Section 16 of RA 7160 provides that: “Every local government unit shall exercise the powers

expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,

appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential
to the promotion of the general welfare.” 

The same provision also states that: “Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local
government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced
ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social
justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and
preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.”

Good afternoon your honors, we at the negative side firmly negates the proposition that the
Philippines shall shift to a federal form of Government. Yours truly will discuss why it is not
necessary, Hasny will elaborate that there are no benefits from it, and Al will explain the non-
practicability of the said proposition.

For my arguments, I will focus mainly on two points:

First, there is no need to shift to Federal form of government for the purpose of decentralization
as this is already envisioned in our 1987 Constitution and further embodied by the Local
Government Code of 1991.

Second, Federalism brings duplication of government function and disparity of outcomes in

terms of the provision and quality of public services.

Now unto my first argument:

Because Local Government Units shows that local autonomy, subsidiarity, and decentralization
– the hallmarks of federalism – are already embedded in the 1987 Constitution and can be
implemented without need of constitutional change. Indeed, these hallmarks present in the 1987
Constitution qualify our present system of governance as “federalism, Philippine-style,”
consistent with the proposal.

That local governments are empowered by the Constitution itself with the capacity for self-rule
to effectively address and decide on all matters of local concern.
Our present Constitution, the President can organize administrative regions through executive
orders (EO). In fact, all regions in the country were created by presidential Eos. It is indeed
within the power of the President, as head of the executive department and as overall supervisor
of all local governments, to create new administrative regions or to reduce their number for
more efficient administration.

Section 14, Article 10, of the 1987 Constitution mandates: “The President shall provide for
regional development councils or other similar bodies composed of local government officials,
regional heads of departments and other government offices, and representatives from non-
governmental organizations within the regions for purposes of administrative decentralization
to strengthen the autonomy of the units therein and to accelerate the economic and social
growth and development of the units in the region.”

The Regional Development Council (RDC) is the highest planning and policy-making body in
the region. It serves as the counterpart of the National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA) Board at the sub-national level. It is the primary institution that coordinates and sets
the direction of all economic and social development efforts in the region. It also serves as a
forum where local efforts can be related and integrated with regional and national development
activities.

The creation of the RDC answers the need for a single planning body whose main concern is the
overall socio-economic development of the region..

Therefore, the three main purposes for these “regional development councils (RDCs) or other
similar bodies” are: First, for “administrative decentralization”; second, “to strengthen the
autonomy” of local governments within the region, for them to have a say in all matters that has
impact on the region; and third, for RDCs “to accelerate the economic and social growth and
development” of the region.

By strengthening and fully empowering LGUs and RDCs, the principles of decentralization,
subsidiarity and local autonomy, which comprise the essence of a federal system, shall be
fulfilled and realized without need of constitutional change.

Now on my second point:

Duplication of government function and disparity of outcomes in terms of the provision and
quality of public services.
According to The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance on their paper
about Federalism published on May 2015, one of the disadvantage identified is that Federalism
can duplicate government functions and lead to the delivery of overlapping or contradictory
policies at different levels of government, many policies cut across these functional boundaries
or can affect other policies in unpredictable and undesirable ways. As a consequence, the
responsibility of each level of government for policy outcomes and service delivery may be
hindered by the actions or inactions of other levels of government. It can become difficult for
citizens to know where responsibility lies and to use this information to hold public officials to
account.

Furthermore, it is assumed that federalism will deliver the public goods more efficiently.  This
may be the case in high-income regions or states, but the opposite may be truer in the poorer
ones.

Full devolution of public services across the board could lead to gross disparities in the provision
and the quality of public services from one state to another, to the detriment of the affected
public. Disparities in economic resources not only lead to disparate tax levels but also to highly
unequal levels of public services across jurisdictions. Simply put, spending per person is lowest
in places where needs are highest. Unless an effective mechanism for revenue sharing is in place,
federalism can lead to increased inequality between sub-national units because of their different
natural resources or other revenues or levels of development.

Federalism has many disadvantages. Even when some form of territorial power-sharing is
needed, federalism is not the only way of achieving it. Making changes in the fundamental law of
the land must only be done as a matter of absolute necessity and urgency, and not in haste. If
inefficiencies and inequalities in the government system can be fixed by executive and legislative
action, as well as by educating officials, empowering LGUS, and strengthening RDCs, then that
should be prioritized first. The ultimate goal of a federal Philippines would then be realized
without tinkering with the Constitution. Therefore this side of the house firmly negates the
proposition that the Philippines shall shift to Federal form of Government.