joyceadamero-blog

[joyceadamero-blog]

FEDERALISM: GOOD OR BAD?

Federalism, the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government with regional governments such as provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments in a single political system. It  is a system of government in which entities such as states or provinces share power with a national government.

Evert states has their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. They are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, as long as they do not violate the Constitution.

The federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and exports.  The federal government has the sole authority to print money.  Most governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments and these include taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.

Under the second theory of federalism known as cooperative federalism, the national, state, and local governments interact cooperatively and collectively to solve common problems. Cooperative federalism asserts that the national government is supreme over the states.

In terms of the kind of federalism, the Constitution does provide some very specific powers to both the states and the federal government such as:

Delegated Powers – are those powers specifically assigned to the Federal Government.  The national government has very specific enumerated powers including the regulation of interstate and international trade, coinage and currency, war, maintenance of armed forces, postal system, enforcement copyrights and power to enter into treaties.

Reserved Powers – all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are to be reserved or saved for the State Governments. These powers include power to establish schools, establishment of local governments, and police powers.

Concurrent Powers – Concurrent means “at the same time.” Concurrent powers are those that both the federal and state governments share simultaneously, for example the power to tax, maintain courts and the ability to construct and maintain roads.

Implied Powers – These are powers that are NOT specifically delegated in the Constitution, but are understood to be necessary or allowed. The “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution state that Congress has the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”

Federalism can be adapted and in my personal opinion should be implemented for the sake of this country.

As we all know, Philippines is a rotting and decaying country. Though other news outlets project Philippines as a "Developing" country, however, the truth and in reality, this country is actually dying. We are governed by morons and idiots and 80% of the people living in the archipelago are illiterates in one way or another. The best evidence on this claim is the Filipinos' love for voting plunderers, thieves and liars into government positions; The Estrada's, The Binay's, Enrile, Revilla, Ampatuan, etc.

If and when the regions or provinces are given more independence to govern their territories (i.e. create individual laws, taxes within their region), it will surely create a more conducive working environment for the people to improve their livelihood.

Instead of concentrating all the power to Malacañang, the regions or provinces can work independently to find ways to enhance their economies or to protect their constituents.

Federalism will allow each sovereign province to implement their own laws. (e.g. One province might be allow same-sex marriage while the other may allow use of medical marijuana). Each for their own.

Another reason behind this is that each state has unique characteristics in terms of factors, include:

Geography and natural resources

Location

Demographics of the population

Historical operations of business, commerce, and industry

Public policies and community standards in the state

Some laws, such as certain voting laws and criminal laws and statutes, tend to be somewhat uniform across states. However, some areas of law can be very, very different from one state to the next. Some types of laws that can vary widely across state regions include:

Gun control laws- these are often dependent on crime rates in the area

Child custody laws

Trucking and motor carrier laws

Business and corporate laws

Marriage licensing laws, especially in accordance to same-sex marriage

By dividing power between the states and the national government, one level can serve as a check on the other. This should provide a "double security" to the rights of the people. According the James Madison, this system was especially fitting for American because the nation was one of diverse interests. Each of these interests would constitute a faction that would seek its own advantage, and one faction might come to dominate government or a part of government in one place, and a different faction might come to power in another. The tugging and pulling of these factions would prevent any single region of the United states from dominating all of government. The division of powers among several governments would give to virtually every faction an opportunity to gain some-but not full-power. One of the major concerns of the Framers was the prevention of tyranny in a concentration of power. They believed that federalism checks the growth of tyranny while inhibiting the formation of single-interest majorities. The system promotes unity without uniformity and promotes experimentation in public policy. For example, the states often serve as testing grounds for policies that later translate to the national level. Lastly, federalism keeps the government close to the people, giving them a greater say in affairs at both levels.

Next on Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s agenda is changing the country's form of government under a new constitution. The move has provoked a backlash among certain sections of society, ranging from the business sector to the church and media, which have questioned the rationale for constitutional change. A recent survey by Pulse Asia found that 67% of Filipinos oppose the change, while only 18 percent were in favour and the other 14 percent were undecided.

Critics contend that the move is part of a plot to extend the president’s term in office. In response, Duterte has sought to reassure the public that he will not extend his term beyond his constitutionally mandated six years, which is due to end in mid-2022.

Leaving aside the conspiracy theories, a federal form of government, if enacted, will likely prove a bane rather than a boon for the country. Federalism may end up only reinforcing socio-economic and ethno-political fault lines in an already divided archipelagic nation.

Duterte has already endorsed the draft, but the Philippine Congress is not under any obligation to adopt it in its current form. Thus, the draft serves more as a reference point rather than the final substance of a new constitution, which will have to be approved by a majority of the electorate in a future referendum.

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.

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.

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.

Once we are under a federal system, all component states collect their own taxes and contribute only a small fraction of their revenues to the federal or central government for only three centralized functions, namely: National Defense, including the National Police, Justice and Foreign Affairs. All the rest shall be left to each state, including health, education, labor and employment, trade, transportation, communication, agriculture, agrarian reform, justice environment, natural resources. The states will manage mining and forest matters and shall control all natural resources. Each state will have its own unicameral congress and a separate court of appeals. There will be only one centralized Supreme Court and one federal senate with three senators from each state.

So what exactly are the benefits of federalism in the Philippines? 

1. Decentralization

In Duterte’s federalism, local governments can decide for themselves. Regions or states are allowed by federalism to create solutions to their own problems, implement policies for their improvement, and make decisions for their own good without having to ask Malacañang for their decision. 

For example, the United States have some states like Washington and Colorado that allow citizens to use recreational cannabis while other states do not. The local government units will also have no more excuse for delayed and low-quality projects and programs because they will not be able to blame the national government anymore. 

One of the advantages of decentralization is that local government units will also have no more excuse for delayed and low-quality projects and programs because they will not be able to blame the national government anymore. 

2. Economic effects 

What about the economic effects of a federal government? Improvement of local economy is considered as one of the pros of federal government. The federal system allows local governments have more power over their resources. In the Philippines’ current form of government, local government units have to turn a big bulk of their funds to the national government. A federal constitutional system will allow the autonomous regions or states to use the majority of their funds for their own development and without needing a go signal from Malacañang.

3. Less dependence on Metro Manila 

One of the most common federalist arguments is that a federal constitution would lead to less dependence on Metro Manila when it comes to finding jobs and establishing businesses. A whopping 35 percent of the country’s budget was given to Metro Manila even if it represents only 14 percent of the total population. One importance of federalism is that it allows fiscal autonomy for local governments. The positive side of this particular aspect is that the country’s wealth will be more evenly distributed among the state governments. Lots of people also go to Metro Manila to find stable jobs and establish businesses. 

Federalism, if it leads to economic improvement for the autonomous regions, might lead to more job opportunities and business investments outside Metro Manila. Now that you know the perceived positive effects and merits of federal government, is federalism good for the Philippines?

There is an ongoing debate in the Philippines if federalism is good or bad for the country as it is being pushed by President Rodrigo Duterte. 

A federal government will divide the Philippines into states with the national government focused on nationwide issues such as foreign policy and national defense. The autonomous regions or states will then be divided further into local government units that will have primary accountability for their respective territory’s safety, security, transportation, education, healthcare, culture, recreation and industry. 

However, critics say that there are possible some negative effects if the country adopts a federal form of government. One way to form an opinion about this is to know the cons of federalism and learn about its dangers and negative side. 

Here are five reasons used by those who are against Duterte’s agenda – why federalism is not good in the Philippines.

1. It might create further division and rivalries. Federalism could create a healthy competition among states but one negative effect of this system is that it could lead to more rivalries and worse disunity among the Filipino people. Decentralization of local governments might also worsen hostilities among ethnic groups, according to critics. 

2. Some states might lag behind. An argument used to explain why federalism is bad – in the Philippines, there are some states that are probably not as ready to be autonomous compared to other states, which would create a lot of problems. Those who are against federalism say that the states that would perform poorly – probably those that lack natural resources and skilled laborers – under a federal government would be in worse condition than before because the national government would not be there to balance the situation and help out with their predicaments. 

3. Jurisdiction issues. A federal constitution might create a lot of confusion for both the citizens and the governments. The amended constitution has to specify clearly the duties and obligations of the local governments and the national government in order to prevent chaos and confusion in running the country. 

4. Big costs. One of the arguments against federalism is that transforming the government into a federal system of government is going to be expensive. In order to transform our government into a federation, we would have to spend billions of pesos in setting up federal states and delivering their services. The autonomous states will also have to spend a lot of money just to set up and conduct elections for their new officials. 

5. The Islamic separatists might continue to wreak havoc. Some of the radical Islamic separatists want to have their own country and not just a state. In our country’s history, the formation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, known as ARMM, did not stop some of the terror groups from causing chaos and death in the country. Now that you know the perceived bad effects, drawbacks and negatives of federal system, it would be easier to have an opinion on whether to support Duterte’s federalism or not. 

If it ain’t broke, why fix it? 

This is a question some pundits posed when President Duterte started tinkering with the Constituton of the Republic of the Philippines.

The Chief Executive believes— he’s adamant—the country’s problem lies in the way government is formed. And, hence, Duterte advanced that abandoning the unitary form of government in favor of federalism would address perennial poverty and economic inequity.

A federalism advocate, however, thinks doing so isn’t enough.

“The antidote is federalism because the essence of federalism is nonconcentration of powers,” retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno said in a speech to explain his vote on July 3, the day the Constitutional Committee (Con-Com) he headed for the past six months adopted the proposed federal charter. “In contrast to unitarianism, federalism is not just delegation of powers but equitable distribution of the powers of government between the federal government and the governments of the constituent regions.”

Our federalist form of government has several advantages, such as protecting us from tyranny, dispersing power, increasing citizen participation, and increasing effectiveness, and disadvantages, such as supposedly protecting slavery and segregation, increasing inequalities between states, states blocking national policies, and racing to the bottom in terms of how they treat their citizens.

Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? I believe so. I support the system of federalism, agreeing with the benefits, and doing my best to give counterarguments to the disadvantages, in order to negate them. All in all, I think our system is superior even to the parliamentary and cabinet system found in the United Kingdom, as well the confederation system found in Canada, as well as the one preceding our present system.