Federalism

In the United States, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is a highly politicized and debated issue but no one
questions the right of the Supreme Court to be the final authority for deciding on constitutional issues. This is again
another reason why federalism can succeed only in a democracy where the rule of law prevails and is accepted by all
authorities national and regional.

Do you agree or not?

2 reasons why federalism: It has also been noted that real federalism can exist only in a democracy. This is
because an authoritarian government will always insist on centralizing powers through a unitary form of government.

mindanao

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.

Analogy:

Cons: The devolution of power to the local government units is limited by the fact that these LGUs are too small to
have any real powers; and, must remain dependent on the largesse of the central powers in Metro Manila

Disunited/ diff laws applied:

Mindanao:

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.

Effect on Judiciary=conflict resolution between division of powers

emergence of multiple legal and judicial systems within the country. :Two court
systems
Specificity of the Written Constitution

Judicial and Bar Council which screens nominees to the judiciary would be abolished.

Why are we concerned about the role of the judiciary in federalism? In a federation, there will be a
need for a final arbiter in a dispute over which level of government has the power to act in a particular
case-

The judiciary is appropriate choice for this final arbiter provided that it has the following
characterisctics: legitimacy, impartiliaty and operates with procedural and legal guarantees to ensure
that it can and will continue act with these qualities.

Procedural safeguards to maintain one judiciary voice

The primary role of a tribunal is to be the Guardian of the Constitution; to be in a position

to the fiduciary of all the hopes, the compromises of the different groups that came
together to unite in a federal state.

In connection to this, there exists a potential agency problem: why should a

federal court, which presumably is not directly constituted by the people of a
speciIc state/region, be granted authority to pass upon the proper application
and construction of a law crafted by the state/regional legislature that the said
people themselves have elected? Relatedly, should a federal courts
interpretation of a state/regional law prevail over the interpretation of a
state/regional court? The problem might also be framed in a conMict-of-laws
perspective: would it be proper for a federal supreme court, in its appellate
jurisdiction, to apply state/regional law, instead of federal law, which is
theoretically the only law that the federal court is authorized and competent
to interpret?

Change in Legal Education Board

As a Inal note, without refuting or discounting the advantages of adopting a

federalist system,
Law, being a potent instrument of social change, as well as a product or
expression of human nature and creativity, has a critical role in steering a nation
to the peoples desired destination. Accordingly, reforms in the law or laws, not
to mention in entire legal and judicial systems, especially those as far-reaching
as the ones mentioned in this piece, would most likely bear signiIcant
consequences not only on the manner by which government is organized, but
more importantly, with respect to the very way that people live their daily lives,
perceive their roles within a society and a country, and deal with political,
economic, and social institutions that the law has shaped as

well.
The policy choice to shift to federalism, if thoroughly studied and prudently
executed, will probably bring about signiIcantly positive results, including those
that advocates are expecting and rooting for. Foremost of such results must be
that many Filipinos would begin to reap beneIts that they desire but could
previously not enjoy due to, among others, the undue concentration of power
and resources to the "center." However, the recognition and accommodation of
differences and discretion that lie at the heart of a federalist system should not
jeopardize more than a centurys worth of nation-building efforts, which were
based on Inding su`cient common and shared interests among a people of
different views and backgrounds.
The emergence of separate and distinct legal and judicial systems within the
country need not necessarily divide Filipinos, but it bears to recognize that such
a threat does exist, and it should at least cause one to think though the
consequences of shifting to a federalist system, or urge one to explore all
possible means to avoid the potential dangers accompanying such shift and
to design a federal system that unites and not dviides.