International Political Economy

Bonador, Kyle L. Date:

ABFS 302 Mr. Jumel G.Estrañero

Charter Change: Political Economy of the Philippines under Federalism

I. Introduction/Abstract
Philippines is an archipelagic or island country of Southeast Asia in the western
Pacific Ocean. It consists of more than 7,000 islands and islets that is about 500 miles
away from the coast of Vietnam. The country is known for its natural beauty and rich
biodiversity including beaches, mountains, rainforests, islands and diving spots.
Philippines is also well known for its abundance in natural resources making it known as
the Pearl of the Orient. This term came from the spanish version Perla del Mar de
Orienteused by the country’s national hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal, addressing his
motherland in his last poem Mi ultimo adios before his death in 1896.1 The Philippines,
in the 16th century, was colonized by Spain for 333 years and was further colonized by
the U.S for 48 years right after the colonization of Spaniards. Beacause of this, the
Philippines have cultures and traditions that is affiliated with Western practices. This is
proven in the country’s excellence in the English language and dominance of Roman
Catholic among the citizens. The Philippines is second to India as the most-populous
Asian country with English as a second language. In fact, English is used as a medium
for teaching from nursery to college in all subjects excluding Filipino, and History in
some schools. Roman Catholicism is the predominant religion in the country which
estimates of approximately 87% of the population belonging to this religion. Spanish
style Catholicism acquired from priests and friars is embedded and significant in the
country’s catholic tradition.2This is why the Philippines is one of only two predominant
Roman Catholic countries in Asia together with East Timor. Even with the prominence
of Anglo-European culture, the people of the Philippines are Asian in consciousness
and aspiration.3
The country has been a Unitary Presidential Constitutional Democratic state after
the administration of Ferdinand Marcos. In 2016, gaining 39.01% of votes in the
presidential election, Rodrigo Duterte was elected as the 16th president of the Republic
of the Philippines. 4 During his campaign, one of the highlights of his platform is his
promise of introducing federalism in the country. Federalism is a type of government in

1
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Philippines-called-The-Pearl-of-the-Orient-Seas-What-is-the-significance-
of-such-title
2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Philippines#Christianity
3
Borlaza, Gregorio, Michael Cullinane, and Carolina Hernandez. 2018. "Philippines | History - Geography".
Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed February 23. https://www.britannica.com/place/Philippines.
4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte
which constitutional division of sovereignty between the national government and
subdivisional governments is present.5 Under the PartidoDemokratiko Pilipino – Lakas
ng Bayan or PDP – Laban’s model of federalism, they proposed a semi-presidential
federal system of government for the Philippines. 6 The new model for the Philippine
government will be disussed in this research.

II. A. Statement of the Problem

This study aims to answer the following questions:
1) Why should we shift from unitary to federal?
2) How is federalism different to what we have now?
3) Is the Philippines ready for federalism?

B. Methodology
This research used basic qualitative method. Overview of the study will be
provided using this design. The basic characteristic of qualitative design that was
applied to the study is being generally based on social perspective. Research and
reading of books, newspaper, article, or online journals will answer the research
questions provided as foundation for this research. Documents and articles that are
used in this study were analyzed.

III. Review of Related Literature

The government is often blamed for the many inefficiencies and problems faced
by the nation today. Mostly for reasons such as welfare and development, number of
call for changing the way government is set up have increased. In the current state of
the Philippines under the unitary system, a centralized form of government roots itself in
Metro Manila. A shift to the federal system making Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao a
state of their own can elevate the dynamics of the country. Which one gives the better
edge?
The unitary system is the system used in most presidential and parliamentary
countries today. It revolves around a central authority. This is often referred to as top-
to-bottom since power come from the top and reaches the bottom.This central
government is in fact in charge of policy making and is the ultimate law-making body in
the land. In many cases like the Philippines, it delegates these tasks to subsequent
provincial and local government units.Uniformity among the different local and provincial
governments is the main advantage of the unitary system. Implementation of major laws

5
Cruz, Holden. n.d. "Federalism In The Philippines, Explained". Kami.Com.Ph - Philippines News..
https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-explained.html#2492.
6
http://ncpag.upd.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/PDP-Labans-Model-of-Federalism-April-2017-2.pdf
and policies disregards the level of government. Local and national disputes are also
less frequent. Since the national government is the ultimate governing body, local
government units cannot enact their own laws that could duplicate services or
undermine laws in effect. One huge problem with this structure is that the central
government cannot address local problems head on. Specific needs are easily
overlooked in the smaller case analysis. The higher government cannot address many
local issues as it balances other responsibilities. Local government units up to the
provincial government may also have inefficiencies to address local concerns. Since
the national government deals with national problems and is responsible for budgeting
of sectors, it may allocate funds for bigger projects and programs, leaving the local
governments to fend for themselves.
There is only so much a single governing body can handle, and when
macromanagement becomes too much for a single body to handle, it’s time to divide
and conquer. This is the essence of federalism.Unlike a nation under a unitary form of
government, a federal state’s sovereignty is constitutionally divided among its states.
These states function almost like independent countries, and may even have their own
set of state-specific laws – same-sex marriage may be allowed in some but not in
others, for example – but are directly concerned with nationwide issues such as national
defense or foreign policy. Those issues are handled by a central government, which
acts like a governing body of the smaller, state-governing bodies. a set of rules and
policies are followed by the state and central government and it defines their
relationship with each other and what can and cannot be done by both.The federal type
of governance has many advantages. Geoffrey de Q. Walker, Emeritus Professor of
Law at the University of Queensland, explains some of these advantages. One of these
is the right of choice and exit by the citizens. A federation citizen has greater freedom
of choosing and moving to a state that he or she considers satisfactory. In a sense,
movement by citizens in-between states is an act of “voting with their feet,” allowing
people to “compare different political systems in the same country.”Another advantage
is the possibility of experimentation. The fact that states have some degree of autonomy
allows the central government to determine which laws, policies, or political system in
effect work positively and maximize welfare.The third advantage according to Walker,
and arguably also one of the most important, is the accommodation of regional
preferences and diversity. This advantage holds much more significance in larger
countries where culture and lifestyles can differ across regions. “By these means,
overall satisfaction can be maximized, and the winner-take-all problem alleviated,”
particularly in policies wherein the populace’s opinions are divided. By not forcing
culturally and ethnically different people to make decisions that would go against their
beliefs and opinion, solidarity federation may be achieved.However, a federation is not
without its blemishes. Because each state government has its own style of governance,
citizens all over the federation will be experiencing different levels of welfare. The
competencies and efficiency of each state government will also not be the same,
potentially creating further disunity. A policy exercised across different states may differ
in magnitude, like penalties for criminal offenses.7

7
Tumangday, Ronnel, and Roy Loyola. 2013. "Head To Head: Governance: Unitary Vs Federal". The Lasallian.
http://thelasallian.com/2013/06/11/head-to-head-governance-unitary-vs-federal/
 Federalism is not a common method of governing in the world. Only 11 of the
190 or so nations of the world have federal systems. These are Germany, Mexico,
Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Australia, India, the United States, Austria, Malaysia, and
Switzerland. They do not have the same federal system. The list includes big countries,
as well as small ones.Most nations in the world today have unitary systems, wherein
almost all power resides in the central government.Determining why these 11 countries
adopted a federal system is an interesting study in itself. It is generally believed that
cultural diversity (ethnic, linguistic and religious) led them to adopt
federalism.Significantly, all three North American nations—Canada, Mexico and the
US—have federal systems.But the trend does not continue in South America, where
only Brazil and Argentina have gone federal.In Asia, the federal states are India and
Malaysia.In Europe, Austria, Germany and Switzerland are the main federal states.
Australia, in Oceania, is a top-ranked and prosperous federal state.Most federated
countries are democracies, although most democracies do not have federal
systems.Authoritarian regimes generally do not wish to disperse power away from the
central government.Both the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia had federal
systems, but with strong central governments.When democracy swept through these
countries in 1989 and the early 1990s, they dissolved into many smaller nations.India
and the US are the biggest federal states in terms of population.Canada, Brazil and the
US are the biggest federal states in terms of land area.Switzerland, Austria and
Malaysia are the smallest federal states in terms of population size and land area.The
US was the first country to adopt federalism as its governing framework.The debate is
just beginning.There will be plenty of arguments.If federalists can win the argument,
federalism will pass.Otherwise, it will be back to the drawing board for federalism
advocates.Mindanao’s campaign against imperial Manila will be met by something
similar to “the empire strikes back.”If PantaleonAlvarez and other politicians think that
this debate can be won by just spending DU30’s political capital, they should dismiss
the thought.That capital may be better spent elsewhere.This debate must be won by
persuasion, and by sound argument and intelligent constitutional design.“Presidential
power,” says the foremost authority on modern presidency Richard Neustadt, “is the
power to persuade.”8

8
MAKABENTA, YEN. 2016. "Why Switch To Federalism? - The Manila Times Online". The Manila Times Online.
http://www.manilatimes.net/why-switch-to-federalism/276849/
Currently, we have a unitary form of government. Most administrative powers and
resources reside in the national government based in Metro Manila. Malacañang
decides how much to give local government units. This can quite lead to abuse of
authority, where governors and mayors sometimes need to please Malacañang for
budget for projects their communities need. Also, the national government’s approval is
needed before local government units can spend their budget.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 are 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 spiraled 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
Zamboangueños.

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.9

9
Ranada, Pia, and Nico Villarete. 2016. "Will Federalism Address PH Woes? Pros And Cons Of Making The
Shift". Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/120166-federalism-pros-cons-explainer.
 CLEARLY, the advocates of federalism have splintered into various groups
pushing for their respective agendas. Still, there are no messages being done to
respond to Juan dela Cruz’s questions: What’s in it for me? Would my life be better off?
After all, it boils down to making the lives of Filipinos much better and this is where our
politics will have to change because it is very destructive. The problem today is that the
citizens have been set aside with the decision to have a constituent assembly and not a
constitutional convention simply because the former is “fast and cheap.” Now, politicians
are saying why we need the revision and when it will happen and probably, an
extension of terms would from such revisions.
Nowhere in the debate do we hear the positions of citizens on the matter, as if
politicians are the only ones who can discuss and debate on the matter. Drafts are flying
from one camp to another and no one remains true to the urgent call re what is the
problem we are trying to solve. One cannot find the right solutions if we are unable to
agree on one coherent problem. Sadly, in the past administration no single political
reform has passed Congress, the 15th and the 16th. No executive order has been
signed pushing for political reform. PRRD now tries to do a political leapfrog with
federalism but it has been captured by the politics and the politicians of the day. Books
are launched left and right as if the golden key to federalism can be unlocked by such
publications.
In my first and second columns for this year, I made clear that my first wish is for
those individuals involved in the Dengvaxia scandal to be meted out punishment,
regardless of previous positions. PRRD must stop talking about good faith because
clearly there was malice, from the funding to the procurement and the roll-out of
Dengvaxia. My second wish is for a third and fourth telco player to come in focusing on
the last mile and connecting the same to the various grid options rolling out soon. Globe
and Smart have been given enough chances to prove that they can service the Filipinos
efficiently, effectively and economically. Spectrum audit must be done and re-farming
considered so that the real owners of the spectrum can benefit from a patrimony
resource of the nation, not some greedy duopoly or the inutile NTC.
My third wish for 2018 is for both the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) and the
revision of the Constitution be made so that a plebiscite can be set in time for the
midterm elections in 2019. Delay the BBL, we deal with the harshest reality of
extremism growing and recruits increasing. A time bomb waiting for another deadly
explosion.
In a Pahayag pilot survey of Publicis Asi last August 2017, Mindanao is very
much ready to make the shift. The farther one is from NCR (or Imperial Manila), the
more inequity is felt. So, the bright boys of the PDP-Laban will have to realize that
Mindanao is different from the rest when you do messaging arcs. Convincing the whole
country is not the way to go. Focus on Luzon where federalism traction is low. Talking to
barangay captains and kagawad is not reaching the people. You are building your
political base but merely talking to the choir, a waste of public monies.
 Sixty-seven percent of respondents have not read, heard or watched anything
about the proposal to change the present presidential form of government to federal. On
the rating for the item “read, heard, watched” federalism, Mindanao was at 49% and
only 51% have not. Forty-three percent in Mindanao understand the discussions about
federalism while total Philippines was at 22 percent. Fifty-five percent of Mindanao
wants the shift to a federal system right away while total Philippines was at 36 percent.
Mindanao wants constitutional change to happen before 2019, under the term of
PRRD—a high of 81 percent while total Philippines was at 66 percent. A transition is
important for all at 64 percent, highest in South Luzon at 84 percent and lowest in
Mindanao at 45 percent. What is the effective division of regions in a federal system?
Forty-three percent of total PH wants the islands first: Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and
NCR so that it is financially viable, with Mindanao supporting it at 63 percent. Only North
and Central Luzon want to follow the present regional division at 45 percent.
In the book, Why Nations Fail, authors Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson
argue that when you combine rotten regimes, exploitative elites and self-serving
institutions with frail, decentralized states, you have something close to a prescription
for poverty, conflict and even outright failure. “Nations fail,” the authors write, “when they
have extractive economic institutions, supported by extractive political institutions that
impede and even block economic growth.”
Lessons learned from the enactments of the Local Government Code or LGC
(RA7160 signed1991) as well as ARMM (RA 6734 signed 1989) and CAR (RA 8438
signed 1997): Laws are important in the proposed revision of the 1987 Constitution. We
are shifting because the promises of these laws failed to deliver what they were
supposed to do. Indeed, “man-made political and economic institutions that underlie
economic success (or the lack of it)” determines why nations fail.
In the rush to federalism, no one has taken the route of why the aforementioned
laws have led us nowhere. The LGC would have led to decentralization, or “the process
of distributing or dispersing functions, powers, people or things away from a central
location or authority.” Decentralization includes political, administrative, fiscal and
market decentralization. Administrative decentralization involves de-concentration,
delegation and devolution. The LGC offers us 27 years of experience while ARMM is 29
years old and CAR 21 years, and yet the narratives of these laws have not been
revisited to learn what works and what does not. The Internal Revenue Allotment is not
released fully and would members of Congress bother? No, because by nature, the
local government officials are their natural enemies.
Filipinos should be cognizant of the fact that “audiences are shifting. Platforms
are shifting. Ages are shifting. It’s better to be in charge of change than to have to react
to change.”10

10
Tiquia, Ma. Lourdes. 2018. "Why Shift To Federalism? - The Manila Times Online". The Manila Times Online.
http://www.manilatimes.net/why-shift-to-federalism/374570/
 President Rodrigo Duterte said Tuesday that Filipinos might not be ready for a
federal form of government but stressed that this was the key to lasting peace in the
country and in conflict-ridden Mindanao.

Duterte said there was a need to “find the right formula” in bringing peace to
Mindanao.
“We must find the right formula here because, if not, our country, all of us, will
sacrifice,” he said in a dinner with the Malacañang reporters.

The President said the decades-long conflict in Mindanao by various groups

could not be solved even by the intervention of other countries.

“Kayo langtalaga, nobody else, not even the mediation and the intervention of so
many countries. Walangmangyariito as long as we don’t really concede something,” he
said.

He reiterated that only a federal form of government could bring lasting peace in
the country.

“[The] problem is Filipinos are not ready for a federal type. It doesn’t seem to ring
a bell in the Visayas and Mindanao,” he said.

Nonetheless, Duterte was optimistic that federalism would bring an end to the
Moro rebels’ struggle to govern their homeland.

“Alamnamanninyo ang history, I don’t have to repeat it,

pagkawalangnangyarisausapan, both the MILF and the MNLF, you would be busy,
almost all of you would be there in Mindanao covering a terrible situation in our country,”
he said.

He said the Moros already want to end decades-old war in the region.

“Ang mahiraplang is MILF and MNLF, ayawtalaganila ng gulo. Etosila gusto

narinnilamagpahingasa away,” he said.

Duterte earlier asked Congress to hasten the country’s shift to a federal form of
government.
 “Kailangantalagamagbigay kayo diyan. If Congress fails, and I’m not hurrying
them up, there will be trouble,” he said.11

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte sought to realign his ideological flow with
Russian President Vladimir Putin during his landmark visit to Moscow on May 22,
bringing with him a high-profile Cabinet contingent. But in the end he cut short the
meeting and declared martial law in the southern Philippines.
The firebrand leader’s urgent return to Manila paid forward as the military
launched a surgical strike against high-value bandits belonging to the Maute Group and
the Abu Sayyaf Group.
But since the declaration of martial law, public debate has reached a new
frenzy, as victims of the past martial law sounded the need for vigilance bounded by
legal instruments under the president’s accountability.
What does the imposition of martial law in the southern Philippines mean
for Duterte’s promise to create federal states in the near future? Would increased
autonomy for states increase the odds of separation from the republic if mishandled
secessionism and rebellion combine to wound the country’s national sovereignty and
integrity?
There are two systems being scrutinized for the Philippines: the unitary system
and the federal system. Both has pros and cons. The first side favors highly centralized
powers in the national government while the second option disperses the delegation of
powers to the various regions.
Federalism offers a political system with self-rule for regions and shared rule for
all embodying two orders of government, regional governments and a central
government functioning with different responsibilities within which they are autonomous.
The basic principles of federalism cement power-sharing, resource-sharing, respect-for-
all, and development-for-all.
Federalism rose to public consciousness again when Duterte won the
presidency, after having pledged to support a federal system. In December last year, he
urged Congress to hastily put in place a federal system of government, believing that
this was the key to bring peace in discordant Mindanao.
While Duterte’s trust rating remains high, he wishes to keep his promise to the
myriad Muslims, Christians, and indigenous peoples in the southern Philippines. He has
called on Congress to enact a law for the election of delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, while at the same time holding simultaneous peace talks with the militant
groups that should end by 2018.
If the system goes well, a plebiscite will have to happen by 2019. If approved, the
road to federalism will be implemented starting in 2019 with the first election of the first
set of officials of the various states and federal government in 2022.
Debates over a shift to federalism in the Philippines are as old as its history as an
independent nation. However, the recollections of political hybridity and cultural diversity
11
Corrales, Nestor. 2017. "Duterte: Filipinos Not Ready For Federalism, But …". Newsinfo.Inquirer.Net.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/951954/duterte-filipinos-not-ready-for-federalism-but
inflame rhetorical questions about how to unite the divided country and better serve the
Filipino people with a new platform of government.
The archipelagic nation-state suffers enough pain with experimental and failed
peace processes caused by protracted mistrust and distrust between and among
secessionists, rebels, militant groups, and terrorists, added to the long formations of
political dynasties, private armies, and criminals. Peacemakers in Mindanao must
prepare for the most difficult part of the peace process implementation — DDR
(disarmament, decommissioning and reintegration), which stakeholders have not yet
achieved. Asymmetries in the peace process have made it tricky to find a perfect
formula that works in the government’s favor.
To secure Philippine sovereignty, a shift to federalism must coincide with defense
reforms. The legislative agenda must include updating the archaic National Defense Act
of 1935 to mainstream changes in current national defense policies, principles, and
concepts. The new NDA must be in sync with the National Security Act, which provides
for a national security policy by institutionalizing planning process within national
development planning.
Though still debatable, federalism’s promises could brighten the Philippines’
chances to improve democracy, bringing governance closer to the citizens by
empowering local communities in a way that recognizes democratic accountability and
horizontal separation of power. It might improve good governance by addressing local
diversity and regional varieties in policies. Finally, federalism would manage diversity by
giving territory-based communities a degree of autonomy to manage their own affairs.12

12
Cabalza, Chester. 2017. "Martial Law And Duterte's Quest For Federalism". The Diplomat.
https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/martial-law-and-dutertes-quest-for-federalism/
 With social and economic inequity rising in the Philippines, Senate President
Aquilino L. Pimentel III told legislators from all over the world that the Philippine
government was eyeing a major structural reform to ensure that all Filipinos enjoy the
fruits of the country's economic growth: the adoption of federalism.

Addressing participants of the 136th Interparliamentary Union Assembly, the

Senate President said that the country's "chosen weapon to fight the inter-generational
problems of poverty, inequality, and the societal instability that result therefrom, is not
merely policy change but structural change-structural change in the form of the adoption
of the Federal System of Government."

The senator from Mindanao, who gave a speech on the assembly's theme, "On
Redressing Inequalities: Delivering on Dignity and Well-Being for All," explained that the
Philippines, like the rest of the world, was also grappling with "the wealth gap."

"Reports indicate that GDP and GNP Growth rates in the world have been rising.
Yet, despite these rising rates, serious inequalities on income, economic opportunity
and political inclusion still persist, threatening to jeopardize economic sustainability,
reverse the progress on poverty, and affect world security," lamented Pimentel.

"The Philippines," stressed Pimentel, "is too familiar with this wealth gap,
especially the gap which exists within the country. Last year, our economy again posted
a strong 6.6% growth in GDP, following steady growth in the previous years-but it has
yet to be truly felt by the majority of our citizens, especially the poor that still comprise a
little more than 1/4 of our population."

Pimentel said that contributing to this problem was the fact that the Philippines is
a unitary state, with more than 60% of its GDP generated in Metro Manila and the areas
near the national capital.

Pimentel admitted that "the poorest and least developed areas of the Philippines
are found in the far south of the capital, in the island called Mindanao."

"In short, the richest areas in the Philippines are the capital and those closest to
it. The poorest are those farthest from the capital."

The election of President Rodrigo Duterte in May 2016, explained Pimentel, was
the electorate's response to this longstanding problem.
 One of the major thrusts of Duterte, the first President from Mindanao, is the
country's adoption of federalism.

"We believe that by federalizing the Philippines, we immediately obtain the

following benefits: we involve the regions in national decision making; we accelerate the
economic development of the regions as the regions will be free to determine their over-
all direction," said Pimentel.

The 1990 Bar topnotcher revealed that under the proposed federalism plan of
Duterte, the country will be divided into eleven regions, thereby resulting in "eleven
centers of power."

According to Pimentel, the shift to federalism would also encourage the

preservation of the culture, language, and other practices and beliefs of our the
country's numerous ethno-linguistic groups.

While Pimentel emphasized that the adoption of a federal system of government

would take time as this involves the revision of the Constitution, it would result in peace
in Mindanao, "as some rebel groups therein have been clamoring for decades for some
kind of autonomy rule."

"Let us be open to challenging the status quo and make the attitudinal change of
entertaining outside of the box solutions to inter-generational problems."13

13
"Press Release - Federalism To Solve Inequities And Longstanding Problems In The Philippines - PIMENTEL".
2017. Senate.Gov.Ph. http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2017/0404_pimentel2.asp
 In Philippine politics, every president after Ferdinand Marcos (the dictator ousted
in 1986) has wanted to cha-cha. But why has each president been intent on rewriting
the constitution? More importantly, what is Rodrigo Duterte’s government trying to do
with it this time around?To be fair, Duterte has advocated a cha-cha since the
beginning, and has always made clear that his proposed amendments would entail a
shift from the current unitary form of government to a federal one.

Duterte and his camp say that federalism will make the delivery of services faster
by empowering smaller units of government to do their jobs more efficiently. Many are
split on the topic of federalism. Lawyers, and constitutionalists around the country have
been diving into the details of this constitutional surgery. Some say that the structural
alignment of government needs to be fleshed out more in discussion. Others claim that
the Philippines is unsuited to federalism and that the current constitution, however
imperfect, already allows for the basic democratic freedoms and processes required for
a nation to function.Beyond these surface-level changes, what could Duterte’s cha-cha
do? Past presidents aggressively floated policy changes that would come as a result of
their proposed cha-chas. Some of the more controversial provisions would allow foreign
entities unbridled access to land, property and various institutions. Others entailed that
term limits for those in office be reviewed.Unsurprisingly, this caused a major uproar
among the public, who waged campaigns to end these cha-chas, which they viewed as
moves towards potential dictatorship. Despite such predictable opposition, each
succeeding president has tried and failed to wiggle their way towards constitutional
change.

What Duterte wants now has been called “the worst cha-cha ever” by former
lawmaker and attorney NeriColmenares, who has been monitoring the various versions
for some time. The human rights lawyer told The News Lens that the ramifications are
bleak.The amendments are less about a shift to federalism and more about bastardizing
constitutional safeguards. In a nutshell, Colmenares says that the proposal entails, “the
centralization of repressive powers in Duterte, a self-serving agendas of politicians,
dismantling of protectionist provisions of the constitution which may exacerbate poverty
[and] control of the judiciary.”The worst thing about the ongoing approval process is the
railroading by administration allies in Congress.House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, a
die-hard Duterte ally, has threatened that members of congress who do not vote in favor
of cha-cha would receive “zero budget.” This is a threat he has acted on before – he de-
funded of the Commission of Human Rights in a political move to silence administration
critics.The prospect of a revamped constitution under a president whose bloody trail has
left so many victims in its wake is a terrifying scenario. But the devil is in the details of
Duterte’s dance.
 So much is wrong with what the administration believes the country’s essential
document and principles should look like.Philippine presidents are currently bound to
serve a single, fixed term of six years, without possibility of re-election. The proposed
amendments suggest that Duterte be allowed to run for a second time as president, that
the office of the vice-president – the only other nationally elected post and one currently
held by one of Duterte’s political opponents – be abolished, and that Congress itself be
abolished until a federal congress is convened.Until such time, the president would
absorb all legislative powers, all top elected officials would be exempt from income tax,
and their terms in office would be doubled.Some key provisions involving the economic
and territorial sovereignty of the country are also at stake. Clauses cut from the new
constitution include: disallowing the entry of foreign troops, bases and facilities;
prohibiting multinational corporations from acquiring domestic land and prohibiting
foreign entities from wholly operating domestic industries, institutions (mass media and
education) and utilities; and the promotion of Filipino labor, housing, investment and
land reform.These are some exceptionally sound facets of the current constitution,
though as the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), a military alliance
that allows American troops to visit the Philippines for extended visits suggests, they are
not well enforced. Still, removing them eases the way for all sorts of violations of
sovereignty. It is putting up the entire country for sale. And this, remember, from the
man who said to China "if you want, just make us a province like Fujian."The Catholics
Bishop Conference of the Philippines has rightly branded the entire affair as “self-
serving”, particularly for the insertions that will leave elected officials in prolonged power
without any fiscal accountability.On the other hand, lawmakers assured the public that
they would not be self-serving as a review committee has been appointed, albeit by the
office of the president, to ensure democratic fairness. They gloss over the fact that the
planned revisions are inherently detrimental to the people while bloating the political
power of local elites.
At the moment, the biggest conundrum for lawmakers is not whether to reject
cha-cha or not, but how to go about it. Alvarez maintains that a Constituent Assembly
(con-ass) is the most direct and cost-effective approach, whereby both the Senate (the
upper chamber) and the House of Representatives (the lower one) vote jointly. Senator
Francis Pangilinan and his colleagues have rejected this idea, as it would significantly
reduce the role of the upper chamber in comparison with the current process. But as far
as Alvarez is concerned, cha-cha is already underway. Hardly any of the talk from the
country’s representatives reflects the problems all this entails for public welfare.14

14
Beltran, Michael. 2018. "Philippine Government Contemplates A Cha-Cha With The Devil - The News Lens
International Edition". The News Lens International Edition. https://international.thenewslens.com/article/91143
 The Philippine House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution that
would transform Congress into a Constituent Assembly and empower it to amend the
1987 Constitution. While proponents of charter change (known as “cha-cha” in the
Philippines) have hailed it as a positive step in achieving President Rodrigo Duterte’s
plan to turn the Philippines into a federal state, critics have warned it could lead to
authoritarianism or even dictatorship, sparking fears dating back to the rule of
strongman Ferdinand Marcos.

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, one of the authors of the resolution, said it is
time to review the 29-year old Constitution “to make it more attuned and responsive to
the demands of present conditions and economic realities.”

He pointed out that the present system of government has created an imbalance
in the distribution of wealth in favor of the capital Manila while provinces languished in
deeper poverty. He argued that federalism can “spur economic regional development in
the countryside, and provide impetus to much-needed socio-economic and political
reforms.”

To take just one example, the plan to remove the constitutional restrictions on
foreign ownership and control of lands, enterprises, and even vital industries have all
continued to draw mixed reactions.

Duterte’s economic advisers insist that such a measure is needed to stimulate

foreign investments in order to generate jobs. But it is also being disputed by some
nationalists who wanted the restrictions to remain in order to protect local businesses
and promote national industrialization. These voices have argued that the country can
attract more foreign investments not by abolishing protectionist measures but by
lowering electricity prices, eradicating corruption, and improving infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the proposed political reforms are even more controversial.

Opponents of federalism think it can entrench the rule of dynasties and warlords. If the
House constitutional reform bill is approved, the term limits of elected politicians will be
removed. Furthermore, incumbent politicians will remain in office during the transition
period towards the full implementation of federalism. This could mean the possible
cancellation of the 2019 elections and the extension of Duterte’s term which ends in
2022, which would only entrench existing concerns that he plans on consolidating
authoritarian control in a country that still continues to heal from the wounds of the
dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. Duterte will also be eligible to run either as president
or prime minister.
 Viewed from this perspective, the charter change bill functions less as a
development tool than an insidious attempt to perpetuate the power of the ruling party.

While Duterte claims that he only thinks of the people’s interest in advocating the
shift to federalism, his government is accused of trying to monopolize political power by
attacking the independence of the judiciary and Congress. The charter change bill
espoused by his loyal supporters in the House confirmed suspicions about Duterte’s
plan to remain in power beyond 2022. This has worried many groups which wanted to
make the Duterte government accountable for the widespread human rights abuses
allegedly committed by state forces.

Amending the constitution is a difficult undertaking, since it requires the support

of both houses of Congress and the approval of the people through a national
referendum. Previous governments have been attempting to do this since 1997, but
they all failed after encountering massive public opposition.

Nevertheless, House Speaker Alvarez is confident that the charter change bill
enjoys public backing, citing Dutere’s overwhelming electoral victory in 2016. Duterte
ran on a platform of implementing a federal system of government. Also important for
supporters of the move is the reported high public rating of the president, which can be
used by his supporters to fast-track the campaign for charter change and reinforce the
point that he is a democratically elected leader who remains popular rather than a
dictator that is out of touch with his people.

However, critics contend that Duterte’s methods have included the use of strong-
arm tactics which they believe is intended to instill fear among the public like the brutal
“war on drugs” (known locally as Tokhang) and the extended declaration of Martial Law
in the whole island of Mindanao. Duterte has also consistently ranted against groups
and forces which can influence public opinion and organize a broad challenge against
the charter change plan such as the church, media, civil society, the Left, and prominent
members of the political opposition allied with the previous government.

The ruling party wanted to finish the charter change deliberation this year and
hold a plebiscite for the ratification of the new constitution. The next few months are
therefore crucial for both the proponents and opponents of charter change to mobilize
public support for their cause.

If Congress is able to convert itself into a Constituent Assembly, its members

should reflect on these questions posed by Senator Richard Gordon: “Are we
empowering ourselves or are we empowering the people? Are we enabling ourselves or
are we enabling the people?”15

Without a doubt,Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte is one of the most vocal
proponents for federalism in the country, going around provinces and towns to listen to
people’s thoughts about a possible shift in the Philippines’ form of government.
Just why is the feisty mayor so determined about establishing a federal
government in the Philippines?
In an interview with Asian Dragon magazine, Duterte said he’s fearful war will
break out in Mindanao if the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law isn’t passed by
Congress, and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) decides to take up arms to
express its disappointment.
“If the BBL is not passed, there is that threat of war by MILF Chair Murad
Ebrahim. President Aquino and Sec. Teresita Deles (presidential adviser on the peace
process) have validated these threats… I am quite passionate about the situation
because if war breaks out, you know where the battleground will be— Mindanao and
Davao City, in particular,” he said.
The mayor said he agreed to push for federalism after meeting with former
governor LitoOsmeña, former senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr., and Radio Mindanao
Network owner Reuben Canoy, who also believe it is high time for the Philippines to
adopt a new form of government.
Asked what form of federalism he thinks is best suited for the country, Duterte
said he’s more partial to the federal parliamnetary 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.16

15
Palatino, Mong. 2018. "Will Duterte’S ‘Cha-Cha’ Train Lead To Dictatorship In The Philippines?". The Diplomat.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/will-dutertes-cha-cha-train-lead-to-dictatorship-in-the-philippines/
16
"Duterte Reveals Grim Reason Why He’S Pushing For Federalism - Latest Philippine News Today". 2016. Latest
Philippine News Today. Accessed April 4. http://politics.com.ph/duterte-reveals-grim-reason-why-hes-pushing-for-
federalism/
IV. PAID (Presentation, Analysis & Interpretation of Data)

The Philippines currently has a unitary system where the central government
resides in Manila, which is in Luzon. Due to this, local issues in Visayas and Mindanao
are not addressed accordingly and properly as how issues in Luzon are addressed
since the national government cannot handle every issue in the Philippines. The
centralization of power causes differing levels of development among the regions of the
country, thus making rich regions richer and the poor regions poorer. On the other hand,
federalism, which is the decentralization of power among national government and its
states, would be more effective for an archipelagic country like the Philippines. In the
presence of federalism in our country, Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao would be states
and have power on their own while still being under Philippines as one country. This
would give better developments to regions that are not frequently reached by the central
government in the unitary system. With federalism, issues of regional development
would be addressed better as dependency to Manila would be lessened since power
would reside in the different states of the country.

With unitary system, power and resources reside in Manila and Malacañang
decides how much to give local government units for projects 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 their own decisions
with little or no approval of the national government. Another is a law can be present in
one or some states but not in the others. Federalism allows independence from the
national government while still being under one country.

As to the response the current administration is getting from the Filipinos, we are
definitely not yet ready. According to the president himself, “It does not seem to ring a
bell in the Visayas and Mindanao or, if at all, only among those who are really dedicated
and are thinking Filipinos.” The president said that the right formula or the Philippine-
style federalism is yet to be found because if not, all of us, the whole country, will suffer.
Another problem the Bangsamoro Basic Law which is hoped to end decades of fighting
in Muslim-dominated areas of Mindanao. The president also conceded that the
Bangsamoro people should have a homeland in Mindanao. He added, “We concede to
a territorial portion of Mindanao as theirs.”
 However, setting aside these issues, the Philippines’ resources are waiting to be
utilized. This would allow access to the Indigenous areas of the country. Also, regional
development is the key for the growth of the Philippines. Since the central government
of unitary system cannot handle all the local issues in the other islands of the
Philippines, we must implement the decentralization of power for better political and
economic growth.

V. Summary, Conclusion & Recommendation

Federalism is good for big countries to spread governance to the entire

land;however, it will also be good for small archipelagic countries like the Philippines for
power to be distributed to its islands. This would allow generation of different ideas and
utilization of resources across the country. Federalism will permit diversity where the
entire nation does not have uniform policy to which every state and community must
conform to. Local governments may deal directly with local problems. This will also help
in managing conflicts as permitting states and communities to pursue their own policies
reduces the pressures that would build up if the national government had to decide
everything. More people will be able to run for and hold political office as federalism
increases political participation. Although the beauty of federalism is well stated, there
are still disadvantages that should not be overlooked.

Federalism is not easy. It would take years to have a perfect federalism form of
government in our country. Our government should know the right formula so that our
country will not suffer. Federalism would be great for the development of every major
islands of the Philippines as dependency to Metro Manila would be lessened.
Federalism will allow Visayas and Mindanao decide as an independent state and
develop without depending on the instructions of Luzon. As aforementioned,
disadvantages should not be overlooked. If ever federalism would be implemented, the
national government must protect the wholeness of the country. This is because states
might want to separate and become an independent country. Abuse of power may also
be present even under federalism. Authorities may have clashing ideas, thus
threatening the unity of the country. Possible divisiveness is present in federalism where
it could enflame hostilities between ethnic groups. Thus, national defense system
should be improved. Uneven development among states is also possible as some
states may not be as rich in natural resources or skilled labor as others. Ineffective
leaders would degrade states because national government will not be there to balance
them. In this case, quarterly review of state progress should be given to the national
government and if the state leaders are not able to give good progress the national
government should take charge. If federalism would be healthy for the Philippines, then
it should be implemented. However, if it would threaten the national integrity of the
country then we should just settle with unitary and wait for an excellent leader who has
a solution for the present issues of the country.
VI. References

 https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Philippines-called-The-Pearl-of-the-Orient-
Seas-What-is-the-significance-of-such-title
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Philippines#Christianity
 Borlaza, G., Cullinane, M. and Hernandez, C. (2018). [online] Available at:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Philippines.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte
 Cruz, H. (2017). Federalism in the Philippines, explained. [online] Kami.com.ph -
Philippines news. Available at: https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-
explained.html#2492.
 http://ncpag.upd.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/PDP-Labans-Model-of-
Federalism-April-2017-2.pdf
 Tumangday, R. (2013). Head to Head: Governance: Unitary vs Federal. [online]
The LaSallian. Available at: http://thelasallian.com/2013/06/11/head-to-head-
governance-unitary-vs-federal/
 MAKABENTA, Y. (2016). Why switch to federalism? - The Manila Times Online.
[online] The Manila Times Online. Available at: http://www.manilatimes.net/why-
switch-to-federalism/276849/
 Ranada, P. and Villarete, N. (2016). Will federalism address PH woes? Pros and
cons of making the shift. [online] Rappler. Available at:
https://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/120166-federalism-pros-
cons-explainer
 TIQUIA, M. (2018). Why shift to federalism? - The Manila Times Online. [online]
The Manila Times Online. Available at: http://www.manilatimes.net/why-shift-to-
federalism/374570/.
 Corrales, N. (2017). "Duterte: Filipinos Not Ready For Federalism, But …". -
Newsinfo.Inquirer.Net. [online] Newsinfo.Inquirer.Net. Available at:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/951954/duterte-filipinos-not-ready-for-federalism-but
 Cabalza, C. (2017). "Martial Law And Duterte's Quest For Federalism". - The
Diplomat. [online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/martial-law-and-
dutertes-quest-for-federalism/
 Beltran, M. (2018). "Philippine Government Contemplates A Cha-Cha With The
Devil - The News Lens International Edition". The News Lens International
Edition. Available at: https://international.thenewslens.com/article/91143
 Palatino, M. (2018). "Will Duterte’S ‘Cha-Cha’ Train Lead To Dictatorship In The
Philippines?". - The Diplomat. [online] Available at:
 https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/will-dutertes-cha-cha-train-lead-to-dictatorship-
in-the-philippines
 "Duterte Reveals Grim Reason Why He’S Pushing For Federalism - Latest
Philippine News Today". 2016. Latest Philippine News Today. [online] Available
at: http://politics.com.ph/duterte-reveals-grim-reason-why-hes-pushing-for-
federalism/