A CRITIC OF FEDERALISM

BY: RUSSEL VINCENT T.SARACHO

LLB - IV

Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final

authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is
constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have
final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have
political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit
and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign
policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also
participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is
spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings
concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in
federations.

The most important aspect of a federal system is that it recognizes that there are
different types of political issue which need different types of institution to deal with
them. Some affect only a local area; others are more widespread in their scope. In a
federal system, the power to deal with an issue is held by institutions at a level as low as
possible, and only as high as necessary. This is the famous principle of subsidiarity.

The second major feature of a federal system is that it is democratic. Each level of
government has its own direct relationship with the citizens. Its laws apply directly to the
citizens and not solely to the constituent states. This system consists of the federal or
national government and constituent states and local governments in each state. Also,
power is dissolved but coordinated. For this reason, federalism is often seen as a means
of protecting pluralism and the rights of the individual against an “over-powerful”
government.

Federalism developed as a response to the need to link separate political

communities together in order to effectively pursue objectives that each could not obtain
on its own, but without subsuming their respective identities. The central government is
prevented from becoming all-powerful and is only provided with the necessary powers. In
federalism, state governments are established as “regional localities,” free to handle local
affairs according to the political desires of their constituents.

After all, the law is a means of restraining the strong and protecting the weak. We
do not pretend that the world is perfect, but nevertheless the building blocks of society
remain as they always were. Federal arrangements may protect against central authorities
by securing immunity and non-domination. Constitutional allocation of powers to a sub-
unit protects individuals from the center, while interlocking arrangements provide
influence on central decisions via sub-unit bodies. Sub-units may thus check central
authorities and prevent undue action contrary to the will of minorities: "A great
democracy must either sacrifice self-government to unity or preserve it by federalism.
The coexistence of several nations under the same State is a test, as well as the best
security of its freedom. The combination of different nations in one State is as necessary
a condition of civilized life as the combination of men in society". As quoted by the
Supreme Court Chief Justice Puno, “It is time for the regions to be liberated. It is time for
1
the regions to be freed from the shackles of National Government and the only way is to
adopt federalism.”

The underlying principle on which every federal constitution rests is the principle
of subsidiarity. This stipulates that decision-making power should rest as close as possible
to those it affects. This is obviously a basic liberal principle which reaches far beyond the
constitutional structure of a state. Freedom is the ultimate principle of liberalism, which is
just another term for “self-determination or autonomy.” If liberals speak of freedom, they
first and foremost think of the freedom or the autonomy of the individual. Accordingly,
liberals believe that the right to make decisions should first and foremost rest with the
individual.

In a political context, this is not always possible for practical reasons. For
instance, we cannot decide individually on which side of the road we would like to drive
our cars. Still, the autonomy of a small group leaves more freedom with its members than
that of a large group as fewer fellow-members engage in the decision-making process.
From a liberal standpoint, therefore, wherever collective decision-making is unavoidable,
this should be exercised in the smallest possible unit. Consequently, any delegation of
power from smaller to larger units should be subjected to the burden of proof that the
smaller unit is unable to cope with the problem in question. In practice, this means that all
those matters should be left in private hands for which a need of government interference
has not explicitly been proven. This is the essence of the principle of subsidiarity, which
is not only a core principle of liberalism but also the essence of the concept of civil
society. Applied to the organization of the state, subsidiarity will result in a decentralized
form of government where only those matters are dealt with at a central level that cannot
be dealt with adequately at lower levels.

One of the advantages of a federal system of government concerns the distribution of

power. “Under the federal system of government, the classical horizontal division of the
powers of state (legislative - executive - judicial) is complemented by a vertical division of
power between the state as a whole and the individual member states. Distribution of power
ensures that there are checks and balances, helping to prevent abuse of power.”

Secondly, there will be more democracy. How will this be achieved? “Sub-division
into smaller political units makes state action clearer and more comprehensible, thus fostering
active participation and co-determination. Furthermore, each citizen has two opportunities to
exercise the most fundamental democratic right. First of all is the right to vote. In a
federation, elections are held both for the national parliament and for the parliaments of the
individual member states.”

Thirdly, federalism increases the leadership opportunities. “Political parties have

more opportunities to hold power and competition between parties is encouraged, as they can
exercise political responsibility in the individual member states even if they are in the
minority nationally. This gives parties an opportunity to test and prove their capacity for
leadership by offering them a chance to demonstrate how they perform once elected.”

“Federalism through autonomous territories will specifically strengthen the powers of

the provincial governors, city and municipal mayors, and other elected local government
leaders. It will be proposed that the organic acts of Parliament will make key local

2
government executives members of the assembly of the autonomous territories and regions
that will become federal states in the Federal Republic.”

“In a federation, public bodies are closer to regional problems than in a unitary state.
There are no remote, forgotten provinces. Furthermore, citizens enjoy more rapid access to
the public authorities. It is easier for them to contact politicians and the public authorities
than in a unitary state with a remote and anonymous centre. The Federal Republic will
empower our citizens through their autonomous local and regional governments. It will
enable the people to raise their standard of living and enhance their political awareness
through their participation and efficacy in elections and the making of government decisions
at the local and regional local levels.” As pointed out by Senator Pimentel, federalism
establishes the independence of each state from the central government.

“The states that make up a federation are always competing with one another, making
them more vital. Exchange of experience fosters progress and helps to avoid undesirable
developments at the national level. This results to friendly competition for development
purposes among the various federal states composing the Republic. Federalism, together with
parliamentary government, will improve governance by promoting the development of
strong, united, disciplined, and program-oriented political parties that are responsible and
accountable to the people for their conduct and performance in and out of power.”

And most importantly, the federalism will build a just and enduring framework for
peace through unity in our ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity, especially in relation to
Bangsa Moro and our lumad/ indigenous peoples everywhere.

“Thus, federalism will stimulate and hasten the country’s political, economic, social,
and cultural development and modernization. Gradually, with a parliamentary government,
federalism will broaden and deepen our democracy. In other words — with political will and
sustained effort for the common good — federalism and a parliamentary government would
gradually enable our democracy to deliver on the constitutional promise of human rights, a
better life for all, a just and humane society, and responsible and accountable political
leadership and governance.”

Considering the Filipino political set up, there is a possibility that political clans will
strengthen their stranglehold in the regions and perpetuate political dynasties.

Given the varying degrees of development and resources in the different regions, the
poorer regions may be further left behind in development. This will cause greater migration
to richer regions with its attendant social ills. There may be greater uneven development.

“The federal states' autonomy necessarily means there are differences between the
states. Diversity is the opposite of uniformity. This can result in some difficulties, for
instance, for school children if a family moves from one federal state to another.” It can lead
to inequality between the states and lead to unhealthy competition and rivalry between them.

Federalism can lead to duplication of government and inefficient, over-lapping or

contradictory policies in different parts of the country. It can lead to over-government that
will result to corruption.

3
 In view of the fact that our Constitution is not set for this kind of transition and that
the form of government recognized by our Constitution is that of a unitary form of
government, the need to modify or revise our Constitution is inevitable.

Federalism will not cure the peace problems because it does not rest upon the concept
of general welfare.

Section 5 Article II on Declaration of Principles and State Policies states that “the
maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy.” In correlation to the aforementioned contention, federalism violates
the general welfare principle.

General welfare as defined by Utilitarianism is the “greatest good for the greatest
number of people.” In the case of Mindanao, the huge question lies on who constitutes the
greatest number—whether or not we count it from Mindanao per se or from the entire
Philippine population. I strongly believe that this has to be settled prior to the adoption of
federalism. Failure to do so would result into more insurgencies, worse, the inhabitants going
against their own state or regional government.

With federalism, the dire need of the Government to appease the Muslims would
result into disrupting the peace within the federation. Mindanao is not only about Muslims. It
is not only the home of Moros. I have spent half of my life in Mindanao and my friends and
relatives who are all Christians reside in Mindanao. Muslims are a plain sight, but when you
go to the South, you would mostly see Christians. Mindanao is not a Muslim country. It is
the Philippines. The cultures in the South and in Manila are basically the same. The only
difference is the historical origin—the Moros claiming part of the territory that their ancestors
won over the colonizing West. The only difference is that the insurgents find more
opportunities and confidence instigating terror in the South.

Federalism is not necessary because Article X on Local Autonomy already offers

“federal-like policies on local autonomy, decentralization, devolution, and subsidiarity”.
Decentralization is “the expansion of local autonomy through the transfer of powers and
responsibilities away from national bodies.” Devolution is “the transfer of power from
central government to subordinate regional bodies without (unlike federalism) leading to
shared sovereignty.” Quoting Atty. Alberto Agra:

Autonomy is already a constitutional and fundamental right of our

local governments, which possess residual powers, unlike local governments
in some federal States, and those powers include powers not given by law to
the National Government and those not prohibited by the 1987 Constitution
and statutes. XXX. There is not a need for federalism because the Local
Government Code can be amended by Congress to increase local powers.
XXX. What the Constitution guarantees in terms of fiscal autonomy of local
governments makes federalism not strictly necessary. Local Government
Units on the other hand have power over sources of revenues and their taxing
authorities. XXX. It is therefore not necessary for the Philippines to adopt
federalism.

To wit, Section 3 Article X of the 1987 Constitution states:

4
 The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide
for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall,
initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government
units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the
qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and
functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the
organization and operation of the local units.

Section 4 Article X states:

The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision

over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and
municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component
barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the
scope of their prescribed powers and functions.

Emphasis is given to decentralization and supervision. They are in contrast to state

government and control, respectively. Federalism is the sharing of sovereignty between the
central or federal government and the provincial or state governments. Thus, the present
government structure already offers a sharing of sovereignty as stipulated by the above
mentioned provisions.

The adoption of federalism to solve the peace problem does not ensure that the
oppressed will stop revolting against the well-off and the powerful because economy and
social services would be better administered in federalism.

Federalism does not offer the best solution to the peace conflict in the Mindanao
because it does not suit the current political system. The provinces are home of the powerful
families—they being both armed and politically influential. Moros or the MILFs in Mindanao
can be taken as an example. They however exercise more of the hard power (through an arms
race) than the soft power (being able to convince without the need of violence).

The political subdivisions of the Philippines are not apt for federalism because of
several compelling reasons. To have a better grasp of this issue, let us first determine the
scope of political subdivisions.

Section 1 Article X of the 1987 Constitution stipulates that the territorial and political
subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and
barangays. There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras as
herein provided. Section 2 of the same article states that “the territorial and political
subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.” Section 1 Article X of the Local Government Code
iterates the same provision but eliminates “political” and only addresses the subdivisions as
“territorial subdivisions.” For the purpose of looking into the dynamics of politics and
administration, we shall herein utilize the term political subdivisions.

As the long held political setup in the country, each division at each level from the
provinces down to the barangays is a local government unit. The provinces and cities are
grouped into regions for administrative purposes. The President has the prerogative to create,
5
abolish and determine the composition of regions, which is done so most often in
consultation with the local government units affected; with the exception of autonomous
region where the residents of the local government units have to ratify in a plebiscite their
inclusion in such a setup.

In the issue at hand, political subdivisions of the Philippines are held subjects of the
recent call for a government shift to federalism. I would like to call it political subdivisions as
“captives” of federalism, but for purposes of fairness, let us first examine how these
subdivisions become affected, altered, or modified.

Federalism through autonomous territories will specifically strengthen the powers of

the provincial governors, city and municipal mayors, and other elected local government
leaders. The organic acts of Parliament will make key local government executives members
of the assembly of the autonomous territories and regions that will become federal states in
the Federal Republic. 

In view of this, the creation of autonomous territories and autonomous regions that
will become federal states under a federal system will improve governance by challenging
and energizing local and regional leaders, entrepreneurs, and citizens around the country. In
effect, there will be no remote and unforgotten provinces. Moreover, citizens will enjoy more
rapid access to public authorities since it would be easier for them to communicate with their
representatives than in a unitary state. Citizens will not only be empowered through their
autonomous local and regional governments but their political awareness will also be
enhanced through their participation and efficacy in elections and the making of government
decisions at the local and regional levels.

The provision of public goods that produce positive spillovers will be too low. This is
because the benefit that the public good produces for other regions is not taken into account
by the region which produces the public good. Production which creates negative spillovers
on the other hand will be too high because regional governments will fail to internalize the
costs imposed on other regions. The result is an inefficient allocation of resources because
regions only care about their own benefits and costs and do not consider the effects of the
policies on other regions.

Aside from economic inequalities, the number of votes of each region also has an
effect on the uneven distribution of wealth and opportunities. Regions like NCR and Central
Visayas that have big number of voters would have advantage in terms of opportunities
coming from the national leadership. As a result, national politicians would tend to
concentrate government grants to regions with big number of voters.

Moreover, Federalism will only give way to a more convenient corruption for the
regional or state government leaders. This is a clear violation of Section 27 Article 2 of the
1987 Constitution stipulating that “the state shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public
service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.”

Federalism by definition means a system of government in which power is divided

between a central government and constituent political units. Federalism thereby allows self-
rule on the part of the constituent unit. The local government may be more susceptible to
corruption because interactions between private individuals and officials happen at greater
level of intimacy and with more frequency at more decentralized levels. There is no doubt
6
that leaders per state can easily rob hefty money in a lesser complicated, lesser bureaucratic
form of government.

Another consideration is the fact that local political clans may gain more power and
influence under a federal system of government. This is a vivid violation of Article 2 Section
26 of the 1987 Constitution stipulating that “the State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” In
Philippine politics, we have been accustomed with political clans that swell in various regions
from up to down south. For example, the Marcos clan dominates the province of Ilocos Norte
while the Farinas clan controls Laoag City, Ilocos Sur. Federalism does not dismantle these
well entrenched political clans. In fact, there is even a high probability that they would be
more powerful and influential because of the decentralization of authority and power.

Furthermore, the pursuit of federal system of government requires parallel movement

which in the case of the Philippines entails the local governments having the capacity and
resources to function effectively as states under a federal government. The current political
subdivisions, however, of the Philippines are not yet ready to respond to the needs and
demands of the community and fulfill their roles under a federal set-up.

To add with, Section 29 of Article VI provides a more compelling reason not to

pursue the Constitutional Amendment. Accordingly, no money shall be paid out of the
National Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Where do we
henceforth take the budget for the amendment? Wherever it may be, there certainly has to be
a letting go of another—a decrease in foreign debt financing, or the military budget, or worst
the budget for health and education.