Rethinking the National Capital Region as a Symmetrical Region in the Proposed

Bayanihan Federal Constitution: An Evaluation of the issue of Urbanization

In 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte made a campaign promise of instituting political

reforms by pushing for a shift from a Unitary to a Federal form of government. Last year,
January 25, 2018, the President issued Executive Order No. 10 Series of 2016 convening
the Consultative Committee to review the 1987 Constitution and come up with a proposed
Draft of a Federal Constitution. After several months of work, the Consultative Committee
came up with the proposed “Bayanihan Federal Draft Constitution”. Salient features of
the draft include the following: 1) demandable socio-economic and demandable rights; 2)
courts will be divided into four namely Federal Supreme Court, Federal Constitutional
Court, Federal Administrative Court and Federal Electoral Court; 3) political aspect of
president and vice president are elected in tandem and includes the educational
qualification of being a college graduate or its equivalent; 4) in the context of the study of
urban and regional governance is the proposed federated regions in the country. These
regions are as follows: Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon, National Capital
Region, CALABARZON, MIMAROPA, Bicol Region, Western Visayas, Central Visayas,
Eastern Visayas, Negros Island Region, Northern Mondanao, CARAGA, Davao Region,
SOCKSARGEN, Zamboanga Peninsula, CAR and ARMM.
The paper would like to examine the proposed Bayanihan Federal Draft
Constitution specifically the case of the National Capital Region as a symmetric region
under the proposal. It looks at the following considerations:
1. Structure
2. Governance
3. Functions of the Region

Understanding the Context

States today evolved and do not have the same character as those that were
established earlier. Ultimately, pluralism is at the heart of democracy (Diamond, 1995), it
fosters the dynamic interplay of ideas, enterprises, parties, and a great variety of
nongovernmental groups, culture and ethnicity. “Today we will be able to muster only 10
percent of all countries today as countries if we use the standard of nation-state
formulated centuries ago by European tradition, which defined countries as homogenous
ethnic community where the inhabitants possess an identical culture” (Hall 1994, p. 60).
In other words, countries today are characterized by social and cultural diversity that if
and when conflicts would arise, it is not from ideological differences but rather in culture
and ethnicity (Huntington 1996). Before, it was easy to forge a country where the
inhabitants could be made to follow and belong to a single nation despite the diversity of
peoples in given polity (Barkey and Parikh, 1991, p 531 - 532). Weak polities are either
subjugated or made to be part of the dominant people, thus ensuring that only the strong
or powerful states have the ability to survive. But today, we are living in an age were
nonintervention is the international norm (Migdal, 988).
Federalism as Elazar and Kincaid would describe it is essentially a system of
voluntary self-rule and shared rule. The word ‘federal’ comes from the Latin word foedus,
which means covenant. A covenant signifies a binding partnership among co-equals in
which the parties to the covenant retain their individual identity and integrity while creating
a new entity, such as a family or body politic, that has its own identity and integrity as well
(Kincaid, 2002, cited in Griffiths, 200, p. 7). This means that federal countries were
originally separate entities as the American Confederacy before the creation of the United
States of America (USA/US) or the classic confederations of the Greek Achaean League
or the United Provinces of the Netherlands (Elazar, 1993, p.190). A federation is born
when a number of usually separate or autonomous political units (or units with some
pretensions to autonomy) mutually agree to merge to create a State with a single
sovereign central government, but retain for themselves some degree of regional
autonomy (Dikshit, 1971, p. 98). It is clear by looking at the case of matured federations
such as the United States, Sweden and to some extent Belgium that separate states were
the ones who agreed to come together and create a unified federal state. But why
autonomous states would decide to unify and create a covenant considering that they
already enjoy such autonomy and independence? The answer to this particular question
leads us to the understanding of the original concept of federalism and its purpose which
is to “harmonize relations between different political entities and at the same time pull
their resources together (Tayao, 2000, p. 613). To unify is the sine qua non of the states
then for they are better off if they are to consolidate. Tocqueville’s basic assumption is
that every modern nation-state needs a complete, centralized government (Kincaid, 1999,
p. 211). Tocqueville writes (in his Democracy in America), “I cannot conceive that a nation
can live, much less prosper, without a high degree of centralization of government,” the
“federal form … allows the Union to enjoy the power of a great republic and the security
of a small one.”
Another notable thing about federalism is that “it has usually been adopted in
societies notable for relative ethnic, racial, and linguistic homogeneity (Lakoff, 1996,
p.214). The following according to Lakoff are characteristics of mature federations: the
thirteen cantons of the old Swiss Confederation
In most countries, particularly those who have been found much earlier than the
discovery of the new world, the structure is unitary (see Figure 1). Our country on the
other hand has this kind of structure. This is a much simpler structure as compared to a
federal one. It is to be noted that the administrative structure in the unitary is; 1) National-
Local, and 2) Interlocal. There are also only 2 levels of government in this particular
structure. The local governments in the Philippines have a number of levels where a
degree of autonomy may be given or has already given by the national government. We
can also see in the table below the solid lines that connects the National government from
the local government which means that the former is the higher government entity and as
such always takes precedence from the local government.
On the other hand, there at least six dynamics (relational patterns) that could be
gleaned from a look at a federal structure: 1) Federal-State-Local; 2) Federal-State; 3)
Federal-Local; 4) Interstate; 5) State-Local; and, 6) Interlocal (Tayao 2005: 4). These
patterns would provide us the blueprint of interaction between different government levels
and as such, require a clear delineation of functions so as to avoid conflict between them.
Of the six dynamics under a federal structure that was mentioned above. There are only
two dynamics or relational patterns that can be seen if the administrative structure is
unitary. The federal government has three levels (see Figure 2) compared to the unitary
which has only two. We can also see with the figure below the broken lines that connects
the Federal Government to the state government. This only shows the essential
characteristic of the Federal form of government where the state government ‘share
sovereignty’ with the federal government.
Figure 1: Unitary Form of Government1

Figure 2: Federal Form of Government2

1
An adaptation of Prof. Edmund Tayao.s paper presentation during the “Seminar-Workshop on The Forum for
National Survival: Instituting Real Political and Economic Reforms in the Philippines,” Thomas Aquinas Research
Center, University of Santo Tomas, España, Manila, 25 July 2005.
2
An adaptation of Prof. Edmund Tayao.s paper presentation during the “Seminar-Workshop on The Forum for
National Survival: Instituting Real Political and Economic Reforms in the Philippines,” Thomas Aquinas Research
Center, University of Santo Tomas, España, Manila, 25 July 2005.
On the Structure

Proposed Structure of the Federated Region

The proposed Bayanihan Federal Draft Constitution suggests the above structure
of the Federated Regions, using this as the basis, the proposal may not be applicable to
the National Capital Region based on the following contentions: First, the classification of
the National Capital Region as symmetrical model. Symmetrical and Assymetrical are two
models of Federalism that classifies a particular state depending on the structure based
on the agreed arrangement written in their respective constitution. Tarlton (1964),
provided a differentiation between a Symmetrical and Assymetrical Model. “An ideal
symmetrical federal system would be one composed of political units comprised of equal
territory and population, similar economic features, climactic conditions, cultural patterns
Social groupings, and political institutions. In this model, symmetrical system each of the
political institutions. In this model, each of the separate political units would in effect be a
miniature reflections of the important aspects of the whole federal system. Each state
would, because of its similarity, be concerned with the solution of the same sorts of
problems and with the development of the same sorts of potential. There would be no
significant differences from one state to another in terms of the major issues about the
political organization of a state might be concerned. The division of power between central
and state governments would be nearly the same in every case. Assymetrical model on
the other hand would be one composed of political units corresponding to differences in
interest, character, and make up that exist within the whole society. It is where diversities
in larger society find political expression through local governments possessed of varying
degrees of autonomy and power. Each of the component unit under this model would
have about it a unique feature or set of features which would separate in important ways,
its interests from those of any other state or the system considered as a whole. Clear
lines of division would be necessary and jealously guarded insofar as these unique
interests were concerned. It would be difficult (if not impossible) to discern interests that
could be clearly considered mutual or national in scope (short of those pertaining to
national existence per se)” (Tarlton 1965, pp. 869 – 870). Having been able to discuss
the differences by the two (2) models, the manner by which the National Capital Region
must be treated as Assymetrical model like the BARMM and CAR or must be considered
as an “Federal Administrative Region” directly under the Federal Government. NCR can
be considered as an “established” region based on two (2) considerations: 1) income and
revenue and 2) economic development.

Regional Per Capita Gross Domestic Product

(2015)
25 22.82
20
15
7.5 8.34 6.66 6.286.494.43
10 4.533.85 6.1 3.782.674.06 3.4 4.19 3.341.53
5
0
io I…
R III…
R ion…

io …

R ion…
R ion…
R ion…

io …

R ion…
R ion…
AR on…
R V…

R X…
…

M
R AR

eg I

eg n

eg n
R

eg I

R gio

R gio
R ion
C

M
R ion

i
n
eg

eg
eg
eg

eg
eg
eg
C
N

eg

At Current Prices
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

Source: 2016 Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing, DBM

Another key consideration is the political culture, there are 17 “little presidents”
wherein their mindset is that they can stand on their own even if you take away their IRA.
Their locally generated revenue can be enough to be able to run the city and or respond
to the needs of their citizens. Thus, a higher layer of government with supervisory powers
is needed to facilitate the affairs an d concerns of the proposed region. It is also important
to note that the National Capital Region has no provinces. From the sixteen (16) cities
and one (1) remaining Municipality, the barangays are already the next layer of
government which is not in accordance to the Administrative set – up of the rest of the
regions in the country. This is also the next point to consider under the structure of
governance in the proposed Bayanihan Federal Draft Constitution.

On Governance

One of the important features of the proposed draft is the manner by which how
the Regional Governor and the Deputy Regional Governor is actually being elected. It is
collegial like a Parliamentary system. Both executives will come from the regional
assembly which under Article XI. Section 5 states that the he Regional Assembly shall be
composed of duly elected members, half of the membership of which shall come from
each province, highly urbanized city, and independent chartered city, and half
representing political parties through proportional representation.

(a) Each province, highly urbanized city, and independent chartered city shall have one
representative to be elected by their respective voters.

(b) The representatives from the political parties shall be elected by the voters of the
region. The four (4) political parties that obtained the highest number of votes shall be
entitled to seats in the Assembly in proportion to the votes cast in their favor and following
their closed list.

This prevents a particular Local Government Unit in dominating the region based
on their population as well as total number of registered voters. It can be analyzed in the
existing set – up in the National Capital Region where Quezon City has the most number
of voting population. If for example, Quezon City will be able to consolidate all the votes
in the Eastern Bloc and just get a few number of votes in other cities, this will allow the
candidate from the city to dominate using this kind of formula or process.

Registered Voters Per City

Source: COMELEC, 2016

 However, though this maybe a good feature because of its collegial nature, it does
not fit the profile of the national capital region because of the earlier argument that Metro
Manila has no province and the other is that there is still one (1) remaining municipality –
Pateros. How can the proposed set –up be applicable?

On the Function of the Region

What will be critical in the overall governance of the region is the powers and
functions assigned to each level of government. If the first two (2) issues are not
addressed or settled, it would be difficult for the National Capital Region to fulfill its
function as assigned to them in the proposed draft. This only suggests that beyond the
shift from a Unitary to a Federal form of government, the rapid urbanization in the National
Capital Region significantly resulted to a hosts of issues and concerns that are inter –
related to one another. Accordingly, urbanization is a process by which cities are formed
and became larger due to industrialization and economic development, and that
encourages urban specific changes in specialization, labor division and human behaviors.
According to Dawson (2019, cited by Regmi, 2017), it can be considered as the most
powerful and visible anthropogenic forces on Earth that actually spreads fast among
developing countries (Chadchan and Shankar, 2009, Uttara, 2012 and Dawson, 2009,
cited by Regmi, 2017). The United Nations (2005) and USAID (2013) made a study that
almost all of the world’s population growth between 2000 and 2030 will be concentrated
in urban areas in developing countries worldwide and urban populations are expected to
grow by 1.4 billion by 2030, with accounting 60% of the total world population in city and
town; and expected to reach 2.6 billion (cited by Regmi, 2017).
References

Griffiths, A. ed. (2002). Handbook of Federal Countries. Montreal: McGill-

Queen’s University Press.

Hall, J. ed., 3 vols., (1994). The State: Critical Concepts. London: Routledge

Dikshit, R. (1971) Geography and Federalism. Annals of American Geographers, Vol. 61

(1), 97-115.

Elazar, D. (1993) International and Comparative Federalism. PS: Political Science and
Politics, Vol. 26, (2), 190-195.

Kincaid, J. (1999) Federal Democracy and Liberty. PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol.
32 (2), 211-216.

Migdal, Joel, (1988). Strong Societies and Weak States; State-society Relations and
State
Capabalities in the Third World. Princeton University Press

Regmi, R. (2017). Urbanization and Related Environmental Issues of Metro Manila,

Journal of Advanced
College of Engineering and Management, Vol.3, 80 - 92

Tarlton, C. (1965). Symmetry and Assymetry as Elements of Federalism: A Theoretical

Speculation. The Journal of Politics. Vol.27 (4),

Tayao, E. (2000). To Federalize Or Not To Federalize. UNITAS, Vol. 73 (4), 611-622

Eric Daniel de Torres
PA 253
Thursday/ 5:30 – 8:30