Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Xenon Lequin
2K
Many ideas are floating around on the internet from supporters of Duterte
about the merits of federalism for our country. And the principal reason for
their support is that federalism supposedly promotes more equitable
distribution of government revenues under a scheme of "what they collect,
they keep," as compared to our current system, where major tax revenues are
centrally administered at the national level. The current system, they allege, is
biased towards NCR when allocating resources, to the detriment of the other
provinces and regions. To sum up their argument: when taxes are
administered at the "state" level in a federal system, the LGUs
and municipalities will have more funds available to them compared to what
they are getting in the current system.
However, supporters of federalism appear to be missing many points relevant
to any kind of such move. I'm afraid even they themselves are not aware of the
full effects of such a transition and what it would mean for our country. I'm
not even sure if many of them realize what the true definition of federalism is,
aside from vaguely understanding it as "autonomous independent states
under one federal governing body." If we look into the question more closely,
we will find that the issues are more complex than they suppose, and the cause
and effects are not as straightforward as they seem, as there are "hidden"
(hidden only for the less informed) factors that would have to be considered.
In the following items, I seek to expound why I do not support federalism, and
the reasons and factors that led to my stance:
1. Federalism does not necessarily solve the issue of unequal
distribution of government revenues, and may potentially worsen
it.
It is not as if all the revenues in the current system are being swallowed by
NCR and surrounding regions, to the detriment of the remote provinces, as
many federalism supporters will claim. A large part of the national revenues
still go back to the LGUs through a standardized formula as the IRA (internal
revenue allotment). The IRA system is actually a way to redistribute income
from the wealthier communities to the less wealthier ones: for small
municipalities, IRA allocation may finance a greater part of their budget
compared to highly urbanized areas. Because the highly urbanized areas have
greater revenues from other sources, more of their budget can be financed
with these other sources. In the current scheme, it is actually the "generosity"
of the larger cities which contribute to the development of the
smaller communities. If all tax revenues were kept at the point they
To sum up, there is no assurance that LGUs and regions will receive more
funding under a federal system compared to our present system. What is likely
to happen instead is that the revenues of high income communities/regions
will rise further, and those regions who have lower revenue generating
capacity may have their funding reduced. Also, federalism (if implemented in
the way I described above) will impose additional governing costs and
inefficiency, since it adds a new layer of government, and each state will have
its own set of governing bodies and functions independent of other states.
Also, taxes will be imposed at both national and state levels. Finally, the
Philippines should be working towards having a more streamlined and
transparent government, but implementing federalism seems to be a step
backwards on this.
What we need to resolve our fundamental governance problems are measures
that enhance transparency, accountability and efficiency of our government,
and not a mere change in the government structure.
48%
Happy
6%
Sad
5%
Angry
3%
Dont Care
14%
Inspired
4%
Afraid
4%
Amused
16%
Annoyed
CONTINUE STORY
Sort
39 days ago
John Christian
It is true. Federalism is not fit in the country. Elpidio Biado, you did nothing but disavow the democratic principles of
the country. How dare you say to him about your "failed status quo"? Besides, with a K-12 education system, an
EDCA, a soon-to-be national emergency hotline that will make us feel more confused, and a vision for federalism, the
Philippines will soon be a protectorate of the United States. Duterte is Trump, and Mr. Biado, what you said to him is
a total disgrace.
Like
Reply
Share
0
76 days ago
primerpagunuran
This is, contrary to high claim, just another 'any man in the street' worldview. After reading, wonder what one
acquired in better understanding? Funny piece.
Like
Reply
Share
0
Like
Reply
Share
1 reply
0
39 days ago
John Christian
You are a total disgrace of the country! Duterte cares no one but himself, like Trump.
Like
Reply
Share
0
Like
Reply
Share
Like
Reply
Share
1 reply
0
76 days ago
primerpagunuran
Mind posting it here if you acquire the soft copy of the document referenced? Accept my thanks.
Like
Reply
Share
government has a say on a regional development is a point of corruption/ineffectiveness. First, it can be used as a
political tool. Second, in theory NEDA personnel could ask for grease money in order for a project to be approved.
Third, NEDA do not simply see the urgency the way locals see it.
2. Federalism probably would increase the cost of government. But if the results will be good then the cost of
government is peanuts compared to what can be gained. For one thing, unitary government has not been good with
us. It even produced a dictator, which is a huge tendency for a unitary government.
I would like to correct the level of government: Federal government > State or Provincial (regions bunched together) >
City/municipality > Barangays
3. State government is more transparent and responsive to local people. They know who their leader is, they know
where he/she's from. The people can demand to their state government with more ease compared to demanding to a
president.
Under a unitary government, transparency and accountability will never succeed for the Philippines. Several decades
of unitary government has proven that. Unitary is despotic by nature and easy to corrupt. And every year it is getting
worse.
Like
Reply
Share
4 replies
decisions suited to the locality's unique needs, but who's to say whether they are inclined to do so, if they have other
non-aligned, vested interests not compatible to those of the citizens? When officials are corrupt, they are less likely to
act in the best interest of their constituents (principal-agent problem), whatever the government system is.
I guess what I'm trying to say with 4. is that in our case, regardless of how good federalism looks on paper, it's
practical effectiveness may be thwarted by some other fundamental issue that it does not really solve, like corruption.
Corruption/despotism is just as likely in a federal government as in a unitary government. Also, corruption is just as
likely at the local level as at the national level, and as such, avoiding "grease money" at the national level is not a
very compelling reason to make the switch; such incidents can (and does) as easily happen at the local level.
South Korea, Japan and Singapore are examples of unitary governments which are spectacularly successful
(Singapore also came from an "autocratic" background similar to our experience with Marcos). Venezuela and
Argentina are federal systems which fare worse than the Philippines in Transparency International's corruption
perceptions index.
TL;DR - Federalism has its benefits, but is also quite costly to implement. We should implement if the benefits
outweigh the costs. However, it appears that our corrupt political atmosphere, if continued, can thwart a lot of these
benefits; as such, implementing federalism now will not help us a lot.
Like
Reply
Share
2 replies
7
Like
Reply
Share
1 reply
39 days ago
John Christian
I think a good compromise would be to keep the unitary form of government and remain as is. Any change of form of
government will make the country worse. The Philippines now has a goal: Change is coming by turning back the
clock to imperialism, divisionism, populism, and totalitarianism.
Like
Reply
Share
0
40 days ago
ron
Trajano
In addition to your positive output and in contrary to those who are against; Federalism is not only about
Decentralization and Decongestion of Imperiam Manila Central Government but also the Devolution of Powers
between Regions and Central Government, and also towards Ethnolinguistic Freedom, Equality and Justice.
As I write this, members of the 17th Congress are working on overdrive to draft the framework for charter change
(Cha-cha). On the forefront of the Cha-cha agenda is shifting the structure of government to Federal form.
A shift to a federal government will affect every Filipino regardless of economic class or province of residence. Its
impact will traverse his economic and social conditions for generations to come.
It is crucial that we all understand the fine nuances of Federalism since we will be voting on it through a general
plebiscite. Our choice must be informed and intelligent, not one based on propaganda and misinformation.
Thus, the objective of this article is to shed light on the pros and cons of federalism and how its structure will affect
us.
First, let me answer the basics question, what is a Federalism Government? A federal government separates regions
into federal states. These federal states have the power to act independently on policies of regional concern. This
includes taxation, issuance of licenses, health and educational programs, economic development plans, infrastructure
programs, etc. The national government, for its part, remains responsible for such matters as national defense and
foreign policy, among other country-wide concerns.
The proposal is that the county be divided into eleven federal states four in Luzon, four in the Visayas and three in
Mindanao. These federal states will have the discretion to adapt whatever system of government best suits them. It
could be the current gubernatorial system, a parliamentary system or a gubernatorial-parliamentary system. The
preference of one region may not necessarily apply to others.
Those who argue in favor of federalism say that given our 80 ethno-linguistic groups, it only makes sense that the
responsibility of national development be disbursed across the regions rather than remain centralized in Manila. Each
region, after all, has peculiar needs and unique conditions.
But the situation is more complicated than that. There are as much disadvantages as there are advantages in
federalism.
Con-Ass or Con-Con?
There are two ways to amend the constitution through a constitutional assembly (Con-Ass) or a constitutional
convention (Con-Con). The importance of choosing the correct method cannot be overstated.
I will not mince words, the Con-con is the better option in that it protects the interest of the people from the vested
interests of politicians and big businesses. I recently spoke to AKO Bicol Party-list Representative, Rodel Batucabe,
one of the most prolific congressmen in the House and authority on onstitutional law. We both share the same view
on this.
See, in a Con-Ass, those who draft the changes in the Constitution are the members of congress themselves. It is a
risky affair since the public is precluded from participating in the process. And since the majority of our congressmen
vote accordingly to party lines, personal interest and those of their benefactors, the public will be kept in the dark on
the behind-the-scene horse trade that is bound to happen. We stand the risk of ending up with an amended
Constitution thats equally flawed as the 1987 version.
A Con-Con is more participative given that the populace elect their own constitutional members according to
constituencies. In short, our own representatives, the Con-Con members, draft the constitutional amendments. The
members of Congress have no direct hand in the process.
Batucabe underscores that in the long term, a Con-Con will turn out to be cheaper and more politically correct.
Considering that future generations of Filipinos will operate according to the laws we draft today, the manner by which
we amend the constitution must be credible and well thought out. The Con-Con provides that.
Federal-Presidential/Federal-Parliamentary?
Again, I will not mince words. A Federal-Parliamentary system better serves national interest. I say this despite
Congress favoring a Federal-Presidential system according to the proposal of PDP Laban figurehead, Aquilino
Pimentel Jr., Batucabe and I share the same view.
What is the difference? A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is
elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative
branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.
A Federal-Parliamentary system, on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here,
the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party
they belong to, not on his personality. The party with the most number of elected representatives is deemed the
parliament. The parliament elects their Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the
members of his cabinet (his ministers) from among the members of the parliament.
There are multiple advantages to this system.
First, we do away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. We put an end the vicious cycle of Presidents
resorting to corruption to raise funds and/or recoup their campaign spending.
Moreover, since the members of parliaments selects the PM, they can easily remove him through a vote of noconfidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. No need for a long drawn out impeachment process.
In addition, since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because
he is a friend of the President or nominated by a political supporter. The ministers all have mandates and are
accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.
The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.
Even the poor can run for office so long as he is capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a
federal-parliamentary system, we do away with those who win on the back of guns, goons and gold.
A parliamentary system is one where a shadow cabinet exists. A shadow cabinet is the corresponding, non-official
cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to
scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be
adopted if it is deemed superior. In the end, the system allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate
safeguards to protect the interest of the people.
Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest
subscribe to a parliamentary system.
The 17th Congress will surely push for Federalism through a plebiscite. Will I support the move? Only if it is done
through a Con-Con and only if it specifies a federal-parliamentary system.