AFTER REVGOV, HERE COMES FEDERALISM

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

AFTER failed moves to create a revolutionary government (RevGov) late last year, the Duterte government takes a new issue: the proposed shift to federal system of government. Public debates have intensified, as advocates of the contrasting federal and unitary systems of government have sought to bring out the best arguments in favor of either system.

Adherents of the federal system of government said that 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.

But advocates of the status quo, or the existing unitary government, have claimed otherwise, even as they denied the existence of an Imperial Manila. On the contrary, the country’s underdevelopment springs from a host of factors and it could not be blamed alone on the perceived lack of autonomy in the countryside.

The public debates have turned ugly as leading Duterte supporters, or the “Mindanao bullies” led by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, have been ramming proposed constitutional amendments, which could mean a prolonged – or 10-year period transition period to a federal system, and the scrapping of the Office of the Vice President.

From all indications, the Duterte government is not exactly bent to initiate a federal shift. What it wants is to adopt authoritarianism, where Duterte and his ilk are assured of a prolonged stay in power even without popular mandate. Federalism appears to be mere a political camouflage for authoritarianism, or dictatorship.

A unitary state is governed by a single power, where the central government is ultimately supreme and its administrative divisions exercise only 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.

History

The idea of a federal shift did not come from the Federalista Party the old capitulating Ilustrados formed when the Americans came into power at the turn of the 20th century. The Federalistas were more interested for the U.S. annexation of the Philippines to become a state.

The shift to a federal system from the existing unitary government is part of the political platform of the 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, the current political party in power.

Except for the single paragraph which enumerates by bullets PDP’s political objectives, Nene Pimentel hardly discusses the concept of 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.

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 presidential 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 federal system. He placed fourth in a field of six serious candidates, putting an end to his criticisms of an 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 the PDP-Laban wants to pursue the federal shift to promote development is unclear t the moment. It lacks many critical details. It is perceived as a political tool to prolong their stay in power.

Arguments against federalism 

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 before a recent international conference, 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 govt. 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 are proposing 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 the unitary system remains ingrained in the Filipino psyche, as some groups complain about “Manila imperialism,” a phrase which has always been a subject of debates among conflicting advocates.

Federalism

Jonathan Malaya, 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 that 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.”

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.”

While federalism has been proclaimed as the cure-all pill for the nation’s development woes, its proponents are 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 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.”

Militating factors against federalism

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 federal system, Penalosa said. Philippine politics is characterized by multiparty system and partisan politics driven by coalition of convenience shifting political alliance, 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 create subnational dictators. Federalism could only exacerbate the existing disempowerment of the majority and impeding democratization and development as it favors those in control of centers of political authority and administrative power in the local levels.”

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.

Motion on reverse direction

For Benjamin Punongbayan, head a big 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 government 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 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.”

Federalism program

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 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. “

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 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 the Speaker, 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 has been generating controversy.

Good in paper

Just like any proposed political reforms, the envisioned federal shift is good in paper. But its theoretical soundness does not necessarily guarantee its unmitigated 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 even 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.

So what is the alternative?

It would be best to stick to the unitary system of government. It suits to 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.