ROBIN Padilla wrongly thought that the proposed constitutional change to convert the current unitary government into a federal government is the solution to many issues and problems confronting the country. His limited mind naively thought that the adoption of a federal form of government could lead to economic growth and development. Actually, the limited minded Robin hardly understands the depth, magnitude, and complexities.
My second book “BUMPS Fifty Years of Dictatorship and Democracy in the Philippines (1972-2022) discusses the issue of federalism in Chapter 12, which is about revolutionary government and federalism. This is for the education of Robin Padilla, if ever he is capable of understanding and learning the issue of federalism:
After failed moves to create a revolutionary government (RevGov) in late 2017, the Duterte government immediately shifted to its Plan B – the proposed shift to federal system from the current unitary government. Public debates intensified, as advocates of the contrasting federal and unitary systems of government brought out the best arguments in favor of either system. Federalism adherents said the nation’s feeble development is deeply rooted in its highly centralized form of government, leading to the emergence of what they have dubbed as “Imperial Manila,” where decisions are made in Manila to the detriment of the countryside.
‘IMPERIAL MANILA.’ But advocates of the status quo, or the existing unitary government, claimed otherwise, even as they denied the existence of what some political leaders from the South called as the “Imperial Manila” to criticize the propensity of the central government in Manila to come out with decisions that affect Mindanao and the Visayas. On the contrary, underdevelopment springs from a host of factors that could not be blamed alone on the perceived lack of autonomy in the countryside.
The public debates turned ugly and disengaging as leading Duterte supporters, or the so-called “Mindanao bullies,” led by then Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez rammed the proposed constitutional amendments, which meant a prolonged – or a 10-year period transition period to a federal system, which included scrapping the Office of the Vice President. From all indications, the Duterte government was not inclined to initiate a federal shift. What it wanted was to adopt authoritarianism, where Duterte and his cohorts were assured of a prolonged stay in power without popular mandate. Federalism appeared to be mere a political camouflage for authoritarianism, or dictatorship.
A unitary state is governed by a single power, where the central government is supreme and its administrative divisions exercise the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Of the 193 United Nations member states, 165 are governed as unitary states. A federal state is governed by a mixed or compound mode of government that combines a general government called federal government and regional governments – provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments in a single political system. While the federal government enjoys central rights, the states have autonomy.
The idea of a federal shift did not come from the Federalista Party of the capitulating Ilustrados formed when the Americans came into power at the turn of the 20th century. The Federalistas were more interested in the U.S. annexation of the Philippines to become a state. The shift to a federal system from the existing unitary is part of the political platform of the then Pilipino Democratic Party (PDP), a Mindanao-based political party formed in 1982 by Aquilino Pimentel Jr., a former senator, and several Mindanao-based political leaders. Months after its creation, it merged with Lakas ng Bayan (Laban) party, led by the late former senator Lorenzo Tanada, to form PDP-Laban, which later transposed to turned its back on the democratic ideals it earlier championed and become Duterte’s political party embracing authoritarian values.
Except for the single paragraph which enumerates PDP’s political objectives, Pimentel hardly discussed federalism in his book, “Martial Law in the Philippines: My Story,” which contains his memoirs. Instead, Pimentel discusses at length the political dynamics during those days, where dictator Ferdinand Marcos lorded over the national situation.
FEDERAL SHIFT. Pimentel’s failure to discuss PDP-Laban’s political platform, especially the shift to federal system, gives the impression that the PDP-Laban stalwarts during those days were never serious about the federal shift. The PDP-Laban has put it as one of the bullet points to produce and provide something for the people. Together with the federal shift, the PDP-Laban proposed the adoption of a parliamentary form of government, giving the impression too that a federal system goes with a parliamentary government.
In the 1998 elections, former Cebu governor Emilio “Lito” Osmena ran unsuccessfully for president under a political platform that called for sustained local government initiatives as answer for what he perceived as Imperial Manila. But he did not mention any shift to the federal system. He placed a dismal fourth in a field of six serious candidates, putting an end to his criticisms of Imperial Manila.
Calls for a federal shift have been renewed shortly after Duterte won in 2016 under the PDP-Laban, which has not given up federalism as part of its political platform. But whether it wants to pursue the federal shift to promote development is unclear at the moment. It lacks many critical details. It is perceived as a political tool to prolong their stay in power.
***
PRO, ANTI-FEDERALISM ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS against the federal shift were aired by Dr. Ma. Carmen Penalosa, executive director of Miriam College’s Center for Strategic Research, who, in a paper read before an international conference in 2018, said: “There is no assurance that a shift to federalism will bring development to the Philippines in general and Mindanao in particular. What is certain however is that federalism may weaken, if not fully abrogate, national integration precisely because of a number of factors that militate against a federal form of government in the country.”
According to Penalosa, the country’s political history does not support a federal form of government. On the contrary, socio-politico-historical factors show a national trajectory for unitary form of government. The proposed federal shift could lead to what she termed as “national disintegration.” The country’s 300 years of political experience as a unitary state is not easy to ignore, she said. Jose Rizal’s principalia-ilustrado revolt that led to the Malolos Republic and Andres Bonifacio’s Himagsikan ng Katipunan that called for an independent state both had a trajectory for a unitary government, she said.
Federalism adherents have never stressed that it would empower local government units (LGUs) and stimulate countryside economic growth. What they propose are constitutional changes “based on faith,” she said “The idea that federalism would solve the peace and order problem in Mindanao and bring economic prosperity is speculative. It’s an idea bereft of socio-cultural-political and historical realities,” she said.
“Even the colonial state set up by the Americans and the postwar republic that followed beginning 1946 continued in the same unitary direction despite the American federal system and their efforts to shape the Philippines and the Filipinos in their own image,” Penalosa said. “From Commonwealth to the present, federalism was never a consideration.” Penalosa said adding that the unitary system remains ingrained in the Filipino psyche, as some groups complained about “Manila imperialism,” a phrase which has always been a subject of debates among conflicting advocates.
Jonathan Malaya, then executive director of the PDP Laban Federalism Institute, said on its website: “The Philippines has a unitary system of government by an accident of history. The Spaniards and Americans who colonized our country saw that the fastest way to subjugate the native peoples was to set-up a highly-centralized system with Manila as the imperial capital. Despite the archipelagic nature of the country inhabited by diverse cultures, the unitary system was carried over even when the Philippines gained its independence and became a Republic in 1946.”
LITANY OF WOES. Malaya cited a litany of woes: “Through time, the disadvantages of a unitary system became apparent in the country. The system concentrated political and economic power in the ‘center’ and thus, development was limited in areas close to Manila and stifled elsewhere. Not surprisingly, in a country of more than 100 million people, sixty two per cent (62%) of the country’s [Gross Domestic Product] comes from Metro Manila, Central Luzon, and [Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon or CALABARZON] while the rest of the country is suffering from underdevelopment and low investment.
“Our system of government has resulted in a grave imbalance in the distribution of resources among regions and local government units. Unfortunately, this inequality has led to social unrest, with various groups (especially in Mindanao) arming themselves to fight against the system. Clearly, there is a need for change.” Justifying the federal shift, Malaya said: “The problem, we submit, is our highly-centralized form of government and the solution … is the adoption of the federal system. We believe that the only way to bring about equitable and widespread development in our country is for the central government to share power – political and economic – with the regions and LGUs.”
Malaya said the assumption into power of the Duterte government could lead to “systemic changes,” which include the proposed federal shift, stressing that the federal system has been adopted by the U.S., Germany, Malaysia, and Australia “to keep their countries strong and progressive while allowing the different communities within their country to work together for the progress of all.” His guesses, no matter how altruistic, did not gain foothold or traction during Duterte’s incumbency and even after he left office.
PANACEA.While federalism has been proclaimed as the cure-all pill for the nation’s development woes, its proponents were unclear on the exact nature- or model – of a federal system that would fit the Philippines. Echoing the stand of its proponents, Malaya said: “Federalism scholars contend that there are as many federal models as there are federal countries; every federal country has a distinct model that works best for its own country. Countries who wish to shift to a federal system – like the Philippines – must discern its own version of federalism according to the peculiar conditions of their societies. Therefore, it is important to learn from the experiences – whether good or bad – of existing federations.”
Malaya also identified the type of federalism in the Philippines, giving what could be regarded as an abstract concept of “holding together” federalism. “Because we are already a unitary state seeking to shift into a federation, many of the standard features of federal countries like ‘shared sovereignty’ between the federal and regional governments do not apply to us because of our different context,” he said in reference to what has been termed ‘federalism in reverse,’ where an existing unitary state is broken into regions or sub-states to compose a federal system.”
Overall, Malaya proposed to retain the 1987 Constitution, but only after performing what he described a “surgical” approach towards amending it. He wants to concentrate on “provisions that would enshrine federalism into the Constitution and strengthen our public institutions.” His suggestions did not happen though. Critics said his proposal did not contain details. It was too broad and all encompassing. Besides, it was too simplistic to employ either-or logic.
Penalosa said the existing political culture militates against the federal shift. The existence of political dynasties, electoral fraud, and violence as personified by rido (clan wars), private armies, warlordism, death squads, graft and corruption, nepotism, and spoils and patronage, or rent-seeking, booty capitalism, clientelism, and narcopolitics are quite intense along local levels than the national level. Since most Filipino politicians are driven by vested interest, it does not augur well for the shift to the federal system, Penalosa said. Philippine politics is characterized by a multiparty system and partisan politics driven by a coalition of convenience shifting political alliances, prevalence of political dynasties and corruption.
She said: “In an oligarchic state like the Philippines, where elite politics exists, federalism would not widen the political space as it limits political competition to entrenched dynasties and creates subnational dictators. Federalism could only exacerbate the existing disempowerment of the majority and impede democratization and development as it favors those in control of centers of political authority and administrative power in the local levels.”
ECONOMIC DISPARITY. Penalosa mentioned the existing economic disparity issues; two-thirds of the GDP come from three regions – Metro Manila, Central Luzon, and Southern Tagalog. A federal shift would mean other regions would lose state subsidy, she said. Penalosa raised public administration issues of nightmarish proportions, stressing that an abruptly implanted bureaucracy could mean challenges for administration reforms. Moreover, she raised the following: enormity and complexity of the institutional designs that comes from the overhaul of the system of government – from unitary to federal, from presidential to parliamentary; coopted bureaucracy by vested political interests; and weak state dominated by elites.
For Benjamin Punongbayan, head of an accounting firm bearing his name and president of Buklod, a civil society organization that espouses national unity, the Philippines is already a unified country. It has satisfied the vital requirements to become a full state. Hence, it makes no sense to push the country on a reverse motion by subdividing it into various sub-states to satisfy the federal shift. According to Punongbayan, the federal shift is difficult to implement since the institutions at the state level would have to be organized and developed, unlike in the federal states like the U.S. and Germany, which had existing and functioning state governments at the time of federation. He said the initial resources for the state institutions of the Federal Philippines could be drawn from existing national institutions and provincial bureaucracy. But they would not be enough to sustain a federal government because of the additional layer in the bureaucracy.
Punongbayan said each state has to develop its expertise to issue policies and programs related to economic development, taxes, infrastructure, etc. It has to develop the capability for budgeting, collecting taxes, contracting for construction and other services and other areas. “All these put together need organization and development of resource capability and capacity. These organizational and developmental activities require time to put the state institutions at a reasonably functioning level,” he said. “Federalism will create disruption in the present order of things and require reorganization and redevelopment on the subdivided parts.”
For him, it makes no sense to engage in a political experiment “full of unknown dangers and risks,” even as he called to study the proposed federal shift “before we embark on a trip of no return.” Moreover, the issue of taxation is a ticklish matter in a federal system. Which goes to the federal government and which goes to the sub-states must be differentiated. In a published commentary, Punongbayan said: “There will therefore be a clear dividing line between the fiscal authority of the central government and the fiscal authority of the Federal subdivisions. In effect, through their powers of deriving and allocating revenue, in theory, the states will have a strong influence in shaping the respective economic development of the people within their geographical jurisdiction.”
While claiming it has studied various models of federal states and the 25 years of devolution under the Local Government Code of 1992, the PDP-Laban Institute, the purported think tank of the erstwhile party in power, said its model of a Federal Philippines contains “a shift to a federal government with a semi-presidential system or a hybrid parliamentary system similar to the governments in Taiwan, South Korea, Portugal and to a certain extent, France. “
TRANSITION MECHANISM. According to Malaya, the proposed federal system contains a “transition mechanism for regional governments to prepare themselves for further decentralization, provisions to strengthen political parties, mechanisms to regulate political dynasties, and other political and electoral reforms.” It also contains two levels of government – the Federal Government and the Regional Government. To offset what the pro-federalism adherents see as “overlapping mandates” between the national government and LGUs, each level of government in the federal system would have particular jurisdiction. The federal government would have exclusive legislative powers for national defense, police and national security, foreign affairs, currency, immigration, and other matters that concern the entire nation.
It proposes the creation of 11 regional governments, the composition of which shall be attached as an ordinance to the Constitution. Regional governments would have primary legislative powers over basic services such as social welfare and development, tourism, irrigation, water and sewerage, waste management, fire protection, regional development planning, franchises, licenses and permits; and the allocation and provision of funds and resources to local Governments within the Region, among others.
It proposes the replacement of the current presidential system by a hybrid parliamentary system, where executive power is dispersed among the president, the prime minister, the cabinet, the parliament and the regional governments. It seeks a “more decentralized system of governance,“ as it points to the president as an “arbiter of disputes between the federal and regional governments and among regional governments.”
Press reports said the so-called “Mindanao Bullies,” or the faction led by then Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, want a ten-year transition period that would extend the term of current elected officials, including the president, but scrap the Office of the Vice President to give way for the proposed prime minister. Alvarez was reported to have been eyeing constitutional amendments outlining these changes. But it generated controversy.
Just like any proposed political reforms, the envisioned federal shift is good on paper. But its theoretical soundness does not necessarily guarantee its success. It is long in hope, but short in details that could actualize success. Nobody could predict the ensuing political dynamics that could result from the constitutional amendments. Not even the brightest political mind, or think tanks could have an idea of the ensuing developments arising from the political experiment.
The think tank’s claim that the proposed federal system was “the only hope” to solve the country’s woes does not deserve a second look. It is a claim devoid of any real basis and fraught with danger. There is no such thing as a cure-all pill or panacea in this world. The fact that the party in power was making that claim deserves the outright rejection of the proposed federal shift. The rule is simple. When it’s too good to be true, then it’s untrue. Malaya’s concept is somewhat elaborate but it is of very little use.
It would be best to stick to the current unitary system. It suits the Filipino temperament. It is something every Filipino knows. Federalism is an unknown animal for them. But it does not mean keeping the unitary government is enough. It has many weaknesses and it’s important for the people in power to take moves to strengthen it. A revolution in local governance is currently taking place among the LGUs. It makes sense to keep the propeller of revolution to continue churning to fulfill the country’s development objectives.
BIZARRE PROPOSAL. Notwithstanding the debates of a presidential or parliamentary government, and unitary or federal state, then Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez unwittingly provided a ridiculous sideshow by proposing a ten-year transition to a federal state. His proposal belongs to the realm of the bizarre. If he were not the House top honcho and the country’s fourth highest political leader, it would be tempting to believe he was a comedian or nuts.
But he was serious. He wanted a ten-year transition, which means the members of current Congress and local officials would stay in their respective political offices for the next ten years without direct mandate from the Filipino people. It was tiresome and troublesome to see the same faces for more than a decade. We could not help but ask what crime did the Filipino people commit to deserve this political punishment.
A ten year transition period is not justified. It would never be justified. Our political history did not support it. The late president Cory Aquino, during her incumbency, did the tumultuous transition from the detested Marcos dictatorship to a restored democracy in a single year. She did the transition amid a failing economy that had the worst postwar recession and a series of destructive and debilitating military coups by rebel soldiers, who could not accept they would be under civilian leadership in a restored democracy.
Installed by the near bloodless 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, Mrs. Aquino did not enjoy a smooth transition. But she knew her social contract with the Filipino people. She threw away the 1973 Constitution, the blueprint of the Marcos dictatorship, adopted a revolutionary government, and followed a temporary constitution, replaced all local government officials with officers-in-charge (OICs) and created a commission to run after the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their ilk.
Dismantling the Marcos dictatorship and the institutions and processes they represented, Mrs. Aquino formed a 50-man commission that drafted a new constitution. On February 7, 1987, or nearly a year after the EDSA Revolution, the Filipino people overwhelmingly ratified the 1987 Constitution as the incontrovertible blueprint of restored democracy. Mrs. Aquino did the transition with profound political will. She did not enjoy the convenience of modern technology like wireless telephony and digital technology. But she had the heart and willingness to bring back democracy to the country.
Mrs. Aquino knew by heart that the restoration of democracy fell on her lap. She had no choice but to traverse the tortuous road to a restored democracy with nary a whimper. She did it in full throttle notwithstanding the political obstacles, which her enemies and other reactionary forces laid down along the road. Three months after its ratification, the first elections under the 1987 Constitution were held for members of the new Congress. A year later, the elections of local officials were held to replace those OICs. The rest is history.
( To be continued )
