Ateneo De Davao University

E. Jacinto St., 8016 Davao City

College 1st year 1st Semester

Purposive Communication

" Federalism, The Right Step for The Philippines"

Alvin Matthew Ang

Pete John Genobaten

Angela Galendez

Jash Modequillo
 Introduction

Since President Rodrigo R. Duterte started talking about federalism, using it as a

campaign platform and reiterating it in his first State of the Nation Address, people have

begun asking what federalism is, anyway. Without so much as giving it enough study,

some have condemned it outright as an alien concept not suited to the Philippine

setting. But what federalism’s detractors may not know is that even before the president

started saying that there is a need to shift our form of government to federalism, history

reveals that federalism has long been desired by our forebears and that many regions

and provinces have been clamoring for it for years’ now. In status quo According to

Cruz (2018) The Philippines is currently under a unitary form of government - this

means that the central government is the highest governing power. It receives a large

part of every region's income and redistributes it, often disproportionately so. Our

autonomous regions, provinces, municipalities and barangays can only exercise powers

and enact policies that the central government chooses to delegate to them.

So what is federalism? Cruz (2018) explained that federalism is a proposed type

of government wherein sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the national

government and sub divisional governments (such as states or provinces). Federalism

divides the country into several autonomous states with a national government. 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.

This means that local government would have more power and autonomy in their

respective regions. These local governments no longer have to give their resources to

the central government, for them to decide where the money will be used for. That

means the central government does not have to manage the infrastructure, health care,

laws of every region. This independence given to the local governments, means that,

the revenue and resources they have are theirs to keep and use however they see fit.

Local 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.

So why federalism? In theory, federalism aims for unity by recognizing diversity,

redistributes fiscal and legislative powers to the peripheries, and encourages local

government units to become captains of their own destinies. This allows greater amount

of independence and self-sufficiency of local governments to cater to their respective

regions. Adjusting laws and infrastructure and governance to the particular area’s need

in a way that the central government couldn’t do. Federalism presents the right step in

better governance in the Philippines. This should be implemented in order to improve

better Jurisdiction and responsibilities of the national government and local government,

Leeway for better economic growth especially for poor regions and a much easier in

catering to various indigenous cultures and context in order to adjust to the area in order

for better governance and proper resource management and stability.

 Body

The first argument would be the better jurisdiction and responsibilities of the

national government and local state government. The systematic distribution of the

power of the federal government to the national federal government and local state

government is intended for the efficient and reliable performance of the government

regarding the needs of its citizen. In relation, legislative powers are divided into the

national federal government and local state government decentralizing the opportunities

and means of development throughout the state. The national federal government is

given the task to maintain the national security of the state and mandated to enforce

martial decisions throughout the country. On the other hand, the local state government

holds the power of being responsible for its state which means that local infrastructural

projects, budget, and legislation is within the function of the local state government. The

jurisdiction granted by establishing a federal form of government was systematically

defined and constituted. But definition alone without the careful consideration of its

inference and our unique social backgrounds would mean that it is better to remain in

our status quo government. According to Jenna Bednar (2011), Federalism is believed

to help societies for the improvement of defense or a stronger economy than the ways

of unitary governance or an alliance. Many political scientists who study federalism

focus on the boundary problem. Federalism’s boundaries are not the geographical

boundaries between the several states. Although plotting them is one of the problems,

another is before the authority boundaries defining governmental powers and

obligations, drawn between the states and the national government.

 Responsibilities and jurisdictions of both the national and local governments

should be rational and clear to have a firm and strong federal framework of governance.

If the goal is to have a sustainable and efficient government, then concretize the system

of government by understanding the fundamentals of this form of government.

According to Michael Yusingco (2016), “One of the features that are embodied in a

federal government is its clear distinction between the roles of the powers exercised by

the national and local governments.” This means that the clear distinction of roles of the

local government and further empowerment can result to a better government with

better role fulfillment as local government are now free to pursue projects, laws, and

infrastructure upgrade without the dependence and permission of the central

government. It should also consider that there are government functions that we cannot

reasonably distribute to the national government but can be distributed to the local level

and vice versa. For example, Local government A can now have the ability to create

laws, handle their own budget and plans, without the need of bureaucracy and

permission from the central government, meaning it whatever problems arises, local

government can deal with it more directly and efficiently without the central government

who even in current times is burden with a lot of work, meaning the processing time of

said problem in the region would be finished sooner, rather than take much longer than

it should have. Therefore, Federalism helps in the efficiency with the jurisdiction and

managements of local state government.

However, in counter argument to this, even with the local government

empowerment and that the fact that they can choose how to spend their resource,

doesn’t mean that they will automatically be responsible to the resources they have.
Local governments are as susceptible to corruption or even more than to their central

government counterparts. According to Chua (2012) More Filipinos this year perceive

city and municipal governments to be corrupt than in previous years, a recent survey of

the Social Weather Stations (SWS) shows. According to the SWS 2012 Survey on

Good Local Governance released on Monday, 68 percent of Filipinos believe their city

or municipal governments are corrupt. This is higher than the 64 percent recorded in

2011 and 58 percent in 2009, when the study was first conducted. The top three local

offices where corruption is considered widespread are the Budget Office (48 percent),

Mayor's Office (32 percent), and the Engineer's Office (30 percent). These were the

same offices considered most corrupt last year. The fact is, there are even instances

where local government abuse their own power and such needs constant support vision

from a central government. But moreover, the fact is that there are some regions with

low resources, and thus the need of proper distribution and share by the central

government is what they depend on and they need it in order to survive.

In analysis, this means that there is no assurance that the local government is

competent for the task at hand. In example, say that you have local government A,

since this local government is so used to the budget and the plans given by the National

government, most likely they are not sure what will they do with this greater degree of

resources or freedom. Even more problematic is that if that local region doesn’t have

much resources and revenue to begin with as stated earlier in the counterargument, it

means to say that these local government, still need the central government for support

and aid. Simple put that the local government, resources are base on their particular

location, some regions are more financially stable and rich than others, for example,
Davao may be self-sufficient but maybe other regions such as Bukidnon or Cotabato,

may have lacking resources and such. This is further supported by Laurel (2018) An

argument used to explain why federalism is bad – in the Philippines, there are some

states that are probably not as ready to be autonomous compared to other states, which

would create a lot of problems. Those who are against federalism say that the states

that would perform poorly – probably those that lack natural resources and skilled

laborers – under a federal government would be in worse condition than before because

the national government would not be there to balance the situation and help out with

their predicaments. In conclusion, these states may not always be capable or ready for

independence.

But in analysis to this particular harm is refuted as first of, in terms in corruption

fine maybe both sides can concede the corruption exist either way, however with

federalism, there is more accountability because of the fact that since local government

has now more power, in encourages local citizens to engage and to be more alert

regarding corruption as it now could affect them more and the fact is they now have a

bigger responsibility to it. Also the fact remains that even the new found independence,

federalism is still a democracy, that means that, the people still get to choose their

leaders and the people are still in power, so they can choose worthy able leaders, and

still have the power to remove said leaders in an event if they prove corrupt or such.

Then to the second part regarding resources, simple response is that even if some

states or regions may have time to time lack resources and may need help, they could

ask help from the central government while still made fairly independent, because

federalism doesn’t mean that the central government is gone, but rather a stronger
empowerment to local states, that means the central government only intervenes in

emergencies. In conclusion even with this harms the local government support is still

better off with federalism.

The second argument is that there will be a better leeway for poor regions to be

richer and to have better economic growth. Because of the independence of the local

states, local government no longer have to rely on the budget or clearance given by the

central government, that assumes that they even gave a proper budget for us and it was

all distributed equally and fairly. However, according to So (2016) Federalists lament the

big share Metro Manila gets compared to other regions. A look at the 2016 national

budget showed that Metro Manila got a 14.27 percent share with P428.5 billion,

excluding the budget for the Office of the President, Office of the Vice President and

Congress which are based in the capital region. Meanwhile, Luzon got 20.94 percent

with P628.3 billion, Visayas got 9.94 percent with P298.3 billion, and Mindanao got

13.23 percent with P396.9 billion. This means that there is a lot of money somehow

ending up in Luzon’s development while the others get the shorter end of the stick, but

with the implementation of Federalism, the resources generated by local government

will be theirs to utilized how they see fit, so the money they made will be theirs to keep

and they can use it however they feel that can benefit them, investing in infrastructure,

health care, education and other such in order to help develop poorer areas. Local

areas can even enjoy the benefits from their own resources and can use the money

they earn to help uplift themselves without needing to give the money they earned fair

and square to the central government in the interest of having a fair and equitable

division of finance. Further supported by Ranada and Villarete (2016) States have more
autonomy to focus on economic development using their core competencies and

industries. The state of Central Luzon can focus on becoming an agricultural hub. The

state of Mimaropa, home to Palawan, can choose to use eco-tourism as its primary

launch pad.

Even more so, this now means that states no longer have to rely on the central

government for its approved budget for its local counterparts, no longer waiting for

metro manila to release its budget for the local states in other regions. When there is

political upheaval in Metro Manila, other regions that have nothing to do with the chain

of events are left waiting for the resources that only the national government can

release. With federalism, regions work independently of Metro Manila for most concerns

(Ranada & Villarete, 2016). This means that if ever there is some sort of problem in

Metro Manila, other states don’t have to be inconvenienced with the late approvals or

even faulty budget on the central government, instead they will be relying on

themselves and work their plans of improvement for their local region without possible

hindrance. In Conclusion, federalism gives a better chance in economic growth for

these states and local poor areas.

In Counter point, financial costs of establishing a federal government is huge

meaning that poorer areas could get poorer. Money is the lifeblood of every nation, it

keeps the bureaucracy functioning and maintains the uninterrupted flow of services. All

forms of government are highly dependent on its capability to impose the power of

taxation to generate satisfaction among the people that will define the economic status

of the state. Changing government suggests the revamping of the bureaucracy and the

reformation of governance through elections and the allocation of services under a new
system. It can be an evident reality that the need for financial intervention is needed to

accomplish the planned transition. The adjustments involved are not just time but also

the financial power of the state in its responsibility of supplying the various demands of

the people. If we are politically ready to embrace a new framework of governance, then

we should also be financially ready to suffice the consequences of this change, the

problem is that we still have to tax the people in order to finance this, and those in poor

areas will be affected negatively. Michael Yusingco (2018) argued that we should also

consider the division costs of the government structure, the allocation of responsibilities

to different government levels requires the division of expenditures.

Like spending a costly price to renovate a house from its interior and structural

designs, the Shift from Federalism also would need a considerable price to reconstruct

its entire system. The issue revolves around whether our country has the coffer to

spend this ambitious step towards political reform. The developing status of our country

would hinder the plans of the administration to propel its benchmark political platform,

the immediate federalization of the Philippines. It is the cost that we should also

consider before taking the next step towards change. According to the former senator

Edgardo Angara (2018), “the government may not afford the costs of maintaining a

state government. The state government will take the responsibility to pay the salaries

of state employees and answer the expenditures of infrastructural maintenance. Not to

include the operations of their public services such as schools, hospitals, and judicial

courts.” Concerning the National budget of our country, it is wise that federalism should

be laid in the table and discuss relevant policies that will improve our economic

performance than promptly initiate the mechanism of federating the country. If we desire
the blessings of federalism, then we must be capable of manifesting this blessing rather

than embracing what we thought is and becoming thoughtless to our objective.

In response to the counterclaim of the tax and the poor areas, while it is true that

we may still have to tax even poor areas, first off, the taxation is proportionate to the

income of these individuals, meaning the poor will not be as heavily taxed compared to

the rich and that secondly, this is a good investment, for federalism as stated to the

previous point, can help uplift the lives of these individuals when their local government

can better enact to their programs to help uplift the economic conditions. Economic

stability will not be a problem as long as we have the political will and a clear platform of

governance. Federalism strongly suggests that we should take time discussing the

economic stand of our country about decentralization of national income and on how

should it be evenly distributed. If we are to spend a very large amount, then it should be

appropriately spent in the sense that we are investing it to something that will benefit the

general population. We should realize the that the ambition of this notion of change

utilizes financial machinery to function efficiently. The longer will be the transition to

federalism, the higher it will cost us financially. Perhaps, some will think that it is better

to stay in our status quo government than to have a federal government that will

consume both our time and our money. However, any significant change requires

sacrifice and whether this is a sacrifice worth it, is indeed proven by showing exactly

how it is a good investment and a good system that can further benefit the Philippines,

therefore federalism is a worthy investment for the Philippines.

For the last point, federalism caters to various cultures and regions. These days,

federalism hangs above our heads as a likely eventuality that may or may not happen.
Proponents for federalism thought it's all-around usefulness and how it will greatly

improve the nation. Anti-federalist, on the other hand, argue that federalism will affect

our much-loved state of democracy. It seems that there is a divide on the opinions not

only among politicians but also among the general masses. Each citizen is entitled to

have their own opinion and choice as to which one they will support. A quote from the

Britannica (2018) "Federalism is a mode of political organization that unites separate

states or other policies under an overarching political system in such a way as to allow

each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity." Federalism allows the states to

be individuals while having a higher central form of government. The decisions in

political and economic welfare are largely in the hands of the local state while a central

governing body acts above it. In the Philippines, the centralized form of government has

been viewed with some resentment by provincial governments in a way because the

bulk of the taxes and budget is usually allocated for the regions around the capital

However there is the more solution-oriented perspective of things.

Having a federal form of government is a good thing because it allows the states

too, in a way, tailor their programs or ways and means to suit their current needs and

political as well as socio-cultural atmosphere. The Philippines is an archipelago with a

very diverse ethnolinguistic and socio-cultural aspect. It is an undeniable fact that

people in a different region or island have a very different outlook on politics and the

economy (Palongpalong, n.d.). In example, this is especially true for those who live in

Mindanao with the various cultures and indigenous tribes. Living in a state where ethnic

diversity is very apparent from one barangay to the next proves that the local

government needs to balance interest from various groups, the local government are
more knowledgeable in dealing with this sort of conflict with interest, rather than the

central government with an unfamiliarity with the context. To directly quote

Palongpalong (n.d.) "The best system of governance in these circumstances is one that

is sufficiently decentralized. The response must be locally crafted, suitable for the most

part to local conditions."

Tabarrok (2001) explained the pros of trying out initiatives or process in the local

governments in his article. According to him, trying out new ideas in a certain state

might be beneficial. To quote, "... that a single courageous state may if it's citizens

choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without

risks to the rest of the country." Policies and rules can be tried out in a state, making

amendments and solutions along the way, until they are perfected and can be slowly

introduced to other places. If an idea doesn't work, only that state is affected and the

rest, untouched. According to Tabarrok (2001), this is not just an idea but was already

proven in some places regarding airline deregulation rules, welfare reform, and school

choices. In conclusion, this point proves that the diversity and flexibility of each state,

and their empowerment can better help the people, in the umbrella of federalism

However, in Counterpoint, the reason why a unitary government is established in

the first place is to promote a sense of unity, that we all follow the same rules, morals,

and set of principles. According to So (2016) Critics are also wary that federalism will

lead to fragmentation given the ethno-linguistic divide in the country. Many are also

divided on whether it could strengthen regional communities or deepen the hold of

political dynasties. "On the one hand, federalism may indeed empower local political

elites and keep their hold of power. On the other hand, the creation of state
governments may pose as a challenge to political families in different localities". This

could possibly create even more tension and competition for power, between various

families seeking to control the region and the power it possesses. This means that there

is a chance that political dynasties can even hold on to more power in the local

government, and further divides other groups through, the various new laws and

customs and system of governance that one region may have, while others don’t. For

example, the stricter and discipline attitude and conservative culture brought by people

from Davao, may be alienated or be divided compared to a more liberal and free

thinking Manila. Showing that division of people is possible with this level of

independence and power.

A sense of unified leadership is the point of a unitary government meaning, that

there must not have some form of ethnic or power divide that could threaten the unity of

the people. According to Laurel (2018) Federalism could create a healthy competition

among states but one negative effect of this system is that it could lead to more rivalries

and worse disunity among the Filipino people. Decentralization of local governments

might also worsen hostilities among ethnic groups, according to critics. With the regions

having their own laws and systems and power, this could further alienate and divide the

people of various cultures, with the regions functioning like a separate country.

However, in analysis to this claim, this counter rebuttal is moot as because, as

stated earlier, federalism does not mean the removal of the central government, that

means people are still united under one banner, under one purpose and that central

government can even watch over the states and just focus in making sure they won’t

abuse their power, this shows that even with various states with various culture,
Filipinos will still be united, as the states will still cooperate with one another, knowing

that even though they are now independent, they must still cooperate with one another

to function as a country and the central government can have less of a burden knowing

that the local states and government are now self-sufficient of themselves.

Granted that maybe the various new upbringings and cultures, from the regions

may influence changes in Filipino’s but just because of the difference does not

automatically mean that they will be divided. There is still a common president, a

common constitution, a common language, a common country. That means to say there

is still a level of unity that is kept for the people. Education is still the same for all, more

importantly Rights are the same and absolute, that means even though people may go

to different regions, they are still treated in the same way as human beings and Filipinos

that shows that though the freedom is given to the states, there is still a common flag

and government that all Filipino’s adhere to.

Conclusion

In conclusion a federalism form of governance is beneficial for the Philippines as

it gives local government independence and management, it is able to better help poor

areas to progress economically, and can help in catering the various different cultures to

better manage local regions. As proven earlier, there is a stark difference to how our

resources and industrializations are handled and improved to those living in the capital

regions of Luzon, compared to those who live in other areas such as Mindanao. It is

high time that we give more deciding power, motivation, and a chance of exploration

when it comes to governing different localities that are also very diverse and that have

various needs that are context specific that the local government are more equip to deal
with. With excellent planning and preparations as well as having some contingency

plans laid out will make the transition to a federal form of government smoother to have

a better future for the benefit and greater good for the Philippines and its people.

Even though that there are various challenges and possible harms that

federalism has faced, these harms has been rebutted or at least mitigated in this paper.

The benefits outweigh the harms, the urgency and the extent of the problems that are

faced in the Philippines, can be solved in the right step of federalism. Federalism, with

the opportunities presented such as, better Jurisdiction and responsibilities of the

national government and local government, leeway for better economic growth

especially for poor regions and a much easier in catering to various indigenous cultures

and context in order to adjust to the area in order for better governance and proper

resource management and stability, can all be achieved with the platform of federalism.
References:

Britannica, T. E. (2018, July 24). Federalism. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/federalism
Cruz, H. D. (2018, July 20). How federalism works: Federal form of government
in the Philippines, explained. Retrieved from https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-
philippines-explained.html#2492
Bednar, J. (2011, May 25). The Political Science of Federalism. Retrieved from
http:// www-personal.umich.edu/~jbednar/WIP/annrev.pdf
Mendoza, V.V. (2016, October 10). Why federalism is not the answer. Retrieved
August 19, 2018, from https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/148718-federalism-not-
the-answer
Yusingco, M. (2016, June 18). Federalism: a deeper look. Retrieved August 19,
2018, from http://opinion.inquirer.net/95262/federalism-a-deeper-look
Palongpalong, A.D., (n.d) The Pro and Con Argument on Federalism Retrieved
from https://www.google.com.ph/url?
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-30
Tabarrok, A.T., (2001) Independent Institute, "Arguments for Federalism"
http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=485
Yusingco, M. (2018, February 19). The cost of a federal setup. Retrieved August
20, 2018, from http://opinion.inquirer.net/111137/cost-federal-setup
Angara, E.J.(2018, March 6). Federal system’s consequential costs. Retrieved
August 20,2018, from http://opinion.inquirer.net/111505/federal-systems-consequential-
costs
Chua, R. (2012, October 30). More Filipinos see corruption in local gov't.
Retrieved from http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/10/29/12/more-filipinos-see-corruption-
local-govt
So, L. A. (2016, May 31). Federalism: What Filipinos need to know. Retrieved
from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/05/31/1588742/federalism-what-filipinos-
need-know
 Laurel, R. (2018, July 13). 5 Disadvantages of federalism in the Philippines.
Retrieved from https://kami.com.ph/18638-5-disadvantages-federalism-
philippines.html#18638
Ranada, P., & Villarete, N. (2016). Will federalism address PH woes? Pros and
cons of making the shift. Retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/120166-federalism-pros-cons-
explainer