 損erks of office (which could include
private returns from its corrupt use), lobbyist contribution, etc.

Moreover, administrators at all levels may or may not have the capacity and power to enforce
the policies they deem desirable. Policymakers may or may not have complete information for
determining which policies are desirable.

Additionally, citizens in large local regions do not have much tighter control over their local
representatives than they do over central government representatives. Local governments
under federated states do not have as much autonomy to respond to their constitutions’
demands, as perceived. In fact, the countries studied in this paper show a poor match between
local governments’ mandates and the resources available to them.

Policymakers motivated by prospects for reelection of the perks of office cannot be expected,
necessarily, to use government budgets like social planners seeking the maximum welfare for
their country or region. They can be expected to use information strategically, complicating the
potential for social planner-like governance even if the incentives were present. Politician may
also be corrupt.

——-

What is federalism?

It is a form of government where sovereignty is constitutionally shared between a central

governing authority and constituent political units called states or regions.

In basic terms, it will break the country into autonomous regions with a national government
focused only on interests with nationwide bearing: foreign policy and defense, for example.
The autonomous regions or states, divided further into local government units, will have primary
responsibility over developing their industries, public safety, education, healthcare,
transportation, recreation, and culture. These states will have more power over their finances,
development plans, and laws exclusive to ther jurisdiction.

The central government and states can also share certain powers.

How is it different from what we have now?

We presently have a unitary form of government. Most administrative powers and resources are
with the national government based in Metro Manila. It's Malacañang that decides how much to
give local government units. The process is prone to abuse, with governors and mayors
sometimes having to beg Malacañang for projects they believe their communities need.

How local government units spend their budget has to be approved by the national government.

In federalism, the states will have the power to make these decisions with little or no
interference from the national government.

Examples of federal countries: United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India, Malaysia.

PROS

Locals decide for themselves. Regions have their own unique problems, situations, geographic,
cultural, social and economic contexts. Federalism allows them to create solutions to their own
problems instead of distant Metro Manila deciding for them.

The states can establish policies that may not be adopted nationwide. For example, liberal
Metro Manila can allow same-sex marriage which the state of Bangsamoro, predominantly
Muslim, would not allow. In the United States, some states like Colorado and Washington have
legalized recreational marijuana even if other states have not.

This makes sense in an archipelago of over 7,000 islands and 28 dominant ethnic groups. For
decades, the national government has been struggling to address the concerns of 79 (now 81)
provinces despite challenges posed by geography and cultural differences.

With national government, and thus power, centered in Metro Manila, it's no surprise that
development in the mega city has spiralled out of control while other parts of the country are
neglected.

More power over funds, resources. Right now, local government units can only collect real
estate tax and business permit fees. In federalism, they can retain more of their income and are
required to turn over only a portion to the state government they fall under.
Thus, local governments and state governments can channel their own funds toward their own
development instead of the bulk of the money going to the national government. They can
spend the money on programs and policies they see fit without waiting for the national
government's go signal.

——-

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A FEDERATED PHILIPPINES

ADVANTAGES. There are several discernible and constantly repeated arguments in

favor of a federal setup in the Philippines. Some of these arguments include a) diverse
ethnolinguistic elements whiCh may or may not coincide wilh geographic differences; b)
archipelagic characteristics that do not allow for immediate government responses to
social probiems and, hence, a unitary government does not make for effective and
economical actions considering time and budget constraints; and c) it follows the preHispanic
polilical situation whereby scattered barangay units plus the sultanates of Sulu
and Maguindanao existed side bY side.

Diverse Ethnolinguistic and Cultural Elements

Ethnolinguistically, one can find the Filipino really diverse. This could be explained
by the country's archipelagic characteristic which keeps the ish;t'!d provinces isolated
from one another.
Another effect of isolation, lack of contacts resulting from undeveloped transport
and communication systems, is the difference in world views and perceptions. A Muslim
Filipino and a Christian Filipino, for example, would differ in perceptions about political
issues and may be completely contradictory. This is true with a Filipino from the North
(Cordillera) who might have a different impression of a lowlander. But on a closer
scrutiny, this problem of ethnic differences and perspective-'S is not really alarming,
provided that it does not result in "movements" to separate from the country like the
secessionist movement in Mindanao. It must be pointed out, however, that the
perspective of the natives or aborigines can be taken as reflections of the effectivity of
national political socialization and integration. An efficient-transport and communication
system would play a crucial role in the realization of such goals.

Archipelagic Characteristics
Except for Indonesia and a few other archipelagic nation-states, the Philippines is
perhaps lhe most scattered island territory.

that these are populated by one homogeneous ethnolinguistic group. At certain

periods, it is difficult to reach some of these islands (particularly those that are located
in East Visayas, Bicol, Cagayan Valley and Batanes province because of frequent
typhoons and other weather disturbances). The monsoon seasons, for example, which
causes strong sea currents caused by the flow of wind emanating from the Pacific Ocean
entering through the Philippine Archipelago's "choke points"4 somehow affected the
directions toward which traditional seacrafts had travelled in the past. It may be argued
though that, to a certain extent, these traditional seacrafts have been replaced by modern
means of land, air, and sea transportation, making travel to these islands relatively easy.
These changes, nonethelesss, are only of recent phenomenon, not much earlier than the
first few years of the American rule.
The best system of governance under these circumstances is one that is sufficiently
decentralized. The response mechanism to natural calamities must be locally crafted,
suitable-for the most part to local conditions. In general, how to minimize adverse impacts
of natural calamities or how to turn negative developments relative to nature into regional
assets should be comparatively easy for the local leaders to work on.

The Barangays: Basic Political Communities

Just like Malaysia, Philippine culture presents varying characteristics, for instance,
the presence of ethnolinguistic groups spread all over the country. Characteristically, it
also qualifies for a federal set-up. Being an archipelagic country, the. Philippines' earliest
political units were spread throughout.almost 7,100 islands and islets, thus were faced with
different circumstances and therefore having a variety of survival capabilities. Some
barangays like Cebu or Manila or those in rich alluvial plains had better resource bases
or had more opportunities to prosper because of the presence of a highly established
commercial and trading activities.

DISADVANTAGES. Ironically, it was the same political circumstance-the existence

of hundreds, if not thousands of barangays, or disunited political units- that became the
basis of the opinion that the present Philippine State is weak,. The existence of forces such
as those represented by the sultanates, the datus, and the chieftains of the highlanders either
in the Cordillera or those in Mindanao, etc., that tend to pull people's support away from
the Manila government is likewise cited as supportive of the view. The argument goes
that if the State is weak, then why weaken it further by proposing a federal setup?
A second usual argument that seems to negate the move toward federalism has to
do with the monarchial system under Spain. The Governor-General, who was on top of
the government under Spain during colonial times, represented a strong central
government in the Philippines, which in the minds of many, had held the country together
for centuries. Then, they ask: "why alter such an appropriate system now"?

Lastly, critics of a federal setup cite the fact that the various provinces are unevenly
endowed with human and natural resources. If one province with relatively small annual
revenues becomes self-supporting under a federal structure, these revenues in absolute
terms will remain small, compared to big and relatively developed provinces,
notwithstanding the percentage of retained revenues by the province. Thus, there will
be uneven development.

——-

What is federalism in the Philippines (Filipino: Pederalismo sa Pilipinas)? Federalism is a

proposed type of government wherein sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the
national government and subdivisional governments (such as states or provinces). Federalism
divides the country into several autonomous states with a national government. Read more:
https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-explained.html

How federalism works? The autonomous states are even further divided into local government
units. They will have the main responsibility over developing their local industries, public health
and safety, education, transportation, and culture. These states have more power over their
finances, policies, development plans, and laws. The United States, Switzerland, Germany and
Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia and Brazil are examples of countries with a federalist form of
government. Read more: https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-explained.html

In the past, the Philippines has had attempts at a reform towards a federal system of
government - during the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, she
recommended federal decentralization as one of the goals of the proposed charter change.
However, the attempt failed because opposition from various sectors believes this reform was
used to extend her term limit. Read more: https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-
explained.html

Pros and cons of federalism in the Philippines What are advantages of federal form of
government and why is it attractive to Filipinos? Firstly, under a federal government, states are
empowered to make their own decisions. They no longer need to rely on the central government
to decide for them. This is important to note in the Philippine context because of the vast
geographical and cultural differences between regions - differences that the central government
may not always be able to cater to. Read more: https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-
philippines-explained.html

Furthermore, decentralization in the Philippines would allow states to keep more of their income
to themselves. They do not have to rely on collecting real estate tax and business permit fees -
80% of their total earned income stays, while only 20% goes back to the national government.
This means that states are 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. Within the 80% budget that remains with these states, 30% will be
funneled to the local state government, and 70% will be allocated to the provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays. Read more: https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-
explained.html

Because states are able to both make their own decisions and retain the income they have to
fund these decisions, 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 better 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 surrounding states. Hopefully, this will lead to friendly competition
between states that will help raise the quality of life and economic development for everybody
involved. Mayor Duterte 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. Read more: https://
kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-explained.html

All in all, a federal form of government in the Philippines is a hot topic among Filipinos because
it is expected to accommodate regional preferences and diversity - a matter of great importance
in a country with 7,107 islands and more than 40 different ethnic groups. Geoffrey de Q. Walker,
Emeritus Profe Read more: https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-explained.html

What are disadvantages of a federated Philippines? Like all forms of government, federalism
has its ugly side too. The first problem the Philippines would have to iron out would be 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. Read more: https://kami.com.ph/2492-
federalism-philippines-explained.html

Moreover, development of the states in a federal form of government might not even work at all.
Some states may not be as gifted or as ready for autonomy as others. A major concern is that
while some states may progress faster, the converse is also true because other states may
devolve faster as well - even more so without a national government to back them up. However,
in some federal countries, the national government provides funds to help underdeveloped
states. A proposed Equalization Fund will use part of the tax from rich states for the funding of
poorer states.

What would the Philippines look like under transition to a federal form of government? Past
proposals divided the Philippines into 10 or 11 autonomous states. President Duterte envisions
18 federated regions – 16 federated regions (including the new Negrosanon region) and the
federated regions of Bangsamoro and Cordillera. Regional states will have greater power over
raising their own revenues, determining their own legislation and choosing their economic
development models. In a federal system, billions of pesos will have to be spent on setting up
state governments and the delivery of state services. States will then have to spend for the
elections of their own officials. While the idea of federalism in the Philippines is attractive for
most Filipinos, the possible benefits that are marketed by the idea will inevitably come at a cost,
and will require extensive time and effort from both governments and citizens alike. President
Duterte has to make sure the people are satisfied with the division of responsibilities that will be
stated in the Amendment, and that the work towards building a federalist country will not
alienate other states or leave them behind, the way they are being left behind right now. Read
more: https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-explained.html

——

AKO BICOL party list Rep. Rodel Batocabe, president of the House party list coalition bloc,
made the call as Interior and Local Government Undersecretary Martin Diño insisted on the
legality of arming barangay officials.
“This should be studied carefully and weigh the pros and cons of this proposal,” he said in an
interview.

Offhand, barangay officials are not supposed to be law enforcement officials but local chief
executives tasked to enforce the laws in the barangays but with nonpolice powers. If we arm
them, we will be changing the very nature of barangay officials and reduce them to being
policemen and barangay tanods,” he pointed out.

Diño said Section 389 (b) of Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 entitles
barangay chairpersons “in the performance of his peace and order functions to possess and
carry the necessary firearm within his territorial jurisdiction, subject to appropriate rules and
regulations.”

Batocabe said the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) should ensure that
barangay tanods are equipped in maintaining the peace and security in barangays.

“It should be better if the DILG will enhance the capabilities of tanods to safeguard peace and
order in the barangays, under the control and supervision of our barangay captains, ” he said.

Malacañang said President Duterte was still studying the proposal to avoid the possibility of
arming any rogue village officials.

President Duterte earlier said he was considering to arm barangay captains to ensure their
protection in the fight against crime and illegal drugs.

Tags: A leader of the House of Representatives, AKO BICOL party list, barangay captains, law
enforcement officials, local government, President Duterte, Rodel Batocabe, village officials

A COUNCILOR has called on President Rodrigo Duterte to reconsider what he said was a plan
to arm members of the ronda tanod of barangays.

Councilor Romeo Calizo said Duterte’s recent pronouncements about giving barangay-based
peacekeepers the power to carry firearms should be thoroughly studied.

Calizo, chairman of the city council’s police committee, said arming the tanod members would
not guarantee peace and order in the barangays, and allowing them to carry guns could even
result in more trouble.

He pointed out that many of today’s barangay tanod members “are not professionals.” The
practice, he said, is for the barangay chairpersons to appoint jobless people in their barangays,
some of whom even have criminal records.

“Dili pa gyud angayan kay daghan tanod na lamambigit sa mga tinonto sa barangay,” Calizo
said.

But Calizo said the barangay tanod can be very useful in gathering information about criminals
in their respective barangays.
“They can only participate in intelligence gathering. Dili kay urada-urada gilayon nga sila
armasan,” he said.

Meanwhile, Camp Alagar called on barangay chairpersons to be careful in appointing ronda

tanod members.

Camp Alagar even suggested individuals who took up Reserve Officers Training Corps and
Special Civilian Armed Auxiliary to be prioritized by the barangay officials.

Camp Alagar spokesman Supt. Lemuel Gonda claimed that as an auxiliary force by the local
police and the military, it is high-time for the local barangay units to hire professional individuals
and work regularly as barangays tanods.

Gonda said professionalizing barangay tanods should be given much attention considering that
every community has been experiencing a rise in criminality lately.

Gonda added that barangay local government units should also hire individuals who have a
college level education with at least 22 units, criminology graduates are preferred as they are
“true force multiplier by the local police force.”

“Apan dili sila pwede ma-armasan hangtud nga ma-hire sila professionally,” Gonda said

———

Barangay Tanod brigades were organized to assist the government in the

maintenance of peace and order in the country. Pursuant to such duty, they
conduct rondas or nightly patrols, necessarily exposing their lives and limbs to
danger in the hands of criminal elements and other wayward members of society.
In fact, an alarming number of Barangay Tanods have already been assaulted,
injured and/or killed, leaving their families and dependents to fend for
themselves.
This bill seeks to grant hazard pay to all duly appointed members of the
Barangay Tanod brigades during their incumbency as such. It is in recognition of
their active participation and constructive role in the maintenance of peace and
order. It will also serve as an incentive for a more faithful performance and
discharge of their duties and functions.
It is the aim of this bill to give to the Barangay Tanods what is due to them.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the approval of this bill is highly
recommended.

Barangay Tanod brigades were organized to assist the government in the maintenance of peace
and order in the country. Pursuant to such duty, they conduct rondas or nightly patrols,
necessarily exposing their lives and limbs to danger in the hands of criminal elements and other
wayward members of society.