Good day everyone!

To the audiences, respected adjudicators, and to my fellow speakers, a pleasant

day to you all. We are here, gathered in this area to celebrate our political science days and now is the
awaited time of everyone which is the debate and the highlight of this event. The motion that was
given is that this House Believes in a Federal Philippines and I, as the leader of the opposition,
disagrees with it.
Before I move into my argumentation and since I would like to take this chance to define some terms.
Federalism is a system of shared power between two or more governments with authority over the
same people and geographical area.
While Unitary systems of government, by far the most common form around the world, have only
one source of power, the central or national government. Although democracy can flourish under
either system, the differences between the two types of governments are real and significant. Great
Britain, for example, has a unitary government. Its Parliament has ultimate authority over all things
that occur within the United Kingdom. Even if it delegates power over local matters, Parliament can
require its towns or counties to do whatever it deems appropriate; it can even abolish them or change
their boundaries if it chooses to do so.
In the United States, the situation is quite different. Laws of the national government, located in
Washington, D.C., apply to any individual who lives within the national boundaries, while laws in
each of the 50 states apply to residents of those states alone.
I would like to begin my arguments through asking the government about the necessity of federalism
to change the status quo when in fact and although it has flaws, doesn’t mean it is not working. We
have decentralization of powers through the help of the LGU code of 1991 which establishes the
system and defines powers of provincial, city, municipal and barangay governments in the Philippines
if the government wants autonomy for those small units of society.
Look at federalism not in its idealistic view but on its practicality and how it will actually affect us,
Filipinos. So aside from viewing the positive sides of federalism, we also need to view the negative
sides and ask ourselves if we really can handle these certain risks.
Mr. Chair, there really is no need to change the type of government in the Philippines because what
this country need is to enhance our law, the implementation and monitoring. Just like for example,
strengthen decentralization by a full and equal support from the nationals and total enforcement of
law against corruption and crimes done by those in office. Total transparency of transactions of the
government through obligatory financial report to the citizens especially with regards on money and
by submitting their SALN to the COA, twice every year, not just those politicians but also to the
immediate families and the staff. With these small things but if enforced correctly and effectively,
wrong deeds will be put into spotlight and will be punished immediately.
There really is no need to proceed for a federal type of government. Even in the process of adapting a
federal system exhausts the financial capabilities of our country notwithstanding the complications
that may occur during the process.
And as what the U.P Professor, Gene Pilapil of the U.P department of political science said that the
advantages claimed for federal over unitary systems read more like statements of faith, and that
shifting to federalism is quite complex, that it would require an overhaul of the constitution and
institutions like courts, local governments and the bureaucracy.
And even when our country will be a federal type, the Additional operating costs will be much more
of a burden compared to the status quo. Maintaining multiple levels of government is expensive.
More public institutions mean higher costs for offices, staff, salaries and allowances, and meeting
these costs may place a heavy burden on the treasury of a less economically developed state just like
our country which is experiencing economic problems.
(rebuttals or POI)
And that there is no need to proceed to federalism because the current structure may have problems
but enhancing those measure will solve the problem. And that is why it is better on our side because it
will lessen the burden of the government comparing if the Philippines will go transition towards
federalism.
 In a federal nation, the central government has defined powers, with full sovereignty
over external affairs. The exercise of authority in domestic affairs is more complicated.
Under the Constitution, the U. S. government has exclusive power to regulate interstate
and foreign commerce, coin money, provide for the naturalization of immigrants, and
maintain an army or navy, among other things. The United States guarantees to every
state a republican form of government, thus ensuring that no state can create, say, a
monarchy. These areas are ones in which national interests clearly supersede state
interests and are properly reserved for the national government. The national
government also has judicial authority to resolve controversies between two or more
states and between the citizens of different states.

Problem:
 Grabe nga corruption in the national level
 There are focused areas nga tabangan sa national so dili tanan areas ma help.
Government:
 Improvement of localities (corruption)-
o more resources to the local rather than national
 independency (not total) from the national esp in the promulgation of laws
(decentralization)
 dili pas2 nga action from the national to help the local (decentralization)
Opposition:
 That’s why there’s decentralization kay di man mabuhat sa pres tanan. need og help sa
mga local.
Policy – strengthen decentralization and total enforcement of law against corruption and
crimes relating office. Total transparency of transactions of the government (obligatory
financial report to the citizens) especially with regards sa money (obligatory submission of
SALN to the COA, not just sa politician buit also to the immediate families and the staff)
(corruption) It doesn’t really matter if federalism or democratic kay it really depends on the
person in charge that is why we urge the gov’t to strengthen decentralization (through…) and
total enforcement of law against corruption and crimes relating office to avoid corruption.
Total transparency of transactions of the government especially regarding money. And that
there is no need to proceed to federalism because the current structure may have problems
but enhancing those measure will solve the problem. And that is why it is better on our side
because it will lessen the burden of the government comparing if the Philippines will go
transition towards federalism.

Duplication of work and lack of coherence

Federalism can duplicate government functions and lead to the delivery of overlapping or
contradictory policies at different levels of government. Although constitutions often attempt
to specify which level of government has primacy in each area of policy, many policies cut
across these functional boundaries or can affect other policies in unpredictable and
undesirable ways. As a consequence, the responsibility of each level of government for
policy outcomes and service delivery may be hindered by the actions or inactions of other
levels of government. It can become difficult for citizens to know where responsibility lies
and to use this information to hold public officials to account.
Additional operating costs
Maintaining multiple levels of government is expensive. More public institutions mean
higher costs for offices, staff, salaries and allowances, and meeting these costs may place a
heavy burden on the treasury of a less economically developed country.
Increasing regional discrepancies of wealth, resources and outcomes
Unless an effective mechanism for revenue sharing is in place (requiring richer states or
provinces to subsidize poorer ones), federalism can lead to increased inequality between
subnational units because of their different natural resources or other revenues or levels of
development. Federalism may also cause a widening disparity of outcomes in terms of the
provision and quality of public services. Harmful economic competition between subnational
units A related point is that if the unit of social and economic regulation is smaller than the
unit of free trade and of capital movement (e.g. if working conditions or environmental
regulations are determined by subnational units), then a ‘race to the bottom’ might result, as
subunits compete to attract capital by lowering wage sand costs. This can undermine
solidarity and make it more difficult to pursue economically progressive policies.
Judicialization of politics
A strict constitutional division of power between levels of government may result in an
increased political role for the judiciary, as disputes between the competences of national and
subnational institutions are resolved in the courts rather than through elected legislatures. In
all democratic countries it is necessary to maintain a careful balance between the
independence and neutrality of the judiciary, on the one hand, and the responsiveness and
inclusivity of the judiciary on the other, but in federal countries striking such a balance is
particularly important.

Potential exclusion of minorities

While federalism can provide opportunities for autonomy and recognition for cultural
minorities, it can also expose minorities within constituent units to discrimination and
oppression, particularly if states/provinces/regions are established on ethnic, linguistic,
cultural or religious lines but contain within them minorities belonging to different groups. A
strong central government, on the other hand, may protect such locally concentrated
minorities and ensure the equal protection of the law.
The strengthening of local elites who misuse power
Powerful interests can misuse subnational governments for private gain at the expense of the
common good. Corruption, always difficult to eradicate, may be especially hard to tackle at
the state, provincial or regional level, where it may be embedded in local networks and take
place far from the eyes of national anticorruption authorities. In situations where many voters
are economically or socially dependent on local elites (for example, because those elites
control access to employment, land or other goods), the greatest challenge is to ensure that
decentralized government is decentralized democracy, and not decentralized oligarchy or
autocracy.
Ineffective governance because of a lack of capacity
Subnational governments may be ineffective owing to a lack of the human and financial
resources necessary to fulfil their functions. Constitution-makers should be aware of the risk
of overburdening weak and newly established governing institutions with demands that they
cannot meet—to do so would risk disillusionment, distrust and discontent.
Instability and threats to democracy
The multiple centres of power associated with federalism may have a destabilizing effect
and can, in the absence of a consolidated democracy, create additional risks of conflict. While
federalism may satisfy demands for autonomy and thereby diminish the desire for secession,
it may also provide an institutional platform for secessionist demands. These demands, if not
accommodated through a further transfer of powers, could result in a destabilizing and
potentially violent secession or to anti-democratic measures in order to suppress
secessionism.