Strategy Papers: Movement for a Federal Philippines  

prepared by Experts’ Pool Research Group under Dr. Jose Abueva and written by Dr. Alex B. Brillantes

Laying the Groundwork for Sustainable Federalism:

A Ten Year Preparatory Action Plan for Federalism for Good Governance

            The following notes have been prepared with the general objective of outlining an indicative preparatory action plan for the adoption and approval of a constitution for the Federal republic of the Philippines (FRP) by the year 2010. [1]

             This preparatory action plan was prepared based on the following fundamental assumptions:

1. The preparatory action plan recognizes that the move towards federalism should be deliberate and cannot, and should not, be fast tracked.  It should likewise be a highly deliberative process.

2. The implementation of the transition action plan should, as much as possible, be broad based, and include as many key sectors as possible to be able to harness their potentials and energies.  These sectors include the following:

1. The academic community that will serves as a resource base and depository of information and materials, including basic data on federalism, models of federal governments, federal structures of other countries, a data bank on state and local governments, proposed territorial boundaries, policy papers, position papers for and against federalism, proceeding of various fora, public hearings on federalism, etc. There will also include students who may be involved through organization of various symposia, debates, oratorical contests, essay writing contests, etc. addressing the various issues and concerns surrounding federalism.

2. The civil society community that essentially includes non-government and people’s organizations and non-profit sector that will take an active role in organizing the various communities for purposes of information dissemination and advocacy.

3. The community of elective officials at both the national and local levels.  In generating supporters for the federalism movement, it is important to tap the energies of elective officials at the national local levels (e.g., senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, members of sanggunian).  Like the civil society actors, the “politicians” may also be considered as frontliners in the movement for federalism considering that they may include federalism in their platform for governance.  The strategy is therefore to offer to these “politicians” position papers and action plans that they can include in their political agenda within the context of advocating “federalism for good governance.”

4. Members of the bureaucracy and the civil service who believe in the fundamental value of federalism and will also benefit from the federal structure.  These can come from the national and local governments.

5. The international community, such as the international forum of federations, the donor community, etc. that may be supportive of the ideology of federalism for good governance.  Their support in terms of organizing local and international fora, providing materials and models that the Philippines can learn from, will be a key factor.

3. In order to generate ownership and sustain commitment among the stakeholders, the members of the Movement for a Federal Republic of the Philippines may be issued ID cards duly signed by the credible and well known leaders of the movement (Abueva, Teves, Pimentel, etc.)

4. Local chapters of the MFRP shall be organized and mobilized.  Headquarters of the local chapters shall preferably be in the proposed capitals of each state.

5. The preparatory action plan assumes that the major factor that will determine the success of advocacy efforts in information dissemination.  The people’s support (or opposition) to the federal movement is very much dependent upon the kind of information (or misinformation) that is communicated to them.

6. The transition action plan also assumes that the movement for a more decentralized government as envisioned by the Local Government Code continues.  In other words, there will be parallel movements in federalism and devolution.

7. The ultimate objective is to contribute towards laying the groundwork for the development of the capacities and capabilities of the state and local governments to enable them to become self-reliant communities and respond to the felt needs and demands of the community and fulfill their roles under a federal set-up.  There is a need to ensure at this point that the pros and the cons should be properly discussed.

Indicative Ten Year Preparatory Plan in preparation for the Adoption of a

Federal Form of Government 2001-2010

  Set up a center that would serve as the nerve center / think tank on the various issues and concerns pertaining to federalism.  This can be done by commissioning an institution or a group (e.g., a “Federalism Resources Center”) that may be based in an academic institution or be an independent NGO, to generate a data base over the next ten years will be useful for incorporation into the debates and discussions on federalism.  Such information may include the following:

[1] We are referring to this document as a “preparatory” action plan instead of a “transition” plan considering that the actual transition will occur only after the formal adoption of a federal form of government ten years hence.

[2] The preparatory action plan has two major tracks.  The first track pertains to the continued implementation of the Local Government Code through the devolution of powers to the local governments.  This is necessary in order to sustain the decentralization process initiated in 1991, and also prime the structures and processes at the local level (consistent with capacity building) to enable them to absorb more powers and functions that would be inevitable under the federalized set up.  The second parallel track is massive information dissemination and advocacy for federalism.

 [3] Note that there is the school of thought that election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention be held as early as the year 2004 (or year three as contemplated in this proposal.) The rationale behind such proposal is that this may provide the window of opportunity to elect delegates in a much less partisan manner, as against say, in 2007 or thereabouts where the elections will surely be influenced by the party in power that will be elected in the national elections of 2004.

 [4] Transferring equipment will involve inventorying, assessment of their status, preparation of MRs (Memorandum Receipts), etc.  This will also involve identification of needs of the various levels of government, including infrastructure (e.g. determination of government sites and centers, telecommunications needs, and other related equipment.)

 [5] Transfer of personnel, equipment, assets, etc. from the central government to the state government ; transfer of appropriate personnel, equipment and assets, etc. from the state to the local governments.  Transferring personnel will involve consultation with affected personnel, preparation of early retirement packages, defining options for affected personnel, etc.  This will also involve the design and conduct of a massive capability building program for personnel affected by the federalism process.  Note that capability building programs will be designed not only for state and local government personnel, but also for federal personnel as well.

‘PHILIPPINE FEDERALISM: ON THE ROAD TOWARD POLITICAL DESTINY’

By REY MAGNO TEVES
National Convenor / Chair,
Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines

This is a keynote address of one of our own. The typical Keynote Speaker is someone with a lofty position, a high pedigree, great influence, abundant knowledge or hefty pocket. I fall short on all five.

As Keynote speakers go, I am as ordinary as they come. On the subject matter at hand, I could assume some substance only if presented in tandem with the likes of Dr. Pepe Abueva: I provided the passion, Dr. Abueva, the wisdom. Presented alone, I feel inadequate.

But our national steering committee, either in a moment of inspiration or in a fit partisan predilection which the Visayans among us would describe as “sa walay pabor-pabor” or without favoritism, chose me your national convenor and chair, to do the honors.

I am made to understand, however, that my selection has to do with the very essence of this movement that we want to promote, protect and project.

That is of its being citizen-led, citizen-run and citizen directed.

Not that there’s no room in this group for politicians or political leaders. For if that be so, we have no business being involved in politics.

Indeed, there’s no room for politicians in CMFP. But only as they act in concert with, and in step with the spirit of, the bigger body politic; the one that’s structural transaction that will make possible, finally-hopefully, true national peace and prosperity.

But that’s getting ahead of our story or getting sidetracked altogether. I was actually only trying to impress you of my shortcomings as a keynote speaker.

Given that I now occupy the podium to deliver the main address this morning, I implore you to indulge me – inadequacy and all!

Let me start then with a concise situationer of the national predisposition to go for the known quantity, the experienced, the tried and the tested. Even if such is found wanting, and shown clearly to be ineffective and not working.

Such, indeed, is the tried and tested unitary and centralized system of government, which is run from Imperial Manila.

Such a one, truly, that is responsible for causing inadequate development of the regions which spawned massive poverty and, in its wake, insurgency and rebellion.

Various statistics attest to the gross inequities and disparities in regional development.

Thus, significant change can be expected only if the regions are given greater autonomy and power to run their own affairs, mobilizing their own resources for the purpose, and getting support from national government mainly to the extent of their just due or in the interest of equitable and balanced national growth.

This is the promise of Federalism – not promise in the sense of a politician’s sweet talk, but promise in the sense that given the necessary and determined effort of the citizenry, change in the service of the public good is achievable.

But for this to happen, we have to reckon with the national predisposition I was referring to earlier.

This is the tendency to take the easy road, to take the familiar path – even if it leads nowhere.

Allow me to highlight this point by way of this untypical prayer entitled,

DISTURB US, O LORD:
DISTURB US, O LORD

“Disturb us, O Lord,
when we are too well-pleased with ourselves;
when our dreams have come true because we dreamed too little;
when we have arrived in safety because we sailed too close to the shore

“Disturb us, O Lord,
when, with the abundance of things we possess
we have lost our thirst for the water of life;
when, having fallen in love with Time, we have ceased to dream
Eternity;
and in our efforts to build the new earth have allowed
our vision for the New Heaven to grow dim.

Stir us, O Lord, to dare more boldly,
To venture on wider seas, where storms shall show Thy Mastery
Where, losing sight of land we shall find the stars,

In the Name of Him Who pushed back the horizons of
Our hopes and invited the brave to follow Him.

Amen.

And so, fully aware of the implications of national stagnation as a result of the repletion of the unworkable and the perpetuation of the unfit, it is my hope that this gathering will galvanize into a force for the future, rather than remain tied to an ineffectual past that sustains a problematic present.

At this point I will make some bold statements.

Today we set sail to venture into wider seas, to brave the storms and grow in strength and take responsibilities.

Today we begin the march into less known territory and unfamiliar terrain, understandably diffident and a bit groping considering that we have no direct experience to draw confidence from. But march to the beat of the drums of history we will.

Today, indeed, we are embarked on a glorious journey toward our political destiny!

Now I can understand if some people will find this last statement a bit speculative and presumptuous.

But I humbly submit, this is not an empty assertion.

Coming from a region whose character is defined or accentuated by the mighty MT. APO, the country’s tallest, and around which great events that shake the nation continue to happen, symbolically or literally, I speak with the insight of a mountain person who has seen them all.

Well, not exactly all directly with mine eyes, but also through the metaphysical scopes of the ancestral spirits that inhabit the mountains – and yes, through the vision that grows from the march of human events in the lowlands, the plains, the marshes, the rice fields, the plantations, the coastal areas and marine sanctuaries, and smell reek with the stench of injustice and inequity.

Now I am beginning to sound complicated and the thought now border on the undecipherable.

But isn’t this exactly what’s happening and what has been happening in this our beloved country?

Everything is complicated. Traffic is complicated and seems insolvable. Garbage is complicated and seems insolvable.

Holy shucks! Disposing of garbage has to follow certain central regulations or some such sophisticated and modern arrangement?

And goodness gracious – why do they have all this tangle of concrete bridges in Metro Manila with funny sounding names: clover leaf, flyover, underpass, overpass – and no river or creek below them?

Meanwhile, you have thousands of rivers in the provinces and far-flung barangays which millions of Filipinos have to cross daily – by swimming across them, by banca, on foot or on board the modern rural technological marvel – the mighty TRICYCLE that also serves as a mini submarine!

Can you think beyond that? No it’s completely out of this world! In short, it is undecipherable.

Well things in this country have been mostly undecipherable to the common folk.

They cannot understand what’s going on but since things continue to go on anyway, people seem powerless to stop or change them; people in their millions adjust to the situation, become used to it and simply get by and continue to live a boring existence.

And let’s face it. Even the so-called great institutions of learning in this country have been just content with the same tired and weary ideas in the political economy. They have just been going through the motions of discussing and debating issues but not really exploring the core of things, and not really initiating serious and sustained probes into alternatives that can make a difference.

And so we have become used to things as they are and seen almost incapable of thinking beyond, much less acting beyond what is familiar, even if unexciting.

Oh well, we have also taken care of that. We have this regular spectacle elections that are surefire energizers that get people excited. Excited particularly about the personalities that participate in them. Excited over the possibilities of extra goodies, extra attention or some such ephemeral things that could come from the politicians.

But let’s hear it from William Shakespeare who says: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

For at the end of every such exercise, we always find our ‘idols’ short of our expectations and couldn’t wait to have the next elections to find a replacement.

We have even learned some shortcuts and replace them out of turn, in between terms.

But when the smoke settles down, frustrations sets in. Nothing has changed. Pareho lang silang lahat, people say.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have good news and bad news for you.

The good news is: The next election is just around the corner; or haven’t you noticed yet?

The bad news is; we’re in for another bout of soul-wrenching frustration.

Hindi pa ba tayo napapagod nito? The psychiatrists seem to have a theory about this. Or was it Freud who called this SADO-MASOCHISM?

Well, nothing-new pare-pareho pa rin. At wala naman tayong magagawa, eh.

This sense of utter hopelessness is deadly.

It has caused the grim and determined among us to go to one extreme – the armed struggle.

It has also led the tired and weary to the other extreme. INERTIA. No effort. Nothing doing.

All this because truly we have been missing certain points.

Content and concerned with NOT losing sight of land, we have all this time sailed close to the shore – and failed to see the stars.

In fact, we do not even know anymore the shape and wonders of the moon.

But not all is lost yet. We have an alternative.

It might be worth nothing that it has been there all this time. Like a twinkling star in the firmaments, it has been sending signals.

But most of us have become deaf and blind to the urgings of the spirit – of the cosmic if you will.

And I am only half facetious if I say that the political future of this country had been written in the stars.

The alternative is here. You saw this coming. But I have to say it – better let’s all say it together: FEDERALISM IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME!

That is not all. Federalism is our future. Federalism is our destiny.

Since destiny is a vision writ in heaven, and I have seen the signs, I don’t have to explain anything just now.

Federalism is the country’s political destiny, basta!

And this gathering, already a testament to the fact that the idea is alive and well and will acquire wings to fly and cover the entire country, is the beginning of that momentous journey.

Now, either I will turn out to be a real prophet – which means we will have the Federal Republic of the Philippines in 2010, I am a prophet of future not our own – meaning Federalism a little further down the road. Or I am just a passerby!

Thank you at Mabuhay ang Sambayanan, Mabuhay ang Sambayanang Federal.

________
Keynote Speech delivered by Mr. Rey Magno Teves at the Citizens’ Movement for a Federal Philippines: 1st National Conference & Launching, 21-22 February 2003, Riverbend Hotel Riverbanks Center, Marikina City

Philippine Federal Republic: Progression or Retrogression

I. INTRODUCTION

In the course of history of civitas, government has always been a necessary feature because while political philosophers have not agreed as to what is the best modality of government, they all achieved the consensus that government is necessary for mankind to live peacefully in a civilized society. World history for example has shown that many types of government have evolved. A puritan monarchy or even a constitutional monarchy, authoritarian regimes and other feudal forms of government which have long become obsolete as democratization envelops the rest of the world.

In this rapid modernizing times where democratization is a common feature, two forms of government are relevant in a given real time and real world, i.e. these are presidentialism and parliamentarism. An example is the Federal-Presidential system in the United States, the Presidential-Parliamentary model in France, the Federal-Parliamentary Government of Germany or the British Parliamentary System.

In Southeast Asia, a mixed of government modalities exist. Indonesia has a presidential system, Malaysia has a federal parliamentary system while Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government. The unitary presidential system is prevailing in the Philippines.

Many issues have been raised as to how relevant the presidential system is in governing the Philippines. Many political scientists, one among them Professor Fred Riggs, of the University of Hawaii, have claimed that the presidential system has not succeeded anywhere except in the United States.

Commonly cited by political scientists is the failure of the presidential system in Latin American countries.

Juan Linz writing on “The Failures of the Presidential Democracy” agreed with Lowestain who observed that South America which is the continent of presidentialism, rarely, if ever produced lasting political stability. (Linz: 1994).

In the Philippines today, there are sectors of civil society, which are clamoring for a change of the present system of government. Serious discussions continuous of considering a transition from unitary presidentialism to federal parliamentarism.

The search for alternative government modalities seemed to have arrived in the country.

It is in this light that this paper is written with the aim of enriching the limited local literatures on the subject of federalism.

________________
* Paper presented b Dr. Gaudioso C. Sosmeña, Jr., Executive Director of Local Government Development Foundation (LOGODEF) to the Strategic Studies Group, National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP), May 29,2001.

II. CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM

Federalism refers to the formation of a sovereign state, formed by the political union of several states that have given certain powers to the central government (Federal Government) while retaining for themselves control over local affairs.

The division of political powers between the federal government and the state government is generally defined under the terms of a constitution.

Federal system involves power sharing between federal government and the state governments. This vertical subdivision of powers and political layering is justified due to the limited competencies and resources of both the federal government and the state authorities.

The federal government exercises the following functions and powers:

1. Foreign Relations
2. Currency and Monetary Policies
3. External Defense
4. Immigration
5. Allocation of Natural Wealth
6. Setting standards and policies on Environmental Management
7. Postal system
8. Specific taxing powers such as income tax, customs, and other taxes.

The state government shall perform functions and services which are more effectively and efficiently managed at the state level. Examples are public transport, infrastructure, crime prevention and police power, education and other social services.

On the other hand, a local government system within a state consists of local authorities at the community level. Its primary function is interest articulation of the needs and aspirations of communities and brings them into the stream of public policy making and into the life of the nation.

In some federal constitutions, the powers and functions of the federal government and the state government are defined in what is called the federal list and the state list including a concurrent list.

The federal list contains functions and powers, which belongs to the federal government while the state list defines the functions and powers of a state government.

There is also the concurrent list. This list contains powers and functions which are either jointly exercised by both the federal and state governments or those which are negotiable functions and powers in the context of intergovernmental relations. The concurrent list is the basis of the concept of cooperative federalism or federal partnership.

The powers and functions of the local governments are either defined in the state constitution or it can be subjects of negotiation between the state government and the local authorities.

III. CLASSICAL MODELS OF FEDERALISM

Models of federal governments run across continents. For example in Europe, the federal parliamentary system in Germany shows how the Government of the Day interrelates in parliament with the state governments through the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Its long history of federal parliamentarism has provided many political lessons in governance to other countries. Significant features of the German Constitution are its firm advocacy on subsidiarity and emphasis on residual power as rights of state governments. Peculiarly, German in character is the constitutional provision on the concept of socially oriented economy.

The presidential federal system in the United States is unique to the North American continent and has been used as a model of presidentialism in many countries in Latin America. However, the adaptability of the American model in South America has been very limited. Two large countries in South America that has a presidential federal system are Argentina and Brazil. Like most presidential system, not much headway has been achieved in their continuing efforts of sustaining their respective democracies.

Both Australia and Canada have very strong influence from Great Britain in the art of politics and governance. The countries federated themselves as a defense against external aggression and from being grabbed by colonial powers.

However, the Australian and Canadian concepts of federalism is distinguishable from the other models in the sense that Australians and Canadians accept and even calls for diversity to a far greater degree. Thus, it is argued to show more flexibility in these countries in their concept of federalism.

The British, after the Second World War granted independence to India and Malaysia. What is interesting about India as example of federalism, is its multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic population scattered all over the sub-continent.

The Indian Federal Constitution has many pro minority provisions, one among which is the empowerment of the Indian women. The recent amendment of the Indian Constitution also strengthened decentralization and local autonomy. Today, India is the largest democracy in the world.

The case of the Federation of Malaysia should be a concern to the Philippines. First, it is the nearest model of a federal parliamentary government. It would be useful to compare how the governments in Malaysia and the Philippines perform using political institutions as the framework for analysis. Second, it has a very efficient public bureaucracy, a vital cog of the government machinery in a federal parliamentary system.

The federal constitution of Malaysia defined the functions and powers of the federal and state governments in what is called the federal list, the state list and the concurrent list which enumerate functions and powers jointly exercised by both the federal and state governments.

More details of these countries that are cited as classical models of federal parliamentarism are in Annex “A” of this paper.

IV. PRESIDENTIALISM AND PARLIAMENTARISM: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Every existing democracy today is either presidential, i.e. the United States, or parliamentary as in most of Western Europe or semi-presidential hybrid of the two types like France or Portugal. (Skach: 1994)

Each type has two fundamental characteristics worth noting.

A pure parliamentary regime in a democracy is a system of mutual dependence:

1. The chief executive power must be supported by a majority in the legislature and can fall if it received a vote of no confidence.

2. The chief executive power (normally in conjunction with the head of state) has the capacity to dissolve the legislature and call for elections.

A pure presidential regime in a democracy is a system of mutual independence:

1. The legislative power has a fixed electoral mandate that is its own source of legitimacy.

2. The chief executive power has a fixed electoral mandate that is its own source of legitimacy. (Stepan: 1994)

Pablo Tangco in this paper on “Comparative Political Structures and Dynamics” made a broad overview between presidentialism and parliamentarism. He summarized the features and dynamics of both systems as follows: (Pls. see separate pages for the matrix.)

It is obvious from Tangco’s summary that he is an advocate for parliamentarism.

What is invaluable to mention at this point is the finding of political scientists that the more stable democracies are in countries that have parliamentary governments.

“With the outstanding exception of the United States, most stable democracies of Europe and the Commonwealth have been parliamentary regimes and few semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary, while most countries with presidential constitutions have been unstable democracies or authoritarian regimes…” (Linz: 1994).

As if to strengthen further Linz position on parliamentarism Arend Lijphart on his discourse of presidentialism and majoritarian as a concept, opined that even if a president is duly elected by the whole people and thus acquired popular democratic legitimacy, but the president shows apparent presidential weaknesses and lack of decisive power, Lijphart is of the belief that because of a status as being a popularly elected president and feeling strongly his superior democratic legitimacy, he or she is not keen to consensus building or making compromises.

If this line of reasoning is correct, presidentialism is inferior to parliamentarism regardless of whether the President is strong or weak in achieving majoritarian democracy.

The parliamentary system tends to be too majoritarian while in the presidential system, majoritarianism is not replaced by consensus but by conflict, frustration, and stalemate.

V. FEDERALISM

There is still a great need to pursue comparative study on governmental theories. Political scientists have but little disagreement in so far as this issue is concerned.

The perplexing questions, which form of government is the “best”, good and the “ideal” yet remains, unanswered.

In the advocacy for federalism, however, one fundamental political reason is that the federal system facilitates citizen’s legitimation of a democratic order. It provides more opportunities than a unitarian state for its citizens to exercise much more effectively their electoral or political franchise.

“One of the existential problems of any democratic order is the legitimation it requires from its citizens. The measure of consent of these citizens to fundamental elements of democracy, their preparedness to engage in politics to a certain extent, and their ability to identify with the democratic system in principle are problems that are vital to the survival of the system. The more chances a democracy affords both institutionally And procedurally to arrive at a consensus, to show commitment, and to identify personally with democracy, the greater are the chances of achieving functionality, stability, and permanency. Compared to the unitarian system, the federative system enhances these chances considerably…

In the mass democracies of today, where government is increasingly mediated by mass media so that the gap between the rulers and the ruled threatens to widen continually, a federal state will satisfy the need for democratic legitimation better than a unitarian state. A federative democracy will conform better than a democracy with a unitarian organization to the principle that power is received in trust, that government must be accountable and supervised, and that citizens must be involved in the process of government. While it is true that a federative order is not an indispensable condition of democracy , it comes closer to the democratic ideal than any unitary order.” (Laufer: 1992)

Heinz Laufer further argues in favor of federalism by pointing out the vertical separation of powers allows political decisions on technical matters and appointments to be more transparent, more considered and balanced and consequently more controllable.

Federalism strengthens political competition both at the federal and state levels. In a federative state the opposition is integrated more effectively in the democratic order, thus demonstrating their ability to govern and implementing at least part of their alternative programmes in some states and testing some of their theoretical concepts in practice at the same time.

Michael Bothe writing on the “Historical Metamorphosis of Federalism” as a concept, advanced six rational reasons in support of federalism.

Bothe’s dissertation on the concept of federalism is dichotomous and dualistic showing the countervailing characteristics of federalism as a concept of government.

His arguments are as follows:

Firstly, federalism is regarded as a way of preserving historic diversity and individuality within the framework of a greater national entity. The weight accorded to this reason naturally depends on the value, which society attaches to diversity and individuality, and this is why this reason is occasionally disqualified for being folkloristic. Moreover, it operates in contradiction to another goal that of securing homogenous living conditions in the entire state through the redistribution and equalization of regional disparities to the extent required.

Secondly, it is said that federalism facilitates the protection of minorities. This thesis is correct only if the minorities in question live virtually alone in a region that is clearly demarcated geographically. By itself, a federal form of government is not capable per se to protect adequately all minorities in a demographic mix.

Thirdly, the principle of subsidiarity, which is an element of catholic social theory, is occasionally adduced to justify federalism. There was reason to suppose, it is said, that the smallest community capable of implementing a meaningful solution should solve each particular problem.

Fourthly, federalism is viewed as a means of protecting freedom. A federalist constitution always implies a vertical separation of powers which, just like the classical horizontal separation, is an instrument to contain power of the state by a system of checks and balances. It is said that this containment of state powers enhances individual freedom. While this argument surely is highly convincing theoretically, its historical validity remains in doubt.

Fifthly, it is said that federalism encourages democracy by providing an additional level of democratic participation. Again, this argument is correct in principle. The traditional view that federalism opposes democracy since it restricts the options for having majority decisions at the federal level surely is outdated by now. It is not to be denied that particularly, states with large territories, a democratic system of representation that is restricted to certain central institutions leads to considerable alienation between the electorate and the political elite, thus impairing the democratic process of formulating intent from the bottom upward.

Sixthly, efficiency is also quoted here and there among the reasons justifying federalism.

Federalism is a highly efficient system of government to the extent that functions can be discharged more efficiently by smaller units than by larger ones. Particularly, the point is made that smaller units are better suited to experiment with new problem solutions. Federalism, it is said, facilitates competition, which is one element on which the efficient allocation of resources as well as the openness of a system depends. Here again, the validity of the argument depends on circumstances.

For it is particularly from the point of view of efficiency that federalism has come under heavy criticism. In the judgment of efficiency, political-theory approaches come into contact with economic theory. In the course of history, the way in which federalist systems have been judged from the point of view of efficiency has been subject to considerable fluctuations.

It is pointed out that while scientific literature about federalism tends to focus on the positive aspects of this form of government, federalism is still subjected to criticism. Some political literatures regarded federalism as obsolete. Some of the arguments against federalism is that it is difficult to implement the necessary homogeneity of living conditions and the just redistribution of the resources of the country.

In conclusion, Bothe made the following observations:

1. The question whether or not federalism is a good form of government will have to be perceived with the problem of the proper level at which government functions should be exercised. [While this is an issue that is peculiar to Germany and other European countries because of the formation of the European Union, same issue is raised in the federal system in the United States.] (Sosmeña)

2. The theory on the proper levels governments which has to take action is one of the fundamental problems of all vertically structures government organizations because it is still in its infancy.

3. One might ask oneself whether this question (proper level of government that may have to take action) could be answered objectively at all.

4. The goals and utility of federalism are by no means shared by everyone and at all times.

5. At the end of the day, the rational reasons that are commonly quoted to justify federalism are only of limited usefulness when it comes to making unequivocal statements about whether or not federalism as such or a specific federalist system is a good form of government. On the one hand, the valuation of the goals on which such justifications are based is not uniform.

This being so, historical and political explanations of federalism as a phenomenon come to the fore again, although the reasons for its justification do retain a certain amount of importance by serving as criteria in the evaluation of individual system.

VI. PHILIPPINE FEDERAL REPUBLIC: PROSPECTS

Any transition in the Philippines concerning government modality from presidentialism to parliamentarism will have to take into account and evaluate carefully the following:

1. Historical-Political Antecedents

The more than 450 years of Philippine history has always been characterized by a strong unitary government. The island nation considered Manila as the central seat of power that all government decisions and policies emanate therefrom.

The Spanish colonial administration, which governs the country, used Manila as the evidence and symbol of Spanish supremacy over the archipelago.

The American regime, which ruled the Philippines in the first half of the 1900s, retained Manila as the core power center and prepared the country for a presidential system of government.

The Commonwealth government amidst the backdrop of the 1935 Constitution promoted centralism as an imperative towards achieving Philippine independence from the United States.

After the Philippines was granted independence in July 1946 by the United States, the country immediately underwent a presidential election in spite of its economy in shambles after the end of the Second World War. Thereafter, from 1935 to 2001, nine presidents were at the helm of the state maintaining the same government system that was highly centralized in a unitary presidential model.

In these years, the failures of the presidential system were glaringly evident in the poor performance of the state and its economy over the years. Corruption in government was a perennial public issue and public accountability among political leaders and the public bureaucracy, as then and now an elusive commodity.

In the recent years, serious discussions on government modalities have been started by academe, civil society and some concerned sectors of government. These public discussions on government and governance were triggered among others by the dissatisfaction over the incremental failure of government to deliver services and/or perform par public standards and general expectations. The secessionist movement in Mindanao has likewise hastened the search for alternative governments, i.e. federalism. Worth noting in this regard is that the Muslims in Mindanao look at federation as acceptable option and antidote to the secessionist movement in the south. Mastura’s paper entitled “Federation as our Option” articulated this concern. The government in order to preserve the country in its entirety may have to search for better options for the Muslim secessionist movement.

2. Political Culture

Any move to initiate transformation of the present unitary governmental system to an alternative model will have to reckon that the Philippines has been imbedded in the presidential and unitary system for a long time. The political behavior and culture of the citizenry and the country as a whole has been very much influenced by the presidency.

Supreme Court Justice Irene Cortes, once in the past, observed that the Philippine presidency “bears imprint of the country’s historical past, the temperament of the Filipino people, the personality of every man who had held the office and the influence of contemporary events.” Historically, the President of the Philippines has been traditionally powerful commanding not only respect but also obedience of the central and local bureaucracies of the Philippine government. The presidentialists in our midst feel that the Philippines should remain unitary and presidential. Those arguing for the retention of the presidential system provided alternatives to federalism. These options are the continuing decentralization of government and strengthening much more local autonomy like the enactment of the Local Government Code.

Another argument for presidentialism is that since most developing countries adopt the presidential system, these countries should not shift to federalism because it is a difficult governmental system.

The other argument of the presidentialists is that the unity of the country is at risk under federalism since the Philippines will be fragmented into different constituent states. This will be a political issue the presidentialists and the federalists will squarely face when the country decides to change the present political system into a federalist model.

Given this background of the political environment of the Philippines, it will take much more effort to let the constituency understand in a countrywide political education program, issues on governmental transition before the citizens will put to heart that government and its modalities is also their business and concern.

The advocacy on federal parliamentarism requires among others, a change of the Filipino political culture and their subsequent political behavior and value perception of government. Several Filipino political scientists believed that the formulation of a federal constitution would facilitate a change of the political culture of the country. (Tangco: 1994).

It posits the theory that law and public institutions determine and shape the prevailing political behavior and culture of a society. "Constitutions are essentially ‘institutional frameworks’ that in functioning democracies provide the basic decision, rules, and incentive systems concerning government formation, the conditions under which governments can continue to rule, and the conditions by which they can be terminated democratically. More than simply one of many dimensions of a democratic system, constitutions create much of the overall system of incentives and organizations within which the other institutions and dimensions found in the many types of democracy are structured and processed.” (Stephen and Skach: 1994)

Based on these assumptions, therefore, it is safe to predict that the Philippine receptivity of a governmental transformation will likely be induced with the acceptance and the public endorsement of a federal constitution.

The Philippines positive response to a change in government modality will also depend on two (2) critical strategic factors. These are:

• The right time to push and implement the advocacy for federalism; and given the current political setting, the right time may have to be beyond the year 2006.

• The right political leadership that will lead the change. This is the more difficult variable of the two preconditions since enlightened political leaders are rarities in Philippine politics.

Given these two preconditions to attaining federalism, the assumption is that a politically re-educated citizenry will open their minds to political change and look forward to a better life.

3. Crucial Issues

a) Country Receptivity

The receptivity of the country to a government transition is a big question. The strongest opposition will come from those who are in the corridors of power. A positive response may come from the youth sector, which is dissatisfied with the present political system. Other sectors of Philippine society need to be enlightened and here is where the guessing game will begin.

b) What is the fate of the province with the creation of the State?

It will appear that the provinces will become more superfluous than ever, with the creation of a state government. The province as it is now, is already an administrative superfluity and it can be abolished with good reason under a federal system.

c) How much will it cost to create a state government?

Estimates made by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) on the cost to create a city or province is approximately P270,537,522.00. Since the state government is much more complex in operation, function, and size, there is no doubt that it may cost the people P2,705,375,200.00 which is actually a conservative estimate for state government office infrastructures of some 15 functional departments. The estimate, which excludes annual budgetary appropriations for the state government, can easily be about P100 Billion per year.

d) Local Government Code

The Local Government Code of 1991 will be irrelevant in a federal system. Because the federal or state constitution will define the creation and functions and powers of local authorities, all existing applicable laws in local government administration, i.e. Local Government Code will be operative.

e) Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations

The exercise of taxing powers and the vertical revenue sharing of resources will be divided between and among the federal, state, and local governments. Because there will be mandated functions which is common under the federal partnership concept, the system of federal block grants will become a critical component of intergovernmental fiscal relations.

f) Civil Service System

There will be an open civil service system both in the federal and state government service. An open civil service system will protect the career ladder of the civil service personnel by allowing both vertical and horizontal mobility personnel.

There will be other issues of course, which will evolve as an aftermath of the transition of government.

4. Formation of Capital Territory and Constituent States

The federal government will be located in a federal capital territory, which will be composed of the cities of Manila, Makati, and Quezon.

All cities and municipalities that are currently parts of the National Capital Region (NCR) will be federated into the proposed State of Central Luzon.

Seven prospective states are envisioned in the prospective Philippine Federal Republic. These states are:

a) State of Northern Luzon
This will comprise the Administrative Regions I and II and the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR).

b) State of Central Luzon
This prospective state will comprise Administrative Region III including the provinces of Rizal, Quezon, Laguna, and Batangas; including all cities and municipalities which are parts of the National Capital Region (NCR) but excluding the cities of Manila, Quezon, and Makati, which will comprise the Federal Capital Territory.

c) State of Southern Luzon
This will comprise Administrative Region V, including the provinces of Mindoro Island and Marinduque.

d) State of the Visayas
Administrative Regions VI, VII, and VIII, including the island province of Palawan will comprise this State in the Visayas Region.

e) Bangsa Moro State
This will comprise most of Region IX, Administrative Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and parts of Region XII.

f) State of Northern Mindanao
This will comprise Administrative Region X and CARAGA.

g) State of Southern Mindanao
This will comprise Administrative Region XI and parts of Region XII.

The criteria used in this division of the country into seven states are the following:

a) The financial and economic viability of each proposed state based on availability of natural wealth, comparative and overall tax sources, and investment potentials;

b) Regional peculiarities and other geographical and cultural factors;

c) Regional development potentials; and

d) Availability and accessibility of infrastructures within each proposed state.

e) Diversities of public goals and homogeneity of human and social communities.

There are other proposals as to how the Philippines may be divided into more than seven states. In Abueva’s paper “Transforming our Unitary System to a Federal System”, the number of states recommended is 12. There are several proposals that vary in the number of proposed states.

What is imperative of course in this regard, is to undertake an analytical and evaluative process that will lay the more logical and scientific basis in dividing the country into viable states. Also vital in determining the viability of a state government is to determine how much it will cost the public to maintain a state government including the functions assigned to a state government, i.e. the delivery of essential services.

What are the prospects of a Philippine Federal Republic? What are the possible scenarios in the future as it continue to unfold overtime and crisis after crisis?

These questions require predictive answers and therefore, it is quite difficult to foretell.

There is no question that the Philippine political system needs a thorough re-examination and reform. But when will the Philippines have the political will to undertake vital political reforms?

One must take into account that certain government modalities are the results of its own specific historic times. Others are designed for specific goals and purposes. Still, others are “political mutations” borne out of abnormal times and circumstances which political scientists classify as modalities of governance.

Nonetheless, the country has to chart its own political future beyond its contemporary political system.

PUSHING FEDERALISM WITH RENEWED VIGOR
By Rey Magno Teves

It’s basically a seasonal thing. As in every two years or so. Some crucial event will occur that somehow propels the idea of federalism as an interesting piece of conversation.

The Erap phenom. The Sipadan hostage-taking. The MNLF situation. The MILF question. Spotty and discordant Mindanao development. The inability of national government to squarely address the problems arising from these. The seeming helplessness of local leaders to effectively deal with their peculiar situations.

At the heart of it, the basic complaint is, (a) very limited funds, and (b) very little power or authority to secure these funds and to allocate them properly.

Somehow, even earnest local efforts go to naught. The decision as to how much and when to release public funds still belongs to some distant national agency or a beleaguered and oftentimes indifferent central government.

Somehow the earnestness gets dissipated along the way. The process of going to and coming from the rarefied heights of central authority slows down the momentum and douses enthusiasm.

Before long, one is confronted with the realization that we’re back to square one. Or worse. As in, discovering that we have made two steps backward as we made one step forward.

The same problems persist. The same conditions prevail. Poverty and wholesale deprivation. Wanton government neglect. Inconsequential or sometimes disparate civil society participation. Crime, armed conflicts and war.

Considering the over-centralized set-up of our national governance, we are usually stuck with the challenge of having to look for and choose another person to lead the nation and institute change and make a difference in the lives of our people.

At this point in our history, maybe we should seriously ask this question already: Is it change in persons that we need, Or change in system also?

In fact, a fast growing movement of advocates coming from the NGO community academe, the Churches and basic sectors, business, and various political groups, is convinced that now is the time to address the inadequacies of our present political system.

CURRENT INITIATIVES

Their alternative? FEDERALISM. This being an entirely different political structure, the opposite of our present unitary and centralized system, constitutional amendment is necessary.

In this regard, several initiatives are in the works or are being undertaken already:

The LIHOK PIDERAL MINDANAW (LPM), which is an offshoot of an alternative agenda initiative of the Mindanao Coalition of Development NGO Networks (MINCODE) and spearheaded by the Mindanao Congress of Development NGOs/NGIs or MINCON, is currently intensifying its organizing and consultation programs.

The LPM has established core groups in all the regions in Mindanao and has conducted about a dozen consultation-workshops. It has also facilitated one trainors’ training.

Through the facilities of KUSOG MINDANAW as a rountable conference of Mindanao leaders, the LPM has also touched base with federalism advocates in other parts of the country. It has conducted seminars in Cebu and Leyte and is planning two more in Negros and Bicol.

EXPANDING ADVOCACY

Through an expanded mechanism of the KUSOG MINDANAW and the assistance of Konrad Adenauer Foundation, two conferences and/or seminars were conducted recently:

Federalism As An Alternative to Independence in Zamboanga City last April. This was exclusively for Muslim leaders in Mindanao and Manila and was co-sponsored by the UP Islamic Studies Center. Some 40 participants, including about a dozen Muslim women leaders, attended; and

A Consultation-Dialogue on Federalism in Baguio City last June 7-8. This was intended as an initial touching base with a potential core group of advocates in the Cordillera Region and the Northern Luzon area. It was co-facilitated by the Local Government Development Foundation (LOGODEF) headed by Dr. Gaudioso Sosmeña.

A similar dialogue is being scheduled in Bacolod City next month. This conference-dialogue will gather some 30 key advocates in the Panay-Negros, Cebu-Bohol and Samar-Leyte regions.

PARALLEL ACTION

Meanwhile, a pool of eminent advocates has been working on draft Constitution of a proposed Federal Republic of the Philippines. The group, which has conducted two sessions already (in Davao City last March and Cebu City last May) is initially made up of Prof. Jose Abueva, former UP President, Dr. Gaudioso Sosmeña, Dr. Claire Carlos, president of the National Defense College, Datu Michael Mastura, Atty. Musib Buat, Bai Yasmin Macalandong, Lito Lorenzana, Prof. Rody Rodil of MSU Iligan, Kusog Mindanaw’s Rey Magno Teves, and LPM stalwarts Charlito Manlupig, Ben Aspera, and Atty. Arlene Bag-ao.

On the political front, the action is once again taking place in Congress which will formally open on July 23. Already, at least two congresspersons have filed separate bills calling for constitutional change.

Another federal advocate, comebacking Congressman Edelmiro Amante is poised to file a bill that will call for a constitutional convention that will pass an amendment that will transform our system into a federal one.

Senate President Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. an acknowledged champion of federalism is expected to refile a similar bill that he introduced in 1991.

Between Senator Pimentel and the LPM and other support groups, an aborted national convention of federal advocates last year, may now be revived and undertaken towards the last quarter of this year.

Towards a Federal Republic of the Philippines
Liberating the country from the stifling, centralized,
Colonial control of “Imperial Manila”

By Jose V. Abueva

While several countries in the East Asia have experienced dramatic economic development and industrialization and higher standards of living and per capita incomes since the 1970s, the Philippines has stagnated as a developing, democratic country. Among the newly industrializing countries, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand have democratized, Singapore an Malaysia have evolved partly free political systems, while China has instituted a successful mixed economy under the authoritarian rule of its communist party.

Amid the Philippines’ continuing underdevelopment, mass poverty, inequity and social injustice – aggravated by the Marcos dictatorship – our people’s growing difficulties and frustrations with our highly centralized unitary system and ineffective government culminated in the 1987 Constitution’s design for reforming our political system. Among others, the constitution mandated the development of participatory democracy, local and regional autonomy, and an active role for civil society in governance.

To deal with the demands for substantial autonomy or secession of the indigenous communities in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, the new constitution allowed the creation of autonomous regions in those areas. Under the Local Autonomy Code of 1991, the national government functions concerning health, welfare, agriculture, environment, and local public works have been partially devolved on the local governments. Various departments of the national government have also decentralized their operations to their regional and local offices.

Devolution and decentralization of national functions, powers and resources through the Local Autonomy Code of 1991 should be accelerated by progressive amendments and effective implementation. Rather than force the conversion of our unitary system to a federal system by constitutional amendment or revision before 2004, as some senators have proposed, the change should be undertaken in two stages from now to 2010.

Under the proposed Federal Republic of the Philippines, government powers will be allocated between the national or federal government and the states with their local governments. The states will be coterminous with the ten administrative and socio-economic regions. To the federal government will be allocated such powers and functions as national defense and security, foreign relations, the monetary system, custom and tariffs, and the national judiciary.

To the states will be allocated al the powers and functions not reserved to the federal government, as well as those that the states share concurrently with the federal government. In general, the states will be primarily responsible for the economic, social and cultural development of their areas; the federal government of their areas, the federal government will provide grants and assistance to the less developed states in order to promote overall development equity, and help poor, disadvantaged and marginalized citizen.

In the first stage of the transition of federalism, the present 14 administrative regions, plus the ARMM, should be consolidated into just ten larger administrative and socio-economic regions and be ranted more substantial autonomy: more powers, functions, and resources. This new strategy of development through “regionalization” shall continue until areound 2009-2010.

At the same time, our people should be reoriented away from their traditional and forced dependency on the national government, and toward greater self-reliance and responsibility through local governance and development. They should be willing and able to raise more local revenues and generate funding for local development and to attract investments in countryside development. More than just a constitutional and political change, the transformation of long-held values, expectations, and attitudes is required in order for a federal system to succeed.

Sometime after 2004, delegates shall be elected to a constitutional convention. By about 2008-2009 the constitutional convention should complete a draft for a federal system and other constitutional reforms. Delegates should learn from the experience of such federal systems as India, Malaysia, the USA, Canada, and the Federal Republic of Germany. The proposed new constitution shall be ratified in a plebiscite to be held also in 2009. The 2009 Constitution will govern the federal, state and local elections to be held in 2010. This is the second stage of the conversation to a Federal Republic of the Philippines.

Under the 2009 Constitution, we shall be replacing the stifling centralized unitary structure in the 1987 Constitution and in earlier constitutions, and during Spanish and American colonial rule. We would then be better able to unify, strengthen and develop the Philippines as a pluralistic nation and the Republic as a functional and democratic political system. Our political development, socio-economic development, and cultural development will be mutually reinforcing and sustainable.

To justify the proposal to transform our political system from its present unitary structure to a federation, these propositions are offered.

1. The Philippines has achieved sufficient national unity and democratization, including a measure of decentralization and local autonomy, as the basis for establishing a federal system of government. The latter will follow about a decade of transition: by development through “regionalization” and greater local autonomy involving both the national government and the local governments; the private sector and civil society.

2. A federal system, such more than a unitary system, will respond to the long-felt demands of local political leaders and businessmen for their release from the costly time-consuming, stifling, and demoralizing effects of excessive centralization and controls by the national government in the unitary system. The highly decentralized structures and process of the federation will challenge, empower and energize the people and their state and local governments; encourage creativity, initiative, and innovation, enhance the accountability of government leaders and employees, spur inter-state competition, and foster state and local self-reliance.

3. By removing the centralized structures that impose local dependency and stifle local initiatives and resourcefulness, and thus providing greater freedom and home rule, a federal system will greatly increase the capacity of the people and the government to deal with the country’s chronic problems of poverty, injustice, and inadequate social service and infrastructure–the manifestations of underdevelopment under highly centralized governance.

4. In a federal structure substantial equitable development for the whole country is most likely to be achieved, and the people’s liberty will be protected by the further dispersion of power in the government and the society. Metro Manila, the national capital, will have the status of a special region or a state and will be able to deal more effectively with its interconnected problems as a metropolis.

5. A federal system will be better to be able to achieve and sustain national unity and identity, and at the same time protect and enhance the nation’s cultural diversity and social pluralism. It will promote a strong national identity on the basis of economic, cultural and environmental diversity.

6. By strengthening the nation-state’s capacity to deal with its critical internal problems and to develop its economy polity and culture, a federal system will also be better able to respond to the external threats to national security and the challenges of globalization.

The case for federalism should not be overstated. It is argued, however, that federalism offers a higher probability than our unitary system of enabling the people and the nation-state to realize the advantages and benefits enumerated. The proposal should be seriously studied and debated along with other proposals for constitutional change, such as the shift from our presidential system to a parliamentary system. When established the federation will not be a fixed structure but a flexible one. It will necessarily undergo continual change and adjustment in the degree of centralization and decentralization.

It will offer continuing challenges to federal, state and local leaders to effect the needed changes in policies and structures, the better to solve their unique as well as common problems, with the people’s increasing participation. In some ways, as one scholar has said, it will be more difficult to make a federation work well. It will require not only “a federal spirit” of cooperation and compromise but also a lot of political will at all levels.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the federalist movement--spearheaded by Kusog Mindanaw, Lihuk Pideral, MNLF, MILF, and PROMDI has been gaining support in Mindanao and the Visayas. Its ideas and proposals, like those of the parliamentary government movement, deserve serious consideration by more and more leaders, scholars, journalists, and citizens. It is high time for the nation to develop and institute more basic reforms and constitutional changes.