Federalism in the Philippines (Filipino: Pederalismo sa Pilipinas) is a proposed form of

government in the country. Filipino national heroes Emilio Aguinaldo and Apolinario Mabini were the
first to suggest dividing the islands into three federal states.[1]

History[edit]
One of the first proponents of federalism in the Philippines is University of the Philippines professor Jose Abueva
who argued that a federal form of government is necessary to more efficiently cater to the needs of the country
despite its diversity.[2] The primary goals of a constitutional amendment is to increase decentralization, greater local
power and access to resources most especially among regions outside Metro Manila which has long been dubbed as
rather imperial.[3] Aside from Abueva, senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. is a prominent supporter of federalism who,
since 2001, has advocated for federalism. He sees the proposed system as a key component in alleviating the
Mindanao crisis and appeasing Moro insurgents. Federalism will also hasten economic development since resource
and financial mobilization is upon each states' or provinces' discretion without significant constraint from the central
government.[4]
Due to the Senate and Congress resolutions supporting charter change, an estimated 13,000 to 15,000 people
gathered in Makati in 2009 to protest against administration proposals for constitutional reform. This was in line
with speculations that Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would use such amendment to extend her hold
in office.[5] In addition, Pulse Asia published in the same year their survey regarding public support towards the
proposed charter change. Their report stated that four out of ten Filipino adults or 42% of all respondents opposed
the amendment. Meanwhile, 25% were still undecided and 33% were in favor. Pulse Asia furthered that from 2006
to 2009, there was no significant change of sentiment against charter change, but indecision increased by 6%. [6]
Beginning in late 2014, Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte launched a nationwide campaign promoting a charter
change for federalism. During his visit to Cebu City in October of the same year, Duterte stated that federalism will
facilitate better delivery of services to the people.[7] He also saw the current system as "antiquated" [8] where
distribution of public funds is disproportionately biased towards Manila. Aside from the economic aspect,
federalism is also seen as the best means to address problems in Mindanao which suffers the most from
ethnoreligious conflicts.[9] He added that the current unitary form of government has not worked well given the
ethnic diversity in the country.[10] In spite of rejecting several calls for candidacy for the 2016 presidential elections,
he also cited his reforms if he were to be president. Parallel to his campaign for federalism, Duterte plans to
privatize tax collection and abolish the Congress to make way for a unicameral legislature, whereby the latter is
contrary to the originally proposed Joint Resolution No. 10. [11]
Movements for federalism were further intensified since the draft of the Bangsamoro Basic Law was submitted by
Philippine president Benigno Aquino III to the Congress in September 10, 2014.[12] If approved, this law establishes
the Bangsamoro as an autonomous region with its own parliamentary government and police force. [13] Approval of
the Bangsamoro structure provides federalism proponents and supporters added confidence to clamor for the
national government to enact reforms towards a more decentralized system for the rest of the country.[8]
President-elect Rodrigo Duterte stated in May 2016 that a plebiscite on the proposed replacement of the unitary state
with a federal one will be held in two years.[14]

Failed attempts
Joint Resolution No. 10
The resolution might have required the revision of 14 of the 18 Articles of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the
addition of two new articles. It sought to adopt a federalpresidential bicameral form of government. This proposed
resolution was backed by 12 senators of the Philippines: (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Edgardo Angara, Rodolfo
Biazon, Pia "Companera" Cayetano, Juan Ponce Enrile, Francis "Chiz" Escudero, Jinggoy Estrada, Gregorio
Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Francis Pangilinan, Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Manuel "Manny" Villar) [15]
In 2008, senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. proposed Joint Resolution No. 10, which would revise the current 1987
constitution and have created eleven autonomous regions out of the Philippine Republic, establishing eleven centers
of finance and development in the archipelago.[16]
The proposal would result in the creation of eleven "states" and one federal administrative region. [17][18]
 Proposed designations, capitals, and geographic extents[16]
Letter State Capital
M Federal Administrative Region of Metro Manila Metro Manila
A Northern Luzon Tuguegarao City
B Central Luzon Tarlac City
C Southern Tagalog Tagaytay City
D Minparom Mamburao, Mindoro Occidental
E Bicol Legazpi City
F Eastern Visayas Catbalogan City
G Central Visayas Toledo City
H Western Visayas Iloilo City
I Northern Mindanao Cagayan de Oro City
J Southern Mindanao Davao City
K BangsaMoro Marawi City

Within the joint resolution are certain proposals such as election of senators based on states, senators representing
overseas voters and the state governor and vice-governor as one team. The Judicial and Bar Council which screens
nominees to the judiciary would be abolished. Geographic locations of the three branches of the government would
also be reconsidered. In the proposal, the legislative department would be transferred to what would become the
State of Central Visayas while the judicial department would be moved somewhere within the State of Northern
Luzon. The executive department would remain within the federal administrative region of Metro Manila.[19]

House Concurrent Resolution No. 15[edit]

Rep. Monico O. Puentevella on May 7, 2008, filed House Concurrent Resolution No. 15 which supported Senate
Resolution No. 10 backed by 16 senators. Unlike the Nene Pimentel Senate Resolution, Puentevella included the
option of holding a constitutional convention, but excluded the People's Initiative mode.[20] Prospero Nograles, a
self-proclaimed advocate of federalism, on May 1, 2008, announced: "This federal system of government is close to
my heart as a Mindanaoan leader and I'm sure most of the leaders in Mindanao will agree that we have long
clamored for it. Senate Resolution 10 is a pleasant surprise because the Senate has a long history of opposing any
move to amend the Constitution." [21] The joint Senate resolution called for the creation of 11 federal states in the
country, by convening of Congress into a constituent assembly for the purpose of revising the Constitution to
establish a federal system of government.
By B. SURESH RAM - May 28, 2016 @ 12:39pm

Will the Philippines make another attempt at federalism and move away from its unitary presidential government?
It was a topic of discussion among my Filipino journalist friends 10 years ago. They were all for it. Their argument
was that the governing style had failed to uplift the nation and, more importantly, the livelihoods of the Filipinos.
The unitary presidential system sees administrative powers and resources concentrated on a central or national
government, and in the Philippines, it revolves around the capital, Manila, and its corridors of power.
Despite the major portion of the national income coming from various parts of the country, not much is rechannelled
to its source.
The Malaysian federation was cited by these Filipino journalists. Their argument was that such a governing system
had not only benefited Malaysians but also seen the nation being propelled as an Asian Tiger economy.
They were of the belief that federalism would enable the Philippines to emerge from being the sick man of Asia to
be the next economic miracle.
Federalism had been a hot topic in the Philippines many years ago. It was first brought up in 1899, when the
Malolos Constitution, the basic law of the First Philippine Republic, was drafted.
Filipino revolutionary leaders Apolinario Mabini and Emilio Aguinaldo had proposed during the framing of the then
new republics constitution that it should follow a three federal state formula representing the countrys three island
groups Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
Another proposal was not to have three, but 10 federal states distributed according to the island groups. Luzon
would have four federal states, Visayas three and Mindanao three, one of which was to be a Bangsamoro state.
The proposals were, however, dismissed, to give way for the more critical issue of unifying the diverse nation.
Fast forward more than a century later, the federal system idea was given a new lease of life, with the prime mover
being former Filipino senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr who, since 2001, had been advocating the move.
In 2008, together with 11 other lawmakers, Pimentel proposed the Joint Resolution No. 10 in the Philippines Senate.
Their proposal would have led to the creation of 11 states and one federal administrative region in the republic.
In tabling the joint resolution, the lawmakers believed that the federalisation of the republic would speed up the
development of the nation. It would also dissipate the causes of insurgency across the land, particularly the
centuries-old Moro rebellion.
However, the joint resolution did not proceed after the tabling as some lawmakers were worried that it might be used
to extend the term of then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who was deeply unpopular due to corruption and
vote-rigging allegations, beyond the end of her term in 2010.
The just-concluded Philippine presidential election has again put the spotlight on the federal system of governance.
Apart from President-elect Rodrigo Duterte making it a campaign issue, it was taken up by several other presidential
candidates.
Duterte, the first to be elected from Mindanao, has been a proponent of the federal government system for quite
some time.
Known as Dirty Harry for his no-nonsense law enforcement measures, he believes federalism will be key to
addressing problems peculiar to his native Mindanao, such as underdevelopment and armed conflict.
Duterte is looking at granting regions autonomy through federalism, and designate House of Representative Speaker
Pantaleon Alvarez believes this could be the key to resolving the stalled Bangsamoro Basic Law Bill (BBL).
BBL, a key component of the peace deal signed by the Aquino administration with the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front (MILF) separatist group, is aimed at creating a new Muslim autonomous region in Mindanao.
It stalled in February this year after the Philippine Congress failed to vote on it and the house was adjourned for the
presidential campaign.
With renewed interest on the federalism system, the pros and cons of the move continue to be debated and
discussed.
Supporters of the federal government system say:
IT allows regions to create solutions to their own problems instead of the central government, in this case Manila
deciding for them;
IT allows regions to retain more of their income and will be required to turn over only a portion to the state
government they fall under;
IT allows the national and state governments to specialise in different policy domains. With most of the
administrative powers resting with the regional governments, the national government can focus on foreign policy,
defence and other national concerns such healthcare, taxation and employment;
THE creation of the state of Bangsamoro within a federal system may address concerns of more autonomy over the
administration of Muslim Mindanao; and,
THROUGH fiscal autonomy for state governments, federalism will more evenly distribute the countrys wealth.
Last year, 35 per cent of the national budget went to Manila even if it represented only 14 per cent of the population.
Those who are against the federal government system say:
HEALTHY competition among states can become alienating, creating rivalries and promoting regionalism that
some say already challenge the sense of unity in the country;
SOME states may not be as abundant in natural resources or have skilled labour as others. States with capable
leaders will progress faster while those with ineffective ones will degrade because the national government will not
be present to balance them out;
THERE is the question of authority where does the responsibility of state government end and the responsibility
of the national government begin? Unless these are clearly stated in the amended constitution, ambiguities may
arise, leading to conflict and confusion; and,
FEDERALISM may not be enough for the state of Bangsamoro. Conflict continues despite the creation of the
autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao.
No doubt the move for federalism may see billions of pesos used, which could have been used for more urgent
needs.
However, it will enable the 102 million Filipinos to reap the benefits of a strong local government and a national
government concentrating on international relations, defence, health, employment, finances and the economy.
The writer, B. Suresh Ram is a curious cat who believes that his curiosity is going to get the better of him one
day.
 federalism
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government
and various state governments. In the United States, the U.S. Constitution gives certain powers to the
federal government, other powers to the state governments, and yet other powers to both.

States have their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. The states are
empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, as long as they do not violate the Constitution.

The federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war,
and control imports and exports. The federal government has the sole authority to print money. Most
governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments and these include
taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.

Federalism in the United States has evolved quite a bit since it was first implemented in 1787. Two major
kinds of federalism have dominated political theory. There is dual federalism, in which the federal and the
state governments are co-equals. Under this theory, there is a very large group of powers belonging to
the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the
Constitution. As such, the federal government has jurisdiction only to the extent of powers mentioned in
the constitution.

Under the second theory of federalism known as cooperative federalism, the national, state, and local
governments interact cooperatively and collectively to solve common problems. Cooperative federalism
asserts that the national government is supreme over the states.

Regardless of the kind of federalism, the Constitution does provide some very specific powers to both the
states and the federal government. They are:

Delegated Powers Delegated powers are those powers specifically assigned to the Federal
Government. The national government has very specific enumerated powers including the regulation of
interstate and international trade, coinage and currency, war, maintenance of armed forces, postal
system, enforcement copyrights and power to enter into treaties.
Reserved Powers In this case, all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are to
be reserved or saved for the State Governments. These powers include power to establish schools,
establishment of local governments, and police powers.
Concurrent Powers Concurrent means at the same time. Concurrent powers are those that both the
federal and state governments share simultaneously, for example the power to tax, maintain courts and
the ability to construct and maintain roads.

Implied Powers These are powers that are NOT specifically delegated in the Constitution, but are
understood to be necessary or allowed. The necessary and proper clause of the Constitution state that
Congress has the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers (art. I, sec. 8 of the US Constitution).
Will federalism address PH woes? Pros and cons of
making the shift
Some candidates in the 2016 national elections have been vocal about their support for federalism.

Presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte, and vice presidential bets Alan Peter Cayetano (his running mate) and
Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr, in particular, have been championing it.

Supporters of federalism say it will evenly distribute wealth across the country instead of the bulk going to
"imperial" Manila. Detractors, like presidential candidate Grace Poe, say it will further entrench political dynasties
in the regions and create confusion over responsibilities.

Read on to find out more about federalism and its perceived advantages and disadvantages.

What is federalism?

It is a form of government where sovereignty is constitutionally shared between a central governing

authority and constituent political units called states or regions.

In basic terms, it will break the country into autonomous regions with a national government focused only
on interests with nationwide bearing: foreign policy and defense, for example.

The autonomous regions or states, divided further into local government units, will have primary
responsibility over developing their industries, public safety, education, healthcare, transportation,
recreation, and culture. These states will have more power over their finances, development plans, and
laws exclusive to ther jurisdiction.

The central government and states can also share certain powers.

How is it different from what we have now?

We presently have a unitary form of government. Most administrative powers and resources are with the
national government based in Metro Manila. It's Malacaang that decides how much to give local
government units. The process is prone to abuse, with governors and mayors sometimes having to beg
Malacaang for projects they believe their communities need.

How local government units spend their budget has to be approved by the national government.

In federalism, the states will have the power to make these decisions with little or no interference from the
national government.

Examples of federal countries: United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India, Malaysia.
PROS

Locals decide for themselves. Regions have their own unique problems, situations, geographic, cultural,
social and economic contexts. Federalism allows them to create solutions to their own problems instead of distant
Metro Manila deciding for them.
The states can establish policies that may not be adopted nationwide. For example, liberal Metro Manila
can allow same-sex marriage which the state of Bangsamoro, predominantly Muslim, would not allow. In
the United States, some states like Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational marijuana even
if other states have not.

This makes sense in an archipelago of over 7,000 islands and 28 dominant ethnic groups. For decades,
the national government has been struggling to address the concerns of 79 (now 81) provinces despite
challenges posed by geography and cultural differences.

With national government, and thus power, centered in Metro Manila, it's no surprise that development in
the mega city has spiralled out of control while other parts of the country are neglected.

More power over funds, resources. Right now, local government units can only collect real estate tax
and business permit fees. In federalism, they can retain more of their income and are required to turn over only a
portion to the state government they fall under.
Thus, local governments and state governments can channel their own funds toward their own
development instead of the bulk of the money going to the national government. They can spend the
money on programs and policies they see fit without waiting for the national government's go signal.

Promotes specialization. The national and state governments can specialize in different policy domains.
With most administrative powers now with the regional governments, the national government can focus on foreign
policy, defense, and other nationwide concerns, like healthcare and taxation.
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.

Possible solution to the Mindanao conflict. The creation of the state of Bangsamoro
within a federalist system may address concerns of separatists who crave more autonomy over the
administration of Muslim Mindanao.

Decongestion of Metro Manila. Through fiscal autonomy for state governments, federalism will more
evenly distribute the country's wealth. In 2015, 35% of the national budget went to Metro Manila even if it
represents only 14% of the Philippine population.
Lessens dependence on Metro Manila. 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 ony the national
government can release. With federalism, regions work independently of Metro Manila for most concerns.
Brings government closer to the people. If detractors say federalism will only make local political
dynasties more powerful, supporters give the argument that, in fact, it will make all local leaders, including those
part of political dynasties, more accountable to their constituents. State governments will no longer have any excuse
for delays in services or projects that, in the present situation, are often blamed on choking bureaucracy in Manila.
Assuming more autonomy for regions leads to economic development, there will be more incentive for
Filipinos to live and work in regions outside Metro Manila. More investors may also decide to put up their
businesses there, creating more jobs and opportunities to attract more people away from the jam-packed
mega city.

Encourages competition. With states now more self-reliant and in control of their development, they will
judge themselves relative to how their fellow states are progressing. The competitive spirit will hopefully motivate
state leaders and citizens to level up in terms of quality of life, economic development, progressive policies, and
governance.

CONS

Possibly divisive. Healthy competition among states can become alienating creating rivalries and promoting
the regionalism that some say already challenges the sense of unity in the country. It could enflame hostilities
between ethnic groups in the country like Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Bicolanos, Ilocanos, Tausugs, and Zamboangueos.
Uneven development among states. Some states may not be as ready for autonomy as others. Some
states may not be as rich in natural resources or skilled labor as others. States with good leaders will progress faster
while states with ineffective ones will degrade more than ever because national government will not be there to
balance them out.
But in some federal countries, the national government doles out funds to help poorer states. A proposed
Equalization Fund will use a portion of tax from rich states to be given to poorer states.

Confusing overlaps in jurisdiction. Where does the responsibility of state governments end and where
does the responsibility of the national government begin? Unless these are very clearly stated in the amended
Constitution, ambiguities may arise, leading to conflict and confusion. For instance, in times of disaster, what is the
division of responsibilities between state and national governments?
May not satisfy separatists in Mindanao. Separatists are calling for their own country, not just a
state that still belongs to a larger federal Philippines. Federalism may not be enough for them. After all, the conflict
continues despite the creation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

How the Philippines would look when federal

In some proposals, there will be 10 or 11 autonomous states. Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr envisioned 11
states plus the Federal Administrative Region of Metro Manila.

Here's how the Philippines will look like as laid out in Pimentel's 2008 Joint Resolution Number 10.

Cost of federalism
Shifting to federalism won't come cheap. It would entail billions of pesos to set up state governments and
the delivery of state services. States will then have to spend for the elections of their officials

Attempts at federalism in PH

There was an attempt during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. One of her
campaign promises was to reform the 1987 Constitution.

A consultative commission she created recommended federalism as one of the goals of the proposed
charter change. But the attempt failed because of opposition from various sectors who believed Arroyo
wanted to use the reform to extend her term limit.

(Note that shifting to a federal government does not necessarily mean an extension of term limits for the
sitting president. Such an extension would only take place in a shift to a parliamentary government.)

In 2008, Pimentel Jr and Bacolod City Representative Monico Puentevella filed joint resolutions to
convene Congress into a constituent assembly with the goal of amending the constitution to establish a
federal form of government. Rappler.com
It is about time that this issue is put to a serious national debate.

These were the words that former Senator and now Muntinlupa Representative Rodolfo Biazon signed on
Joint Resolution No. 10 in 2008. This resolution sought to adopt federalism as the new form of
government, through charter change. The idea ultimately went to naught, but eight years on, new life is
being breathed into the idea of changing the government from a unitary form to a federal one.

Among the issues that raised the most red flags in the just-concluded presidential campaign, federalism is
now a serious possibility given the apparent victory of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte.

According to Professor Aries Arugay of UP Diliman Department of Political Science, Duterte seems to be
motivated by inequality and corruption in Mindanao in pushing for such change. Inequality and corruption
lead to economic backwardness, which in turn breeds the desire for secession or breaking away from the
mother country. Federalism for Duterte, would hit all these birds in one stone. Among the then-
presidential candidates, he was its sole, vocal advocate.

He thought that by empowering the local governments further through a more federal setup and
therefore, [taking] away some powers from the national government, then it can help Mindanao develop.
And with development, ma-a-address na yung problem of inequality and corruption, explains Professor
Arugay.

Professor Maria Ela Atienza, also of UP Diliman Department of Political Science, echoes this, adding that
Duterte is also motivated by the desire for peace, especially among the varied ethnolinguistic and
religious groups in Mindanao: Many of the countries who decide to establish a federal system, isa sa
mga issues nila ay para may peace, to recognize ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions. (Many of the
countries who decide to establish a federal system [do so because they have] peace issues and to
recognize ethnic, religious, and cultural distinctions.)

But what exactly is federalism?

Federalism is concerned with the sharing of sovereignty. Among whom? One national (or federal
government) that encompasses all of a country, and several lower state or regional governments that
make up that country. This sharing of sovereignty or powers can mean that in a federal setup, the federal
government has the final say on matters such as monetary policy, national defense, and foreign relations,
whilst the regional or state governments have the last word on areas such as agriculture, education,
health, among others. In short, a federal government is so designed so that these two levels of
government are self-determining in there constitutionally-determined spheres of influence.

This is unlike the current unitary setup in the Philippines. In a unitary setup, the final say on all
government matters emanate from one central government. But although our country is unitary, its central
government delegates some powers and functions to legally recognized lower levels of government.
According to Professor Atienza, the central government maintains supervisory powers and an important
financial role (i.e., as funder) over these lower levels of government. This is called devolution, a campaign
issue that Senator Grace Poe has raised on several occasions.

You can see now where federalism and devolution differ. Although both of them are concerned with
somehow making governance easier by distributing responsibilities among different levels of government,
federalism gives more autonomy to governments immediately below the central (federal) government,
while devolution allows the central government to still have considerable control while freeing itself from
the more hands-on responsibilities.

Federalism, with its premise that would-be regional governments could take greater, even absolute,
control of their affairs, promises two things that are especially relevant to Mindanao: peace and
development. Peace, because armed secessionism would be tempered by unprecedented self-
determination as dictated by its constituents distinct ethnoreligious identity; development, because the
regions would finally be able to steer their own economic courses without the intervention of a central
government that in a unitary setup is perceived to be prioritizing some regions above others.

Not so fast though. Both Professor Atienza and Professor Arugay agree that Duterte has fallen short of
making a good case for federalism by failing to explain the specifics during the campaign. The problem is
Duterte has not given us the details beyond just saying that nothing short of federalism will bring peace to
MindanaoHe has not really made any particular details on how it will be implemented, says Professor
Arugay.

Professor Atienza, in particular, also wants a clearer picture of what kind of federalism Duterte wants to
establish in the country. Kung Mindanao lang ang problema, kailangan bang magshift tayo sa full
federalism? the professor asks. (If Dutertes only problem is the Mindanao situation, do we really need to
shift to a full federal system of government?)According to Professor Atienza, it might be possible to
emulate Spain, who gave more autonomy to regions such as Basque, Catalan, and Andalusia, while
maintaining more central or unitary" hold on the other regions if Duterte seeks to address the
Bangsamoro problem in Mindanao. Spains model is called an asymmetrical federal setup.

Another concern is how federalism will affect the many political dynasties at the local level.

For Professor Arugay, federalism can aggravate the problem of political dynasties. He is particularly
concerned with how local political dynasties can have more consolidated regional power so they can
wield national influence. Local political dynasties might be more empowered, and instead of regions well
have fiefdoms, although we see that nowKung mas maraming tao sa isang region, and if a political
dynasty can mobilize it, maybe thats the way that they can [emerge as] national or federal government-
level dynasties, the professor explains. (If a region is considerably populated and a political dynasty
can mobilize it, maybe thats the way that they can [emerge as] national or federal government-level
dynasties.)
However, Professor Atienza sees federalism as a way of breaking political dynasties, especially on the
regional level. While acknowledging that federalism can open up the system to more dynastic influences,
she sees the creation of regional governments in a federal setup as a way of widening the playing field.
Dynasties are extremely predatory within provinces but should fully functioning regional governments be
created, the provincial dynasties who would aspire to hold the regional power would find the contest to be
more competitive. May chance na ang mag-e-emerge ay ang best performing dynasties, she adds, with
the competition also coming on the heels of a bigger electorate. (Theres a chance that the best
performing dynasty would emerge.)

Finally, a shift to federalism involves amending our Constitution. It remains to be seen how Duterte would
push his advocacy for federalism even furtherhe would have to contend with either calling for a
constitutional convention, asking Congress to convene as a constituent assembly, or leading a Peoples
Initiative to formally start the process of charter change. Even after that he would need to have his
proposal ratified by all voters in a referendum.
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) The national budget offers a perspective on the expected debate on
whether the country will progress faster under a federal form of government, which is one of the main
political goals of presumptive president Rodrigo Duterte.

This year, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) allocated approximately P428.5 billion to
the National Capital Region (NCR), excluding expenses for Congress and the Offices of the President
and the Vice President. Metro Manila alone will account for 14.27 percent of the country's P3 trillion-2016
budget.

The amount is significantly greater than what other regions receive: The NCR's P428.5 billion is about
eight times larger than Caraga's P53.5 billion. The latter, comprising five provinces in northeastern
Mindanao, has the smallest budget allocation among all regions.

Next to the NCR, Region IV-A falls a distant second with approximately P141.5 billion. Metro Manila's
budget is a little over three times that amount.

The chicken or the egg?

It's not surprising that federalism has constantly been a hot-button issue in view of the seemingly unequal
allocation of resources between what critics call imperial Manila and the rest of the country.

It's a debate akin to the chicken and egg dilemma: Does Metro Manila's economic powerhouse status
justify its large share of the national budget? Or is it an economic powerhouse precisely because of the
amount of funds it receives in the first place?

Those who believe that the region is shouldering the country's economy have some numbers to back
them up.

Figures from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) published on July 2015 show that Metro Manila had
the largest contribution to the country's 2014 gross domestic product (GDP), accounting for a 36.3
percent share.

Likewise, NCR's per capita gross regional domestic product (GRDP) during that same year stood at
P203,132 nearly three times the national average (P71,726).

Devolution
Although the government currently maintains a unitary structure, it still allows the devolution of power
through the Local Government Code of 1991.

The code is "considered the most radical and far reaching policy that addressed the decades-old problem
of a highly centralized politico-administrative system with most significant political and administrative
decisions concentrated in Manila."

U.P. Public Administration and Governance Prof. Alex Brillantes, and Donna Moscare, made that
assessment in a paper they presented at the International Conference of the East West Center, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia in 2002.

Brillantes and Moscare said under the code, it is the responsibility of local governments to deliver basic
services and exercise authority over local issues. These include, among others, hospital services, tourism
promotion, the enforcement of environmental laws, and the inspection of food products.

There have also been movements for greater autonomy, such as the proposed creation of a Bangsamoro
region to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

Under the original Bangsamoro Basic Law proposed by President Benigno Aquino III, only 25 percent of
taxes from the region will go to the national government. The remaining 75 percent will go directly the
region.

Subsidiarity
Proponents of federalism point to a need for a more efficient government.

Among them are Jose Abueva, former president of the University of the Philippines, who said:
"Decentralized governance is also related to the principle of subsidiarity: Problems should be attended to
at the lowest level in which they can be solved, by the people directly concerned, without elevating the
problems for decision at higher levels."

"With more power, authority and resources managed by the leaders in the States and their local
governments which will be more visible and accessible to the people all over the country, the people will
be more aware of the importance of electing good leaders."

Brillantes and Moscare argued that federalism will complement the country's diversity: "The federal
structure devises a flexible arrangement for varying forms of self-government to suit different
circumstances and contingencies."

"After World War 2, India, Malaysia, and Nigeria used the federal mechanism to settle ethnic diversity.
Pakistan also used the federal design to manage ethno-national diversity after it emerged as an
independent state," they added.