The main meat of the discussion on whether we should adopt federalism or not is that shifting to federalism will empower

local governments to facilitate faster delivery of basic services necessary and appropriate to their respective constituents.
This is viewed by the proponents of a federal structure of government as the formula to surge economic development and
alleviate poverty. The current administration passionately believes that this will finally solve the “Imperial Manila”
laments of the “probinsyanos”, specifically the Southerners, and the armed conflict in Mindanao. However, the fact that
federal system is actually a state-building effort is not always mentioned.

Previous legislators have responded to unsustainable and staggering economic development by enacting the Local
Government Code in 1991, which, in a manner, a federal system. We can see that despite the mitigated unitarism for the
past two decades, it is not the nature of a system of government that causes it to fail, rather it is the people who operate
the system. By merely changing the system of government without changing the people, we cannot expect a different
positive result.

The weak points in the proposed system are as follows:

First, economically backward provinces or regions would have to be dependent on equalization payments from richer
areas one. The locally-generated funds of some municipalities are still small and are still dependent on the IRA for their
operations.

Second, as many as 70 percent of Filipino politicians are connected to dynasties who were able to perpetuate themselves
in power and amass vast wealth through corruption. Imagine how much more influence and wealth will these dynasties
monopolize if more powers from the national government are devolved and handed over to their control.

Finally, this is not a silver bullet solution to the armed uprisings in Mindanao as what many would envision because the
Moro’s want a separate nation, not autonomy.

In the list of what can make our country better at this time, given the prevailing political culture, our need for laws to fight
corruption ranks much higher in importance and urgency than the need to shift to a federal system of government.
Federalism will not yield positive results for the country at this time. Federalism will not solve poverty and inequality,
simply because it does not touch the real center. It only redraws the periphery. What we need at this time is to allow well-
meaning citizens a chance at public service, instead of allowing government positions to be the birthright of de facto royal
dynasties. Besides, the local autonomy is yet to find a firm ground in the overall administration of government. Even the
promise to eradicate crime, drugs and corruption in three to six months can hardly happen if there is no central authority.

At the very least, strengthened anticorruption instruments must first be in place before any shift to a federal system of
government is undertaken. These are indispensable preconditions for a federal system of government to function for the
people’s welfare.

The forms and structures of governments, should be born out of the unique experience and history of the nation and not
to be patterned from foreign structures and expect the same outcome. As what political analysts would say“we should not
repeat the haste under pressure in making our present (1987) Constitution.”

Bottomline, under ideal political conditions, a federal system of government may be better than a unitary form of
government. Unfortunately, we are not under ideal political conditions.