It is almost certain President-elect Rodrigo Duterte will push hard to amend the Constitution to replace the country’s current unitary form of government to one that is federal. After all, he launched his drive to the presidency on the pretext of an information drive on the federal system of government in nationwide sorties long before the presidential campaign started.
It is false to assume, however, that the more than 15 million people who voted for him chose him because of his pro-federal system stand. He rose to national prominence based on his tough drive against criminality and corruption and he won by a landslide because of that. Majority of those who voted for him probably don’t even understand what federalism is all about and what it means to the country.
Even with his overwhelming popularity, Duterte will have a tough time selling the concept to the people and to the members of Congress, who will decide whether to constitute itself as constituent assembly (con-ass) or to legislate the creation of a constitutional convention (con-con) to amend the charter.
Duterte may find it easier to sway the House of Representatives with his coalition suddenly gaining close to 300 turncoats, but he is certain to face a stronger challenge in the Senate, the more thinking chamber.
Senate President Franklin Drilon and Senate president pro-tempore Ralph Recto said the proposal needs comprehensive study on its impact on national policies and that any effort to amend the Constitution – a necessary step for a shift to federalism – involves a tortuous process.
“What are the details of federalism, how will it affect taxes? How will it affect the division of natural resources?” Recto asked, adding that lawmakers and policy makers should ponder these questions if federalism would be discussed.
But it’s not just the issue of taxation or division of natural resources that need to be discussed if a shift is to be made. Federalism is a complete stranger to Filipinos and jumping into it would not be as easy as 1-2-3 or as elementary as A-B-C.
Proponents of federalism love to point to the United States and Malaysia as examples of highly successful federal countries. But they also forget to mention that these countries did not start as one nation. Writer Michael Henry Ll. Yusinco stressed that federal states such as the US, Malaysia, Australia and Germany all began as “a loose collection of disparate political entities that gradually, and with painful upheavals, transformed themselves into a unified nation-state through the process of federalization.”
He added: “It would essentially be the reverse in our case. Consequently, we face a much harder, more complicated, and possibly harsher version of federalization. It is thus disconcerting that purported advocates of federalism seem oblivious to the gravity of this sociopolitical reform. They quickly harp on the promise of enhanced local autonomy without even considering the readiness of the local leadership to assume the big responsibility of local governments under federalism, as if the fitness of the current crop for this form of government were already a given.”
We have had a brief look at having an autonomous state in the failed experiment called the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARRM) that only spawned a stronger, abusive political dynasty in the Ampatuan clan, an even chaotic governance, and an economy that insured the ARRM became the poorest region in the country.
As clearly demonstrated by the Maguindanao example, federalism will further strengthen political dynasties. There is no denying that established political clans have been in control of local politics for generations. With greater powers under a federal set-up, what will stop them from further solidifying their hold on Philippine politics? A regional, instead of national elections for senators, would put more of these political dynasties at the national helm by being elected to the Senate.
Yusinco also contends that the shift to federal form of government would not succeed with political dynasties still entrenched in our political system. He pointed to a groundbreaking study by the Asian Institute of Management Policy Center in 2012 titled “An Empirical Analysis of Political Dynasties in the 15th Philippine Congress,” which showed that lower standards of living, lower human development, and higher levels of deprivation and inequality persist in the communities governed by political dynasties.
Former national treasurer Leonor Magtolis-Briones, who has been picked by Duterte to head the Department of Education, said in her article entitled “Financing Federalism,” said: “Students of public finance have been pointing out that the creation of an additional layer of government—namely the state—will inevitably lead to higher levels of expenditures. This is because the machinery of the states has to be maintained, along with that of the federal government and the local government units. Pressure for higher levels of expenditures will inevitably lead to pressure for increased levels of taxes.”
For example, each of the proposed 11 states would have its own supreme court, parliament, Cabinet departments, state police, etc. that would necessarily entail huge budgets.
A federal form of government will create additional layers of bureaucracy that will lead to even more red tape, corruption and confusion. Businessmen and investors will be the most adversely affected as they will have to contend with conflicting and confusing laws from various states/regions. Can you imagine 11 states with their own agencies on commerce and industry, housing, health, transportation, education, etc. and the federal government having its own, too, all with their own sets of rules?
Instead of unifying the country, federalism could further divide the country. Ilocanos have long considered themselves a people distinct from the Tagalogs, and so do the Visayans, the Muslims, the Bicolanos and other regional tribes or groups. Just when these groups are beginning to blend as one, we now say they are groups distinct from one another.
If one state becomes more progressive and more powerful than the others, what will stop it from moving to secede from the union and become a truly independent entity?
With not much help from the central government, regions with very little natural resources and existing infrastructures are almost certain to lag behind, negating the primary reason proponents are pushing for federalism. Proponents say federalism would enable each state to grow on its own by using its own resources, taxation and leadership.
Under the present form of government, provinces are given proportional revenue allocations under the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA). Metro Manila gets the biggest share not because the national government is based in Metro Manila, but because the region has the biggest contribution to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), accounting for a more than 36-percent share.
These are just some of the problems that could confront a sudden shift to a federal form of government. I also agree with Yusinco that the political consciousness of Filipinos must first be elevated before a sudden shift to a federal form of government.
Duterte and the other proponents of federalism may be right that the shift could be the solution to the country’s many problems. But they could also be wrong.
It would be to the best interest of the country that the proposal be discussed more lengthily and more cautiously before we jump into it. It’s an issue that could make or break the country. A little more caution and introspection wouldn’t hurt.
(valabelgas@aol.com)