Understanding the impact of Federalism

by Andrew James Masigan

July 17, 2016
Share1.4K Tweet3 Share6 Email17 Share7K

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.

Pros and cons of Federalism

First the pros. In a federal government, federal states devise their own solutions based on their situation,
culture, aspirations, preferences and peculiarities. They need not rely on imperial Manila’s one-policy-fits-
all approach to problem solving.

Economic development plans will be devolved to the federal states and this allows them to specialize on
industries where they are competitive. As for the national government, it can better concentrate on
national issues without being bogged down by regional concerns.

With the current system, local government units cannot spend without imperial Manila’s approval. And
when funds are released to LGUs, they are pressured to consume it in total so as not to reduce next year’s
allocation. This provides no incentive for local governments to save. Under a federal system, however,
regional governments manage their own funds. This motivates them to exercise frugality.

Regions who have been chronically dependent on the national government for their sustenance will now
have to level up to survive. It will be a sink or swim situation which hopefully, will strengthen the weaker
regions.

1
Federalism encourages experimentation with multiple solutions. Three different regions may have three
different solutions to the same problem with equal or varying results. This enriches the nation with
experience and best practices.

Citizens of federal states will invariably compare themselves to their neighbors in terms of economic
development, per capita income, quality of life, etc. This encourages competition among regions which
pushes them to be more efficient.

Finally, a federal system of government will decongest Metro Manila.

And now, the cons: Political and economic dynasties will be further entrenched in a federal government.

The entire nation will be more ethnocentric, leading to a degradation of national unity. Tagalog will be
replaced by local dialects and this will further diminish our sense of nationhood.

Since the national government will have no say on how each federal state develops, they will do so in an
uncoordinated fashion and at varying paces. The result will be an uneven distribution of wealth among
federal states. This inequity could be a breeding ground for friction. In this light, federalism promotes
dissonance rather than unity.

Federalism promotes regional loyalties more than it does national allegiances. Hence, the likelihood of
certain regions rebelling against the national government is heightened. Quebec in Canada and Cataluña in
Spain are prime examples of how regionalism can divide a country.

The very nature of federalism necessitates more bureaucrats in both the national and regional levels. More
bureaucrats mean more bureaucracy. This leads to duplicity of functions, inefficiency and opportunities
for corruption

Studies have shown that only Central Luzon, Southern Luzon and NCR have gross regional products (GRP)
large enough to be self sufficient. Thus, the greatest blowback of federalism is that eight out of the eleven
regions will spiral deeper into poverty due to their inability to survive without subsidies from Manila.

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 that’s 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.

2
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
no-confidence 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.

3
 ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF FEDERALISM

Ryan Wiseman

When it comes to the system of federalism that we practice in the United States, there are many advantages
as well as disadvantages. Some of the pros and cons of federalism will be given, with reasons as to why it is
believed that the benefits of federalism outweigh its detriments.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of federalism, as a form of government, and do the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages? There are many advantages and disadvantages to our federal system of
government, the benefits of which many believe outweigh the negatives. Below are the reasons why this
may be the case, but before we dive into why the advantages may outweigh the disadvantages of
federalism, let's first look at the list of the positives and negatives, the pros and cons, of federalism, many
of which are listed elsewhere.

Benefits of Federalism:

 As a Protection Against Tyranny – One of the most important points of federalism in dividing
the power between the national government and state governments, and spreading the national
government’s power among three branches that serve as a check and balance on each other, is
that it serves as a deterrent to tyranny and runaway power. The protections we have in our
system against a tyrannical, runaway government are one of the most important points to why the
system was designed the way it was.
 Diffusing Power – The form of federalism that we have in our country, where power is shared
with state governments, and where the federal government is separated into three branches,
serves as a means to make sure that all power is not centralized into a single person or group of
people, since excessive power among a single group tends to be corrupting.
 Increasing Citizen Participation – By not centralizing all power into the hands of a national
government, but sharing that power with state governments, which are closer to the level of the
common citizen, our founders actually increased a citizen’s ability to effect their government,
government policy, and lawmaking.
 More Efficient – When some of the power of the government is dispersed among the states, giving
states the right to solve some of their own problems, you allow for more efficiency within the
system. To try to have a national solution to all problems, which could be refered to as a ‘cookie-
cutter method’ of law and policy making, you end up with solutions that are more effective in
some states, and less effective in others. To allow states to create solutions to their own problems,
using policies and laws that work best in their state, means that each state can come up with its
own solution, making government more efficient.
 Conflict Management – By allowing different communities and states to create their own policies,
they allow for people with irreconcilable differences, or very strong disagreements, to live in
separate areas, and create their own solutions, or policies, that would be totally disagreeable to
the other people in other states or regions of the country.
 Innovation in Law and Policy is Encouraged – By allowing for many state governments,
different sets of policies can be tried, and the ones found most effective at solving its problems can
then be implemented in other states, or on the national level. Imagine Christopher Columbus
trying to get funding to voyage across the Atlantic Ocean if there was a unified Europe back then,
with its head saying ‘no!’ to him; instead, he had several governments from which he could try to
get his funding – he got turned down by several governments before Spain gave him the okay. The
same principle applies today with our many states – something that is rejected in one state can
most likely be tried in another state, with competition leading the way, based on effectiveness of
those laws.

4
  State Governments Can be More Responsive to Citizen Needs – The closer a government entity
is to its citizens, the more likely it is the respond to the needs of citizens. States are more likely to
listen to citizen needs, and respond to them, than the national government would be.

Negatives of Federalism:

 It had a History of Protecting Slavery and Segregation – This is often cited as one of the main
detriments of the system of federalism that we have in this country, that since slavery was a state
issue, it was something that could not be removed on the national level.
 It Allows for Inequalities Between Different States – For example, instead of education funding
throughout the country being the same, since it is a state issue, some states will spend more, per
capita, on education than other states, causing what could be considered a disparity. The same
goes for other things, as well, such as taxes, health care programs, and welfare programs.
 The Blockage of Nationalist Policies by States – States can fight against the existence of certain
national laws by challenging them in court, or going out of their way to not enforce those national
laws, or even deliberately obstructing enforcement of national laws.
 Racing to the Bottom – One argument given is that states will compete with each other in an
oppositional way, by reducing the amount of benefits they give to welfare recipients compared to,
say, a neighboring state, motivating the undesirables to go to the neighboring state, thereby
reducing their welfare costs even more. This reduction of state benefits to needy has been deemed
the ‘race to the bottom.’

Now you know what some of the arguments are for and against the type of power-sharing system of
federalism that is found in the United States. Since many Americans are strong supporters of this type of
federalist government, let's give some counterarguments to the negative arguments given.

Counterarguments to the Negatives of Federalism:

 The Protection of Slavery and Segregation – My argument against this is that the ability for a
national government to share its power with state powers is a completely separate issue than the
issue of slavery – that the U.S. Constitution could have, if our founding fathers were able to (which
they weren’t), put the issue of slavery and segregation on the national level, and eventually
eliminating it nationally, rather than the state level, all while continuing to have the national
government share power with state governments. In other words, the effectiveness of federalism
is a different issue than the issue of slavery.
 Inequalities Between States – Of course there are going to be inequalities between states. For
example, you may have a state full of people that are hard-working and self-sufficient, who have
citizens who have a philosophy of approaching their closely-tied family members when in trouble,
rather than the distant and impersonal government, because they don’t want to become ‘slaves’ of
their government, and so welfare benefits and tax policy will tend to be lower in that state. There
is also a tendency for politicians, when times are good, and tax revenue is higher than state
spending, to, instead of lowering taxes at that point, or putting that extra money away for a rainy
day (economic downturn), to use that surplus to create a new government program, to motivate
the voting public to want to vote him/her back in office during the next election cycle, thus
creating a culture of government dependency, which puts them in a different boat than the lower-
taxed, less-government states.
 States Blocking National Policies – We can see that even today as we watch states challenging
the health care reform laws passed by the federal government under President Obama and the
formerly Democratic-controlled legislative branch. I would argue that this is not a bad thing, but is,
in fact, a benefit of our system of federalism. If we had only a national government, there would be
no states to challenge what some might consider to be bad law – of course, special interest groups
have had a history of challenging laws they don’t like, so if no states were able to challenge
national law, then there would still be the chance that a special interest group would step in and
do that. In other words, I don’t see states blocking national policies as a negative, but as a positive,
as another hurdle that laws have to go through to determine whether they are good laws or not,
thereby putting another check and balance in place hindering bad law – it doesn’t matter whether

5
 it is a conservative state challenging liberal federal laws, or liberal states challenging conservative
federal laws.
 Racing to the Bottom – Yes, there is a competition between states that drive them to lower taxes
as much as possible, and give as many tax breaks to businesses moving in as possible, in order to
draw businesses from other states to that state. This competition can be seen as a means to keep
the taxes low, much like competition in the free market helps to keep prices low and quality high –
this same scenario can be beneficial to state governments competing as well. As for welfare and
government programs that some states have more of than others that tend to drive up tax costs
(*see note below), like I’ve said before, these programs tend to be higher in states where politicians
have had more chance to use surplus tax revenues as a reason to create new government
programs, and thus increase the possibility to create dependency on government, as a means to
get re-elected. Whether lowering welfare benefits causes welfare recipients to move to another
state – there's really not very much of this going on; besides, if a person doesn’t want to work, do
you think they’ll work hard to get to another state? Sometimes it’s better to force a person to go
out and get a job rather than sit on their duff and depend on government provisions – it will help
keep those people out of trouble because they’re working now, and increase state, and federal
income tax revenues, as well as sales tax revenues, while lowering welfare expenditures.

Summary

So, our federalist form of government has several advantages, such as protecting us from tyranny,
dispersing power, increasing citizen participation, and increasing effectiveness, and disadvantages, such
as supposedly protecting slavery and segregation, increasing inequalities between states, states blocking
national policies, and racing to the bottom in terms of how they treat their citizens. Do the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages? I believe so. I support the system of federalism, agreeing with the benefits,
and doing my best to give counterarguments to the disadvantages, in order to negate them. All in all, I think
our system is superior even to the parliamentary and cabinet system found in the United Kingdom, as well
the confederation system found in Canada, as well as the one preceding our present system.

6
http://asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-30-1992/palongpalong.pdf