“Ang Pilipinas ay isang demokratiko at republikanong Estado.

Nasa mga mamamayan ang

kapangyarihan nito at nagmumula sa kanila ang buong pamunuan ng pamahalaan.”
-Artikulo II, Seksiyon 1 ng 1987 Konstitusyon
Ang Pilipinas ay isang republikang may pampanguluhang anyo ng pamahalaan kung saan pantay na
nahahati ang kapangyarihan sa tatlong sangay nito: ehekutibo, lehislatibo, at hudikatura.
Isang mahalagang bunga ng pampanguluhang sistema ng pamahalaan ay ang prinsipyo ng paghahati
ng kapangyarihan, kung saan nasasailalim sa Kongreso ang paggawa ng mga batas, nasasailalim sa
Ehekutibo ang pagpapatupad ng mga ito, at nasasailalim sa Hudikatura ang pagpapasya sa mga
kontrobersiyang legal.

Nonetheless, the draft does provide some insights into the rationale of the pro-federalism camp, which
includes Duterte and his ruling party, PDP-Laban. Under the proposed constitution, the Philippines
will shed the unitary, centralized form of government it currently has in favor of a federal setup, not
too dissimilar from that of the U.S.
Under the new proposed constitution, the Philippines will be divided into 18 federated regions.
Regional states will have greater power over raising their own revenues, determining their own
legislation and choosing their economic development models.
By breaking distributing some of the powers currently residing in the country's Manila-centric form
of government, Duterte and his supporters hope to bring more prosperity to its neglected peripheries.
Metro-Manila alone, which hosts barely 10% of the country’s population (103 million), accounts for
more than one-third (36.5%) of the country’s entire GDP.

Points for Concern

On paper, federalism seems well suited for the Philippines. In reality, however, it could become a
recipe for disaster in a country that is already divided by language, religion and economic inequality.

First of all, studies show that only a few regions are capable of raising enough taxes on their own. The
vast majority of provinces, which will be submerged into new federal states, lack the basic
administrative capacity for generating revenue. Not to mention duplication in taxes and further stress
on the nascent bureaucracy of peripheral regions under a federal arrangement.

Under a federal system, the richer states of the north will have even more resources to enhance their
competitiveness, thus deepening the developmental gap with other southern regions.

Even in prosperous nations like the U.S., the developmental gap between the rich coastal states of
California and New York, on one hand, and the southern and midwestern states, on the other, has
barely narrowed after two centuries of federalist experience.

In developing countries like India, Iraq and Nigeria, federalism has either failed to close
developmental gaps and ethno-communal tensions among various states or, more worryingly, in some
cases reinforced and reified them over the decades. In places such as Yugoslavia, a federal setup
eventually collapsed into a genocidal civil war.

Moreover, a federal system could further strengthen the power of political dynasties and warlords,
which control the Philippines’ peripheries. According to academic studies, around 178 so-called
"political dynasties" – politicians related by kinship and blood – control 73 out of 81 provinces across
the country. They also control up to 70% of the legislature, thus they seem likely to remove any
proposed restrictions on the proliferation of political dynasties.

Under a federal system, they are best positioned to dominate the newly created local legislature and
state institutions, further consolidating their grip on power in the country's poorer regions. It's no
wonder, then, that most surveys show the vast majority of Filipinos are either against constitutional
change or completely unaware of its implications.

The creation in reverse of a Federal Republic of the Philippines is likely to bring about a host of
undesirable effects, to wit:

1. The division of powers between the national and state governments will weaken the
Philippines. For states coming together to form a federal system, federalism means strength. In
union there is strength. Such, for example, is the United States of America, whose motto is “E
Pluribus Unum,” (“Out of Many, One”). But to a unitary state converted into a federal state,
federalism can mean the fragmentation, if not the disintegration, of what was once a nation.
2. Should the federal system thus formed fail, there will be no turning back and returning to the
old system. The breakup will be more devastating in its effect on the component states than on
the states in a federal system formed by the coming together of independent states. While the
failure of this latter type of federation will simply mean the return of the component states to
their former status as separate independent states, in the case of the Philippines, however, each
component state will find itself without moorings and become prey to annexation by other
states. God forbid, the breakup will not presage the spread of strife throughout the land.
3. Federalism will magnify or encourage regional differences. The rise of village tyrants and
village despots will be more probable than the rise of a national dictator.
4. States may become so focused on local development and security that they neglect national
concerns and issues.

At a time when regional federations are breaking up and threats to our territorial integrity are getting
to be more real than imagined, is there truly a need to divide the government into national and state
governments?

Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. argues that a federal state would enable Moros to run their
government according to their customs and traditions. The Constitution already provides for
autonomous regions in the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao with recognition of the fact that the
people of these regions have a different historical and cultural heritage and different economic and
social structures. Autonomous regions have their own organic acts, their own government, consisting
of an executive department and legislative assembly, and special courts with personal, family and
property law jurisdiction. No reason has been shown why these provisions for autonomous regions
are inadequate to address the Mindanao problem. If the Bangsamoro Basic Law failed passage in the
last Congress, it was because several of its provisions were perceived to be unconstitutional and that
what it provided for was the creation of a Bangsamoro substate.

The argument that federalization will promote local development and encourage citizen participation
in government is precisely a policy argument for decentralization. In 1967 Congress enacted the
Decentralization Act (R.A. No. 5185) granting “local governments greater freedom and ampler means
to respond to the needs of their people and promote their prosperity and happiness and to effect a more
equitable and systematic distribution of governmental powers and resources.” Thus, “the performance
of those functions that are more properly administered [at] the local level” are entrusted to local
governments which are granted “as much autonomous powers and financial resources as are required
for the more effective discharge of these responsibilities.”

Vexing problem

It is generally agreed that to change from a unitary to a federal system would require the revision of
the Constitution. Revisions of the Constitution can be proposed either by Congress acting as a
constituent assembly or by a constitutional convention composed of delegates elected by the people.
While the President had originally expressed preference for a constitutional convention, it was
subsequently announced that he chose a Con-Ass to undertake the job of overhauling the Constitution
after being told of the cost of holding a Con-Con.

This decision is likely to raise anew a vexing problem that has been with us since the adoption of the
Constitution in 1987: how the two Houses of Congress, when acting as a constituent assembly, should
sit, whether jointly or separately. The Constitution’s meager provision gives no answer to this
question. Its Article XVII, Section 1 simply states that “Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution may be proposed by (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.”

In the last Congress, views were expressed that in amending the Constitution so as to change some of
its economic provisions, Congress could follow the same procedure for enacting bills.

This problem has arisen because the constitutional provision in question was originally written on the
assumption that the legislative body would be unicameral. However, toward the closing days of its
session, the Commission decided to have a bicameral Congress instead. Accordingly, the relevant
provisions of the draft Constitution, except the Amendment Clause, were rewritten to reflect the
change.

Thus, in the following cases, it was provided that the two Houses of Congress must meet in joint
session but vote separately:

 To declare the “existence of a state of war.” (Art. VI, Sec. 23 (1))

 To confirm the President’s nomination of a Vice President whenever there is a vacancy in the
office during the term of the Vice President. (Art. VII, Sec. 9)
 To revoke the President’s declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus. (Art. VII, Sec.18)
 To canvass the votes for President and Vice President and proclaim the winners and, in case of
a tie, to break the tie. (Art. VII, Sec. 4)
  To decide whether the President, who has declared himself unable to discharge the duties of
his office and subsequently claims to be fit to resume but his cabinet disagrees, is fit to
discharge the powers and functions of the Presidency. (Art. VII, Sec. 11)

It was only through oversight that the Commission failed to make the corresponding changes in the
Amendment Clause. But, as Commissioner Suarez, the Chairman of the Committee on Amendments
and Transitory Provisions, said when asked what his committee would do in the event the Commission
decided to have a bicameral legislative body, they would include the words “IN JOINT SESSION
ASSEMBLED.”

To sum up, we don’t need to change to a federal system but only push hard for decentralization to
break up the concentration of power in the central government, and therefore we don’t need to amend
or revise the Constitution. And if Congress has to act at all as a constituent assembly, its two Houses
must meet in joint session but vote separately.

What are advantages of federal form of government and why is it attractive to Filipinos?
Firstly, under a federal government, states are empowered to make their own decisions. They
no longer need to rely on the central government to decide for them. This is important to note in the
Philippine context because of the vast geographical and cultural differences between regions -
differences that the central government may not always be able to cater to. Furthermore,
decentralization in the Philippines would allow states to keep more of their income to themselves.
They do not have to rely on collecting real estate tax and business permit fees - 80% of their total
earned income stays, while only 20% goes back to the national government. This means that states are
able to channel their own income for their own development, creating policies and programs suitable
for them without having to wait for the national government to approve. Within the 80% budget that
remains with these states, 30% will be funneled to the local state government, and 70% will be
allocated to the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays
Because states are able to both make their own decisions and retain the income they have to
fund these decisions, it's possible for federalism to promote specialization and competition. This
affects both the national government and the states - since the national government turned certain
administrative powers over to the regional governments, it can now funnel its resources more
intensively towards the issues it is assigned to, such as foreign policy and nationwide defense.
Likewise, the states are now better able to nurture their individual strengths and selling points because
the people who have the decisions and funding are the people who are personally involved in the
state's development. These self-reliant states will compare their growth to the growth of surrounding
states. Hopefully, this will lead to friendly competition between states that will help raise the quality
of life and economic development for everybody involved.
What are disadvantages of a federated Philippines?
Like all forms of government, federalism has its ugly side too. The first problem the
Philippines would have to iron out would be the overlaps in jurisdiction. Unless responsibilities of
state governments and national governments are very clearly stated in the amended Constitution, there
will be ambiguities that can lead to conflict and confusion. Next, there is always a chance that it will
bring more division than unity in the Philippines. It can arise from more than just increased hostility
between ethnic groups - competition between states can quickly become unhealthy, and can lead to
the regionalism that is currently already challenging the unity of the country.
Moreover, development of the states in a federal form of government might not even work at
all. Some states may not be as gifted or as ready for autonomy as others. A major concern is that while
some states may progress faster, the converse is also true because other states may devolve faster as
well - even more so without a national government to back them up. However, in some federal
countries, the national government provides funds to help underdeveloped states. A proposed
Equalization Fund will use part of the tax from rich states for the funding of poorer states.

What would the Philippines look like under transition to a federal form of government?
Past proposals divided the Philippines into 10 or 11 autonomous states. President Duterte
envisions 18 federated regions – 16 federated regions (including the new Negrosanon region) and the
federated regions of Bangsamoro and Cordillera. Regional states will have greater power over raising
their own revenues, determining their own legislation and choosing their economic development
models. In a federal system, billions of pesos will have to be spent on setting up state governments
and the delivery of state services. States will then have to spend for the elections of their own officials.
While the idea of federalism in the Philippines is attractive for most Filipinos, the possible
benefits that are marketed by the idea will inevitably come at a cost, and will require extensive time
and effort from both governments and citizens alike. President Duterte has to make sure the people
are satisfied with the division of responsibilities that will be stated in the Amendment, and that the
work towards building a federalist country will not alienate other states or leave them behind, the way
they are being left behind right now.