Federalism

Affirmative
FIRST SPEAKER- PRIME MINISTER

The concept of a federal government for the Philippines was first suggested by Dr. José Rizal,
wherein he outlined his vision of federalist governance on his essay "Las Filipinas Dentro de Cien
Anos" (The Philippines a Century Hence) that was published by the Barcelona-based propaganda
paper La Solidaridad in 1889. He said, “[Once liberated] the islands will probably declare themselves
a federal republic.” Filipino revolutionaries Emilio Aguinaldo and Apolinario Mabini already
suggested dividing the islands into three federal states. Therefore, the issue on federalism is no
longer new and is historically supported. That is why, it is high time for the government to realize
this vision towards the betterment of the country.

Honorable members of the adjudicators, members of the negative team, friends, good morning.

As the first speaker of the affirmative side, it will be my duty to explain the reasons why we need to
change our form of government to a federal system, the second speaker will be dealing with the
benefits that Federalism has to offer to the people and to the country and the third speaker will
explain why is it really practical to adhere to this solution considering the results that can be benefited
from it.

We in the affirmative side supports the proposition that Federalism should be established in the
Philippine Government system.

First let me define what Federalism is. Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government,
combining a general government (central or 'federal' government) with regional governments
(provincial, state or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Simply put, there is a
division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.

It was December 2016, half a year into his term when President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive
Order No. 10, which created a 25-man consultative committee to revisit the 1987 Constitution. This
is one of the campaign promises of President Duterte which is to give voice to the provinces by
shifting to a federal system, by having a new — or amended — Constitution during his watch.

But why is there a need to revisit the present constitution and propose a new system? At present,
what we have is a unitary system, where the national government is sovereign and the states are
administrative arms of the central government. And what’s wrong with the unitary system?

First, let us consider the lopsided economic system. Metro Manila, Central Luzon, and Southern
Tagalog produce 62 % of our Gross Domestic Product according to Philippine Statistics Authority.
Metro Manila, Region IV A (Calabarzon) and Central Luzon account for 62% of GDP while 14 out of
17 regions account for only 38% Actually, Region I only accounts 3%. Therefore, 62% of GDP are
in 3 Luzon regions. This Statistics shows that the unitary system Created a huge imbalance in
economic development.

That is also why Centralisation of economic activity is inefficient: Most jobs, economic activity
and "export processing zones" in the Philippines are located in Manila and the neighbouring
Calabarzon region — except for the ones in Cebu and Baguio. Manila, known as the National Capital
Region (NCR), takes the lion's share, accounting for 36.4 per cent of country's gross domestic
product. How about the other regions? Through Federalism, each regional government will be given
the chance to work on independent economic planning and on redefining the ownership and
management of resources. Many see these two conditions as the key to reviving up economic
activity in the regions.
Second, in terms of Tax Expenditures and Budget Management. Who spends our taxes? How is
the distribution of budget? The distribution for public expenditures for the National Government
accounted for 72% of the entire General Appropriations Act compared to only 18% of LGUs
according to the Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing, Department of Budget and
Management.

The Local Government Units only rely to the budget being provided by the National Government to
address their existing needs. In the unitary system, the Philippines is divided into 17 administrative
regions. The national budget is debated and approved by Congress, which crafts the laws of the
land. The Executive, led by the president and his Cabinet secretaries, implement them.

Now, will this be enough? That is why, Federalism is a good step towards enabling states/regional
government to address their individual concerns through a better management and allocation of
funds. Philippines would allow states to keep more of their income to themselves. They do not have
to rely on collecting real estate tax and business permit fees - 80% of their total earned income
stays, while only 20% goes back to the national government. This means that states are able to
channel their own income for their own development, creating policies and programs suitable for
them without having to wait for the national government to approve. Within the 80% budget that
remains with these states, 30% will be funneled to the local state government, and 70% will be
allocated to the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.

The unitary system has led to over-concentration of government powers in “Imperial Manila” and in
the hands of oligarchs and the Manila elite and the Federalist system will work on this.

Third, on our present system, all regions are not given enough power to make programs and
legislations in relation to their individual concerns. In the unitary system, the control comes from the
national government which gives the approval and support to local government units for whatever
actions to be conducted.

The sharing of powers in a federal system on the other hand will ensure that the federal states will
have ample powers to develop their own social, economic, and political potentials. With adequate
powers the federal states will be able to modernize themselves. As they modernize, the political
stability of the whole country will be strengthened.

The government doesn’t strengthen decentralization and the Local Government Code of 1991 which
is the enabling law that transferred power, authority, and responsibility over certain governmental
functions from the national (central) to local government units. It gave flesh to the 1987 Constitutional
mandate (Article 2, Section 25) that “the State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.” It
intended to transfer the delivery of basic services and certain regulatory functions to local
governments, which were previously discharged by national (central) government agencies such as
the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health, Department of Social Welfare and
Development, and others. It broadened the taxing and borrowing powers of local governments and
provided them with a higher share of the national taxes through a fixed sharing formula. In addition,
through a grant system, the Local Government Code also provided local government units with a
share in revenues from national wealth within their respective territorial jurisdiction (e.g., natural gas,
mineral reserves).

The Local Government Code of 1991 introduced a sweeping change in intergovernmental

structures, powers, and fiscal rules by: (i) raising significantly the transfers to local governments; (ii)
making the system rules-based; (iii) mandating as automatic its fund release; and (iv) expanding
local taxing and borrowing powers (Diokno 2012; Manasan 2005; Llanto 2012).

The chief motivation behind decentralization is to make the government more responsive to local
and regional development. It brings government closer to the people, making it more accountable
and responsive to local governance and development needs. The is what Federalism is all about.
The invoked principle is that vesting local governments with sufficient autonomy would enable them
to steer local development better than the central government. It arises from the conviction that local
governments have a comparative advantage in identifying and delivering the best bundle of public
goods and services to local areas (Llanto 1998, 6). The local governments are in a better position
to: (i) decide on the supply of appropriate quantity and quality of specific local services to local
constituents and (ii) target sectors that should benefit from certain development programs (Manasan
1992, 3). Oates’s (1972) decentralization theorem states that “each public service should be
provided by the jurisdiction having control over the minimum geographic area that would internalize
the benefits and costs of such provision.”
Federalism
Affirmative
SECOND SPEAKER- DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

1. Under a federal government, states are empowered to make their own decisions and
envisions to realize inclusive growth and to disperse the economic development from the
center to all the regions of the Philippines.
Regions no longer need to rely on the central government to decide for them. This is important to
note in the Philippine context because of the vast geographical and cultural differences between
regions - differences that the central government may not always be able to cater to. In Duterte’s
federalism, local governments can decide for themselves. Regions or states are allowed by
federalism to create solutions to their own problems, implement policies for their improvement, and
make decisions for their own good without having to ask Malacañang for their decision. For example,
as a Federalist country, the United States have some states like Washington and Colorado that
allow citizens to use recreational cannabis while other states do not.
Philippines having this kind of government will have a federal constitution that would lead to less
dependence on Metro Manila when it comes to finding jobs and establishing businesses. Actually,
35 percent of the country’s budget was given to Metro Manila even if it represents only 14 percent
of the total population. Federalism allows fiscal autonomy for local governments. The positive side
of this particular aspect is that the country’s wealth will be more evenly distributed among the state
governments. Lots of people also go to Metro Manila to find stable jobs and establish businesses.
This leads to economic improvement for the autonomous regions and might lead to more job
opportunities and business investments outside Metro Manila. Federalist state allows different states
to have more capacity to address their needs and accommodate their citizens faster.
The federal system allows local governments to have more power over their resources. In the
Philippines’ current form of government, local government units have to turn a big bulk of their funds
to the national government. Here in Philippines a majority of the revenues of the Local Government
Units was taken to the Central Government. Moreover, it is one of the hindrances of the LGU’s to
establish their projects. A federal constitutional system will allow the autonomous regions or states
to use the majority of their funds for their own development and without needing a go signal from
National Government. It will also enhance the independence of the different regions to develop their
local economy.
2. FEDERALISM WILL COMPLEMENT THE COUNTRY’S GEOGRAPHICAL SETUP AND
CULTURAL DIVERSITY.

Federalism provides a constitutional organization that allows action by a shared government for
certain common purposes while permitting for autonomous action by constituent units of government
for purposes that relate to preserving their distinctiveness. Federal political systems do provide a
practical way of combining, through representative institutions, the benefits of unity and diversity,
but they are no panacea for all of humanity’s political ills.

A federal government would enable the needs of a nation to be achieved while providing a space
for diversity. The federal structure devises a flexible arrangement for varying forms of self-
government to suit different circumstances and contingencies. History would show us several
countries that used federalism in dealing with diversity. In Switzerland and Canada for instance, the
adoption of federalism was, to some extent, a result of a need to accommodate diverse communities.
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.
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. 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.

Furthermore, The Federal Republic will build a just and enduring framework for peace through unity
in our ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity, especially in relation to Bangsa Moro or Muslim
Filipinos and our lumad/indigenous peoples.

According to Pimentel, federalism will dissipate the causes of the recurrent armed Moro challenges
against the government and, thereby, lay the basis for a just and lasting peace in Central and
Southwestern Mindanao.

President-elect Duterte has repeatedly said that one of the benefits of this structure would be putting
an end to insurgent rebellions in the south waged by the Muslim minority, their main claims to this
rebellion is unjust treatment to them. And with the new states, they would have autonomy over this.
There have been positive comments and strong support from the Muslim rebel leaders recently and
have been indicative of being receptive and cooperative with the plans.

2. Federalism envisions to realize inclusive growth and to disperse the economic

development

there is no check and balance on the legislative and executive branch. There is a separation
between the two branches of the government, and they work on their specified tasks. With this, there
is no control or suppression of corruption of cabinet members or politicians. Members will just focus
on identifying and establishing programs and legislations based on their interests or identified needs.

Unlike in the Federal Parliamentary System, the legislative branch and executive branch are
connected since the lead comes from the legislative branch of the government. The government
has alternative government elected by the citizens who will control the actions being done that is
why, there is no place for corruption since there is check and balance which the unitary system lacks
that results to dysfunctions of the positions.

With the identified needs of the present government, we urge you to support our proposition on the
implementation of Federalism in our country.
 Political Dynasties won’t be effective
Political dynasties have long existed the Philippines. For retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, they
are a “new breed of monarchs” that “desecrated” democracy. “By making elections a family affair,
dynasties have mocked democracy’s definition as a government “of the people, by the people, and
for the people,” stressed Puno, chairman of President Rodrigo Duterte’s Consultative Committee
(Con-com).

A shift to a federal form of government, Puno believes, would put an end to political dynasties. Puno
said the “sacred promise of federalism” would “strengthen democracy because it allows constituent
units of the federation, the rights of self-rule and shared rule, through the correct allocation of the
powers of government.”

Federalism was one of then Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s promises during his campaign for
the presidency. Duterte promised the Filipino electorate that federalism would result into a non-
centralization of power and the end of decades-long conflicts in Mindanao.

The proposed federal Charter ensures the eradication of political dynasties in the country. While the
Con-com calls it a “regulated ban” against political dynasties, the provisions show otherwise.

Under the proposed Charter, only two members of a family can run for office. The first one can run
for a local or regional government position, while the other can run for only President or Vice
President. Their family members and in-laws are not allowed to succeed them.
The ban on political dynasties was included under Section 8 of Article V (Suffrage and Political
Rights) of the proposed federal Constitution.

The provision under Section 8(b) explicitly prohibits that any person “related to an incumbent elective
official within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity” to run for the same position in the
next election.
Section 8(c), likewise, clearly prohibits family members to run “for more than one national and one
regional or local position.”

“However, in the event that two or more members of the same family are running, the member who
shall be allowed to be a candidate shall be determined by the drawing of lots,” the draft federal
Charter stated.

Even a member of the Con-com, lawyer Reuben Canoy, said that Duterte would be the first “victim”
of the proposed federal Charter’s anti-political dynasty provision.

“It is ironic that the person who created this committee will be the first victim of our provision,” Canoy
said in a speech before fellow Con-com members.

Duterte earlier said that he supports banning political dynasties, but he raised suspicion over
whether or not the proposed ban would have the backing of the public.

The proposed federal Charter, which ensures the end of political dynasties, has to go through the
lower and upper chambers of Congress first before Filipinos could vote on it.

Duterte’s political party, PDP-Laban, enjoys a “supermajority” in Congress, but are his so-called
allies who are scions of political families willing to let themselves be disenfranchised?

Ding Generoso, the spokesman of the Con-com, told INQUIRER.net they are hoping that the elected
representatives of the people “will somehow find it in their hearts that it is about time that we make
sweeping changes because it is what is needed.”
Generoso pointed out that former Lanao del Sur Rep. Ali Balindong, a member of the Con-com,
voted in favor of banning political dynasties even when he was, in fact, a scion of a political family.

“When he (Balindong) voted in favor of anti-political dynasty provisions, he admitted that he comes
from a province where political dynasties rule, and his family was among them,” Generoso told
INQUIRER.net in an interview.

“However, after listening to the debates (on the anti-political dynasty provisions), Balindong said he
decided to be ‘part of history,’ so he voted to prohibit political dynasties (under the federal
Constitution),” he said.

Generoso said, “if somebody like Balindong can do it, I don’t see why other members of Congress
could not.”

“Miracles happen. Who knows, one of these days, they might realize, if they look deep inside their
heart and decide that ‘Hey, we really need change,’” he said.

The Con-com hopes that with the submission of the proposed Charter, President Duterte could
present it to Congress and to the Filipino people during his third SONA at the Batasang Pambansa,
Generoso said.

Once Congress starts tackling their proposal, Generoso said they expect Con-com members to be
summoned before congressional hearings as resource persons.

“Whatever they ask, the members are prepared to answer the questions. We will be preparing the
resources, studies, transcripts of deliberations if they wish to read them,” Generoso said.

Eve as surveys have shown a generally skeptical public towards the idea of federalism, Generoso
said they would not stop educating people about it.

“The most powerful weapon is public opinion,” Generoso said. “We’ll have to relay the concept of
federalism to the gut issues. We’re not going to stop. Even if the Con-com ceases to exist, we’ll go
on educating and informing people.”

“The ultimate objective (of federalism is to) unleash the economic potential of every region.
(Federalism is) more economic than political. The political aspect is just a tool in order to unleash
the economic potential of the regions,” he stressed.

A member of the Consultative Committee (ConCom) on Friday appealed to Congress to retain

anti-political dynasty provisions in its draft charter, saying that federalism will not be effective if
families still dominate the political scene.

ConCom member and lawyer Randolph Parcasio made this call after Congress last week released
its draft charter, which lacked reforms on anti-political dynasty, anti-party switching, and term
limits.

Amid the clamor to return political and electoral reforms, Congress has already returned the draft
to the committee for further review.

“I would like to appeal to our Congressmen to take heed of this demand for political reforms.
Otherwise, we will have a Constitution that shall perpetuate this unjust, feudal system,” Parcasio
said in a Palace briefing.
“If it will still be dominated by political dynasties, I don’t think that it will be effective and succeed to
address issues on effective delivery of public services, justice, and other related issues,” he
added.

Parcasio added that it will be Congress that will make the final decision on the draft charter’s
content but said it should be reflective of the people’s demand to dismantle political dynasties.

“We are going around the country and conducting consultations. And there is overwhelming
support, based on the consultations, to once and for all settle the issue on political dynasty,”
Parcasio said.

He, meanwhile, encouraged the public to participate in the drafting of their own Constitution,
stressing that sovereignty resides in the people.

“The people should take, you know, the initiative because you know Congress is their
representative, but their position may not necessarily be reflective of the demand, a strong
demand for the dismantling of political dynasties,” Parcasio said.

“We even told them to scrutinize, if possible revise or amend, the draft that we made in the
ConCom, as well as all attempts to, you know, to change our Constitution. It must be a
Constitution by the people,” he added.

Parcasio clarified that President Rodrigo Duterte’s earlier statements that anti-political dynasties
would not sit well with the public did not mean that he is against it.

“I think he just stated that it might not pass Congress because when we submitted the draft to him,
he said he agrees with the draft,” Parcasio said, adding that Duterte believes in the “correctness”
of the proposal.

He added that there are good and bad political dynasties, which might explain why the public
might still be supportive of political families.

“There are good dynasties and bad dynasties. Davao City would be of course an exception to the,
you know, the ills of political dynasties because we have a good dynasty in Davao, but that is an
exception to the rule,” Parcasio said.

Earlier, ConCom Chairman and former Chief Justice Reynato Puno said Duterte himself will be the
“first casualty” of the ban on political dynasties, should the country shift to a federal form of
government.

Duterte’s daughter, Sara, is the incumbent mayor of Davao City, while his son, Paolo, was former
vice mayor.

The President was also Davao City mayor for more than 20 years before winning in the May 2016
presidential elections. (PNA)