The Philippines must Adopt Federalism

Posted on October 9, 2007 | Leave a comment

Gail Sheehy once said and I quote, If we dont change, we dont grow. If we
dont grow, we arent really living. To our professor, Mr. Benito, team mates,
worthy opponents, classmates, friends, ladies and gentlemen, a pleasant
afternoon.
The proposition at hand is, The Philippines must adopt federalism.
As the first speaker of the affirmative side, allow me to set the parameters of
this debate.
1. A federal form of government is a system of government in which
sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority
and constituent political units. Federalism is the system in which the power
to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating
what is called a federation, one where, the local government is autonomous
from the national or central government.
2. The adoption of federalism is limited to the form of government as to the
extent of powers exercised by the national or central government, that is,
either unitary or federal. The change from presidential to parliamentary,
democratic to aristocratic or monarchial, and the like do not take part in this
debate.
3. The adoption of federalism entails the amendment of the present 1987
Philippine Constitution. However it does not mean that it speaks equivocally
to that of the Charter Change that is being pushed through by the present
Arroyo administration neither does it speak of that of Estrada, Ramos and
other prominent political figures.
4. The federation of the Philippines will not be made through the existing
Regions and Political subdivisions. Instead, places with common ethnicity,
language, culture, tradition, etc., shall form one federal unit.
5. The success of a form of government depends on the people who govern
and the people being governed. And since we are talking of the Philippines, a
comparison between the Philippines and another country either with a
federal or unitary form of government and citation of studies comparing
federalism and unitary system conducted by foreign research institutions
shall be of no relevance since the former and the latter have different
culture, tradition, history, etc.
Allow me now to lay down my arguments.
1. Since the Philippines gained independence and have been self-governing,
Filipinos have been discontented of the different administrations because of
the abuse and misuse of an enormous power in the unitary form of
government. This is reflected by the surveys conducted by Pulse-Asia and
SWS that say that majority of the Filipinos are clamoring for the
impeachment, resignation or ouster of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
However, PGMAs case is not isolated. History tells us that even the popular
President who toppled down the Marcos dictatorship, then President Corazon
Cojuangco Aquino, had the same ill story as her administration suffered from
9 coup attempts.
By limiting the power of the head of state into the external affairs of the
country, lesser power, influence and money would be involved in the Office
of the President. Hence, corruption and other negative things will no longer
be so conducive in the highest seat of power. Such negative things will also
be limited to each federal unit. Example, if there is much corruption that
beset Manila, it will not affect other federations and its people.
2. Having talked about Manila, this leads to my next argument. Manila has
always been the focus of attention of the government since it is the capital
city of the country. The Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) has an
overwhelming budget of Php. 2.72 Billion which leaves other provinces and
cities lesser funds. And since the fast pace development of the country is
isolated to Manila, people would flock there ending up as squatters,
underemployed or unemployed. Poverty then is not alleviated.
3. The Philippines is also a country that has a very diverse culture and
tradition. Each place has its own unique history, geography and the like. So
why have one central power to govern such diversity? Aside from Manila, the
government is focused to the development of the homelands of the seating
President. Look at Ilocos, it had been very well taken care of during the
Marcos regime; Tarlac, during the Aquino regime, and so on and so forth.
Compare these places to the development of places where no President had
come from. Take our very own place for example. The Bicol Region would not
have had its rightful share would Reming not devastated our Region.
4. In such case, there is no equal access to the national government.
Observe how the budget is appropriated in the Congress of the Philippines.
Aside from the fact that the process is too long, there is no equal distribution
of the countrys wealth. The production of a place is not reciprocated by its
share of wealth from the national treasury. Natural resources for example are
taken from provinces but the profit of its output is enjoyed by the people in
the Capital city. If federalism will be adopted, each federation will be self
sufficing. This is the case of the pre-Spanish colonial rule where each tribe
was independent to one another, producing for themselves their own
necessity. It does not however speak of the absence of the bayanihan spirit,
neither of the absence of nationalism. Each federation, by making use of its
own resources, will contribute to the progress of the country
a country devastated by a lot of problems.
What then could be more noble and more patriotic than growing and living
for the motherland, offered by change?
It is about time that we change our socio-political attitude, and along with
it, let us change the system that corrupts our mind-set; Let the Philippines
adopt federalism! Let us grow, let us live and let us Change.