Irish L.

Buraga 25 August 2016

JRU MPA Class SY 2016-2017
Theory and Practice of Public Administration and Government

1) About Federalism

"Federalism" is the process by which two or more governments share powers

over the same geographic area.

A study by Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., University president and professor of
political science at the Cyberland University of North America entitled The American
Sytem of Government: Government & Politics in the U.S.A. Part Six, The American
Constitutional System: Principal Characteristics Federalism defined federalism as a
closely-knit union of states, a powerful central government, & a substantial degree of
state autonomy.

He further explained the term "Federalism" from the words "federation," "federal
union," or "federal system" refers to a federated sovereign state formed by
establishment of a closely-knit, or tightly-knit, union of two or more smaller political
communities, which, after formation of the union, are no longer sovereign (completely
independent) but do retain a significant degree of autonomy (partial self-government).
The smaller political communities that are members of the larger federal union possess
and exercise a substantial amount of home rule, but, at the same time, are bound by the
constitution and constitutionally valid laws of the national government, or central
government -- i.e., the general, or common, government over the entire federation and
country.

The fifty smaller regional political communities comprising the membership of the
federal union known as the "United States of America" are officially designated as
"states." And so are the six constituent political units of the federation called the
"Commonwealth of Australia." The ten regional political communities comprising the
federation of Canada are officially designated as "provinces."

According to Dr. Way, there are important features which distinguish federalism
from unitary government on the one hand and from confederal government on the other
-- characteristics that distinguish a federal union from a governmental system
characterized by a very high degree of political centralization as well as from a
governmental system that is almost completely decentralized. The distinguishing
features of federalism, as a set of constitutional power relationships between a country's
central government and the governments of its local or regional political subdivisions,
place the federation somewhere in between the high level of centralization that
characterizes the unitary state and the thoroughgoing decentralization that defines the
confederation.

In discussing the distinguishing characteristics of federalism, Dr. Way said that

unlike a confederation, the general government of a federation -- the national, or central,
government of the federated sovereign state -- has unchallenged constitutional authority
to speak, decide, and act for the entire country in its relations and dealings with foreign
governments. In this sense, the national government is the sole possessor and
exerciser of sovereignty. Only the national government can operate as the government
of a completely independent political community with absolute power to chart its course
in the arena of international relations.

The smaller regional or local political communities comprising the larger,

federated sovereign community -- the member "states" or "provinces" of the federal
union -- are not sovereign states (as they would be in a confederation). That is, the
smaller communities are neither completely nor virtually independent. Instead, they
are semiautonomous -- i.e., partially self-governing. They possess autonomy, not
sovereignty. However, the degree of autonomy, or self-government, is substantial.

In the case of a federation, the national constitution -- the constitution over the
whole country -- divides and distributes the constitutional powers of government
between the national government and the constituent political units -- the smaller
communities comprising the larger community. The national constitution recognizes the
existence of two levels of government in the country: (1) the national, or central,
government and (2) the governments of the smaller regional communities. And the
national constitution grants substantial authority to each of the two levels of government
-- national and regional. Each level of government is given the right to make final
decisions on at least some governmental activities and services.

In a federal system, the national constitution protects the right of each level of
government to exist. Legally, neither level of government can destroy the other level.
The U.S.A., for example, has been referred to as "an indestructible union of
indestructible states."

In a federal union, the national constitution gives the central government control
over matters of general, or common, concern to the country as a whole and permits the
constituent political communities to regulate matters of more regional or local concern.

Neither level of government in a federation receives its powers from other. The
constituent communities do not receive their powers from statutes enacted by the
national legislature. And the national government does not receive its powers from
decisions and actions of the regional legislatures. Both levels of government -- national
and regional -- receive their respective sets of powers from a common source, and that
common source is the national constitution.

Both levels of government in a federal union operate through their own

agents and exercise power directly over individuals. In a given geographic, or territorial,
region within the country, two different governments -- one national, and the other
regional -- simultaneously govern the same land and people.

Under ordinary conditions within the country, neither level of government in a

federal system is dependent upon the other for enforcement of its decisions within its
own constitutional sphere of authority.

Examples of federations in the world today include the United States of America, the
Commonwealth of Australia, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, and
Switzerland.

FEDERALISM, UNITARY STATE, & CONFEDERATION

How Federalism Differs from a Unitary State:

Unitary Government: Federal System:

The national constitution
vests all the constitutional
authority of government in
the central government.
The national constitution di-
vides the constitutional pow-
ers of government between the
central government and the
constituent units.

Regional or local political Regional political units re-

units are created by acts ceive their powers from pro-
of the national legislature visions of the national con-
and receive their powers stitution. These powers can
 from national legislative
statutes. These powers can
be withdrawn from the re-
gional or local units by
statutes of the national
legislature.
The national legislature
can, by statute, abolish or
completely reorganize the
regional units, which exist
and operate at the suffer-
ance of the national gov-
ernment.
Examples of Constitutional Democracies That Are Unitary Governments: Britain;
France, Japan, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Israel, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Denmark, and the Netherlands.
How Federalism Differs from a Confederation:
Confederation:
The union is a loosely-held-
together league or associa-
tion of virtually sovereign
states--a loose union or al-
liance of almost completely
independent states.
The central government does
not have authority to regu-
late the conduct of individ-
ual persons. To impact on
individuals, the central
government must act through
the states.
The central government has
only enumerated, or express,
powers--powers expressly
delegated (granted in so
many words) to the central
government by the constitu-
tional compact or treaty.
be taken from the regional
communities only by amending
the national constitution.
Both levels of government
must consent to changes in
the national constitution.
The national constitution
protects the right of the
constituent communities to
exist.
Federal System:
The states joining together
in the union yield to the
central government a substan-
tial amount of political au-
thority. The constituent
communities are no longer
sovereign. They are now sem-
iautonomous; they are par-
tially self-governing, not
completely self-governing.
The national government exer-
cises power directly over in-
dividuals. The central gov-
ernment operates through its
own agents--not through the
regional governments, unless
it chooses to do so.
Under the national constitu-
tion, the central government
has broad power to decide and
act on matters of general
concern to the nation as a
whole. The central govern-
ment of the U.S.A., for ex=
ample, is by no means limited
to the enumerated (express)
powers. It also possesses
and exercises implied powers
--powers which are not men-
tioned in so many words in
the national constitution--as
powers assigned to the cen-
 tral government, but which
can be reasonably implied
from the enumerated powers.

The powers of the central The national government is

government are severely granted substantial authority
limited by the constitu- by the national constitution.
tional compact or treaty.

Past Examples of Confederations: Examples of Confederations in Western history

include the U.S.A. under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) and Germany as the
"Holy Roman Empire" (962-1806).

An article dpmc.gov.au entitled Federalism - What Is It and Why Is It Important?

discussed the characteristics, types and benefits of federalism.

Characteristics of federalism

There are more than twenty five federations in the world, including Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia and the United States of America,
and the number is growing.82 All federations are different. Some have very few regions
while others have many. Some have clear divisions of power, while others have
significant overlap between the different levels of government. There are almost as
many varieties of federal systems as there are federations. There are, however, some
characteristics common to most federations:

the centre (comprised of a set of institutions) which has authority over the whole of
the nation (in Australia, this is the Commonwealth Government);

regions, which have authority over a particular geographic area (the States and
Territories);

the distribution of power between the centre and the regions (the allocation of roles
and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories);

a constitution (usually written) which cannot be amended by the centre or any region
acting solely on its own (the Australian Constitution);

rules which determine the procedure for resolving conflict between the centre and
the regions (relevant parts of the Constitution); and

judicial authority for the resolution of conflict (High Court of Australia).

Another characteristic common to many federations is an imbalance of fiscal power

between the central government and regional governments, which results in the
central government transferring some of the revenue it collects to the regional
governments so they can deliver their responsibilities.

Types of federalism
 The terms 'layer cake federalism' and 'marble cake federalism' are sometimes
used to describe two different types of federalism. In layer cake federalism (also called
'coordinate federalism'), each level of government has discrete areas of responsibility
separated by 'clean lines' with no overlap. However, the complexity of modern society
and a modern economy and the effects of globalisation mean that all federations have
significant, albeit different, levels of overlapping responsibility. The term 'marble cake
federalism' describes the situation where many responsibilities are shared by the levels
of government, and where governments cooperate to achieve common objectives.
'Collaborative federalism' and 'cooperative federalism' also describe this type of
federalism. Almost 114 years after Federation, the Australian Federation now resembles
more of a marble cake than a layer cake. There are many responsibilities that overlap
between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, with health and education
as key examples.

Benefits of federalism

Federalism is regarded as one of the best systems for ensuring government is

close to the people while also dealing with the competing pressures produced by
globalisation. Four major benefits of federal systems are summarised below.

Regional governments are 'closer to the people'. Regional governments are

arguably more within the reach of their communities than the central government
and are more responsive to the specific needs of their communities, allowing
policies and services to be customised.

Checks on the power of government. Federalism divides and limits power. It

supports pluralist democracy by rejecting 'majority rule' across the whole
federation. Regional diversities (including economic and cultural differences) can
be accommodated, which strengthens the overall unity of the nation.

Competition between governments (competitive federalism) can lead to policy

innovation and better services, as individual regions experiment with social,
economic and political policies which might be adopted in other jurisdictions if
they are successful. There are a number of instances where the Australian
States have developed innovative polices that have then been adopted nation-
wide.86 This can also lead to greater choice and diversity among jurisdictions.
Theoretically, people can 'vote with their feet' by moving to a different jurisdiction
within the federation if they believe their wellbeing will be enhanced by doing so.

Democracy is enhanced. Federalism increases participation in the democratic

process, as people are able to elect representatives in more than one
government, can vote for different parties at the regional and national levels, and
can lobby more than one government.

Competition between the States and Territories (such as financial incentives to

draw investment away from one State or Territory to another) may benefit one State or
Territory, but might ultimately cost the national economy. Having different States or
Territories competing with each other overseas for international investment can leave
potential investors confused and possibly wary of investing in Australia. A related issue
is the so-called 'race to the bottom' on mobile State and Territory tax bases, whereby
States and Territories compete away their efficient tax bases (for example, on payroll
tax) in order to attract investment. This can get to the point where the overall benefit to
the State or Territory is marginal at best, and perhaps non-existent. It also means
businesses are making decisions on where to invest on financial, rather than economic
considerations, which leads to less economic benefit overall.

Sources: 1) http://www.proconservative.net/cunapolsci201partsixb.shtml
2) https://federation.dpmc.gov.au/appendix-federalism-what-it-and-why-it-important

2) Proposed Federalism Structure of Duterte Administration

President Rodrigo Duterte is an enthusiastic advocate of federalism. Long before he

decided to run, Duterte made rounds in the country to promote it. His pitch for it mainly
involves two things: economic development not just for Metro Manila but for all the
regions and peace, particularly in the south.

Duterte hasn't laid out how his proposed shift to federalism would go about, but in one
campaign rally he said that LGUs can keep most of their income. For every P100, the
LGU would get P70 and the P30 would go to the national government, he said.

He also has yet to detail how states will be divided. But under Joint Resolution No. 10
proposed in 2008 by then Sen. Pimentel, he suggested the creation of 11 federal states
out of the existing political subdivisions of the country with Metro Manila as the federal
administrative region akin to Washington D.C. of the United States. 1

An article posted by abs-cbn.com says that former Senator Aquilino "Nene" Pimentel Jr.
on 10 May 2016 detailed his proposal for the country's shift into a federalism type of
government as PDP-Laban bet (Now president) Rodrigo Duterte clears his way to
Malacaang.
In an interview with ANC, Pimentel, a founding member of PDP-Laban, noted that the
shift into federalism requires the tedious process of a constitutional amendment.
According to him, Duterte must allocate the first two years of his term for this cause.

You have to amend the constitution and you cannot do that by mere passage of law,
and therefore my proposal would be for Digong [Duterte], if he becomes president,
would be to assign the first two years of his presidency for a constitutional convention
and then the next four years for implementation, he said.

Pimentel said the proposed federal government for the Philippines will create roughly 11
federal states, particularly four in Luzon, four in Visayas and three in Mindanao.

Luzon will be broken down into the Northern Luzon, the Central Luzon, the Southern
Tagalog and the Bicol Area. While Metro Manila will make up the federal capital.

The federal states in Visayas will include the Eastern Visayas, Central Visayas and
Western Visayas. While the islands of Romblon and Palawan will be declared under the

Visayas territory to form another federal state.

Mindanao will be composed of federal states of the Northern Mindanao and the
Southern Mindanao, as well as a separate federal state for the Moro people.

Pimentel also explained that the proposed federal government will not affect the existing
congressional districts, but the Senate will be composed of senators elected from the
federal states.

For the federal representation to the national Senate, its federal state will now elect the
senators. There will be assigned a specific number, for example just roughly maybe
three senators for every federal state, he told ANC.

Just like in the US, Pimentel said the primaries as employed in the selection process
could also take place in a federalist Philippines.
The national budget, meanwhile, will still be determined by the national Congress.

The national budget will be determined by the national Congress because the national
Congress will be retained, every province will still send their representatives to the
national Congress, plus the senators, he said. 2

In an interview with Asian Dragon magazine, when asked what form of federalism he
thinks is best suited for the country, Duterte said hes more partial to the federal
parliamentary style seen in Singapore and Malaysia. He adds, however, that the country
can also look into adopting the federalism model used by the US or France.

IN HIS push for Charter Change, President Rodrigo Duterte on 28 July 2016 (Thursday)
urged Congress to adopt the French model of a federal parliamentary republic, which
puts a strong system of checks and balances into place.

Under the French political system, the President is the executive head of state while the
head of government is the Prime Minister who is and appointed by the President and
stays while having the confidence of the National Assembly and the President of the
Republic. Prime ministers are usually chosen from amongst the ranks of the National
Assembly, on rare occasions the President has selected a non-officeholder

We have to have a president because the Filipino wants to vote for a president. You
cant take it away from them, Duterte said.

In his first State of the Nation Address, Duterte warned against establishing a purely
parliamentary system because there would be no single apparatus from the
commander-in-chief down. His exact words during his SONA on Monday, July 25 2016
were the following:

You know my advice to you is maintain a federal system, a parliament, but be sure to
have a president. Huwag Hindi na ako niyan. Im disqualified and by that time I would
longer be here. But, I can commit today to the Republic of the Philippines and its
people: If you hurry up the federal system of government and you can submit it to the
Filipino people by the fourth, fifth year, proseso yan e. You call for a referendum and
after that call for a presidential election, I will go. Sibat na ako. But you just have a
president. You copy the France system. Huwag mo hayaan yung puro na parliament.
Delikado iyon. It takes time even for the Iyong kagaya ng England noon. There was
this bomb, double deck. It took them time really. Theres no one apparatus for a
commander-in-chief down. You can have a president you can elect. Maybe Tito Sotto
would be the lucky guy at that time. O, di, limitahan mo lang. Ceremonial powers.
Power to dissolve, power to accept the resolution or whatever, mandating you this, do
that, or ceremonial powers except yung in times of need, if theres a demand for action.
You must have a president. Wala na ako niyan. I said if you can give me that document,
I will urge you to conduct a --- to order --- to order, call for an election the following day,
following week. And even if there is still two years, three years I will go. Okay na ako.
Do not worry about me. I don't aim to that much ambition. 3

You must have a president, he said, suggesting that the chief executives powers
could be limited to the ceremonial except in times of need.

During the campaign, Duterte repeatedly said that the current centralized form of
government leads to neglect of areas far from the seat of power. 4

Sources: 1) http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/05/31/1588742/federalism-what-filipinos-need-know
2) http://news.abs-cbn.com/halalan2016/nation/05/10/16/nene-pimentel-gives-details-on-proposal-for-
federalist-government
3) President Dutertes State of the Nation Address, 25 July 2016
4) http://thestandard.com.ph/news/-main-stories/top-stories/211847/du30-pushes-french-model-for-
federal-govt.html

3) Constitutional Convention or Constitutional Assembly

In the Senate, Senator Franklin Drilon and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III have
already filed resolutions calling for an elected constitutional convention to propose
revisions to the 29-year-old Constitution.

While Duterte had previously said he prefers an elected convention, House Speaker
Pantaleon Alvarez said Thursday (28 July 2016) the President now prefers a constituent
assembly made up of lawmakers from both chambers of Congress.

Alvarez said the government might not be able to afford the election of convention
delegates, which could cost as much as P7 billion.

Budgetary considerations and priorities by the administration may make a constituent

assembly the preferred mode of amending the Constitution compared to convening a
constitutional commission, Alvarez said.

Alvarez said that while the President preferred an elected convention, the administration
is now more inclined to use the money to fund salary increase for policemen and
soldiers.

Under a constituent assembly, both houses of Congress will convene to propose

amendments to the Constitution.

In a presentation before the Management Association of the Philippines, Alvarez said a

unitary presidential system was incompatible with Philippine historical experience.

He said that the presidential system, which was imposed by the countrys colonizers,
has contributed to the cycles of inter-generational conflict, hampered economic growth
and stunted development.

Alvarez said that the states to be created under a federal government would have real
autonomy to chart their respective courses, with the goal of fostering lasting peace and
achieving economic growth.
Through federalism, by granting more and specific powers to the state governments,
the red tape that leads all the way to Manila will be cut, thus reducing delays and
uncertainties inimical to businesses, Alvarez said.

The shift to federalism will address and eventually end historical injustices that have
caused human sufferings and destruction of properties, he added.

Peace is good for people and for business, he said.

The Department of the Interior and Local Government has launched an information
drive on federalism, in cooperation with the Peoples National Movement for Federalism,
a private group that advocates a shift to a federal form of government.

Source: http://thestandard.com.ph/news/-main-stories/top-stories/211847/du30-pushes-french-model-for-
federal-govt.html