Federalism in Context: Laying the Foundations for a Problem-Driven Process of

Political Reform
Paul D. Hutchcroft
We need to highlight the importance of effective state bureaucracies, which in
this case would be the bureaucracies of the proposed federal states. Federalism
requires a basic level of administrative capacity across the constituent subnational units
—and in most of the proposed models of federalism in the Philippines, these units do
not even exist at this point. They would still need to be built up from scratch. This would
be an enormous task. Consider, for example, if there were to be somewhere around
10–12 federal states. That means the Philippines would need to have 10–12 regional
economic and development authorities (to supplement the current National Economic
and Development Authority), 10–12 Departments of Budget and Management, 10–12
Departments of Public Works and Highways, 10–12 Departments of Agriculture, etc. In
former Senate President Aquilino Pimentel’s proposal, the Commission on Audit,
Commission on Elections, and Civil Service Commission would be kept at the national
level. Beyond that, each state would still need to have the means to recruit and retain
high-quality public servants able to staff the multiple agencies of these new federal
states. A critical question thus arises: Is there a bureaucratic capacity to achieve this? If
not, how might this capacity simultaneously be put in place across so many new states?
It is also important to ask what, currently, is the relative quality of the national
versus local bureaucracies? According to old World Bank studies and based on my own
experience, the number of political spoils (i.e., jobs created as political rewards) at the
local level is much higher than at the national level. One scheme encountered involves
the division of a single public sector job into 24 different positions—thus rewarding each
of 24 political supporters with 15 days of salary at public expense. Given that political
spoils (or jobs for political supporters) are very much part of the landscape at the local
level, there are very important issues of bureaucratic capacity that need to be
addressed. One idea is to have prospective federal states correspond to the current
regions to ensure foundational administrative capacity. If the Philippines were to go
federal, consideration should be given to basing 17 newly created states on the
currently existing 17 administrative regions—which are already established entities that
are in many cases well-grounded in salient regional identities. While this would by no
means resolve the huge challenges of building effective administrative capacity in the
federal states, it would at the least reduce the large shortfalls of capacity that would
need to be addressed.

Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines: Lessons from Global

Community
Alex B. Brillantes, Jr. and Donna Moscare
The Philippine politico-administrative system is replete with examples of tensions
between a highly centralized governmental structure and the demands for autonomy
among the various component local units: at one level, there is an imperative for a
dominant and assertive leadership necessary for the consolidation and even the very
survival of a weak state; at another level, there is demand among component local
institutions for autonomy from the central government in order to enable them to
become more responsive to local situations and, paradoxically, strengthen a weak state.
There is also the cyclical Moro uprising that disturbs the peace in Mindanao and
destabilizes the economy of the country. A weakened economy, political instability,
rapid population growth, etc. are concerns that challenge Philippine governance.
Various reforms and strategies have been tried to improve governance. The
undergoing consideration on revising the 1987 Constitution and adopting federalism is
the latest development. Issues and concerns regarding the conversion to federal system
from the present unitary structure have to be confronted. Federalism is touted as a
possible means to resolve provincial disparities in the country and end the war and
development problems in Mindanao brought by separatists’ movements, since the
structure allows for national and regional units of government to have distinct and
overlapping jurisdictions. However, as some would point, the Moros want a separate
nation not autonomy. The creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) ended the tensions for a while but then it resurfaced. Nevertheless, this
provided a space for defining the issues and differences. Senator Pimentel believes the
federal system will dissipate the recurrent Moro Armed uprisings by giving them a
federal state of their own which will develop and promote their unique culture. A point to
be considered, however, is on whether the Moros will find a federal state of their own an
acceptable alternative to their separatist goal. Compromise between the government
and the Moros, therefore, is needed.
Another concern that should be addressed in pushing for a federal system is the
capacities and capabilities of the state and local governments. While preparing for
federalism, the government should be more decentralized. It is necessary to promote
and develop self-reliance in the local governments that will be converted to states. They
should have them capability and resources to function effectively as states under a
federal government. They should be enabled to respond to the needs and demands of
the community and fulfill their roles under a federal set-up. Parallel movement,
therefore, of devolution and federalism is vital. The move toward federalism should be
purposive and deliberative. The process should also be participatory and broad-based.
Various sectors of society must be involved to effect change that will be beneficial to the
nation. Time to study, discuss, debate and consider other alternatives for change is
important. As Abueva put it, “we should not repeat the haste under pressure in making
our present (1987) Constitution.”

Federalism and Decentralization: Perceptions for Political and Institutional

Reforms
Edmund Tayao

Federalism should be pursued in the Philippines with the key consideration of

effectiveness in governance, that is, of policy making and implementation. This
effectiveness hinges essentially on the relational dynamics between different levels and
agencies of government. The role of each office, of each level of government must be
clearly defined so that cooperation and collaboration, and not competition and conflict,
is promoted. There has to be real public institutions working that will presuppose the
existence of a state. By institutions we mean many offices at different levels, run by
many individuals and different officials, but they work as one as their actions are
coordinated and guided by standards and data on the ground. All this simply means
there is a system in place.
A system is needed so that the work of a particular office will not be dependent
significantly on the role an individual official plays and that his or her discretion is
tempered by the standard procedures and what is gleaned from facts and figures, from
the results of the interaction between the government and the people. This is possible
only if the government, with all the different offices and or agencies at different levels, is
able to work effectively; hence, the need for an effective framework for
intergovernmental relations. A working structure of intergovernmental relations is a
means to put a system in place and ensure that the same is sustained, that the
objective of good governance is attained. We can consider two components to have a
system of intergovernmental relations; one is a good structure, a design that clearly
delineates the role and function of each but at the same time enables, even goads, the
different offices and agencies of government at all levels to work alongside each other
well. The second component is a set of standards and processes, one that includes
transparency and openness, which generates facts and figures that are then used as
the basis for any government action. All these will help ensure institutionalization and
continuity of policies and programmes regardless of who is in charge in the central or
national government. These are key considerations when structuring or re-structuring
governance, essential for any democracy, especially for a state that is still strengthening
democracy. Federalism will work only if democracy is strengthened or the way it is
designed strengthens democracy.

AGaramondPro-Regular