“The Good
and Bad of Federalism in the Philippines”
As defined, Federalism is a form of government in
which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal
status (1). Further,
it is a compound mode government, wherein it combines a general government (the
central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial,
state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a
single political system (2).
Advantages
of Federalism include the following:
1.
A federal government would enable the needs of a nation to be
achieved while providing a space for diversity. As a phrase goes, it provides
“unity in diversity”. The federal structure devises a flexible arrangement for
varying forms of self-government to suit different circumstances and
contingencies (3) .
2.
Federalism will respond to the demands of local leaders for their release
from the costly, time-consuming, stifling, and demoralizing effects of
excessive centralization and controls by the national government in the present
unitary system (4
) .
3. The
structures, processes, and responsibilities of the federation will challenge
and energize the people and their state and local governments. Such further
democratization will encourage creativity, initiative and innovation, spur
interstate competition, and foster state and local self-reliance instead of
continued dependency(4 ) .
4. A federal
system will greatly increase the capacity of the people and the government to
deal with the country’s problems because the removal of the centralized
structure that impose and sustain local dependence and stifle local initiative
and resourcefulness will provide greater freedom and home rule. Therefore, they
will be more interested in state and local governance because it is closer to
them and will deal with under-development – local poverty, unemployment,
injustice, inadequate social services and infrastructure, and low productivity(4
) .
On the other
hand, the following are the disadvantages of Federalism:
1. Tensions between territories may
arise. These were found in federalist countries such and federation as a
way to appease and quell military conflict has failed recently in places like Libya
or Iraq, while the formula is simultaneously proposed and dismissed in
countries such as Ukraine or Syria.[5]
2. States and
local governments can block important national policies such as civil rights. [6]
3. Allows the
power of local interests to go unchecked and allows big variations in how
people are treated [6]
4. States and
local governments may lack the necessary expertise and money to accomplish
important goals [6].
Philippines is composed of
numerous tribes. It is also an archipelagic country. In a sense, there are so
many differences in the culture and way of living of every region in the
country. There are religious differences, even though we are a predominantly
Christian Nation. These differences are the main causes of our internal
security problems. If we further dig in through the problems of our country,
most of our problems are caused by differences, injustices, poverty and
inefficient governance. As we have gone through the definition of
Federalism, advantages and disadvantages of Federalism, I can asses that there
is a need for us to check on our present form of government and further
study the possibility of having a Federal form of government for the
Philippines. I may be right in my own assessment. It is because in my twelve
(12) years as member of the AFP, I have been to most if not all the regions of
the country addressing internal security problems. I have seen the differences
among the cultures in our country. There are laws that cannot be applicable to
certain cultures and we cannot discount that these are the main reasons for
people or communities to rebel against the government. Some would claim that
these laws are crafted mostly for the Majority and as the saying goes “It is
still the law of the land”, but what about the minorities? Aren’t they
Filipinos too? Will federalism answer this question? I will leave these
questions for you to ponder.
1. Kenneth Wheare identified the
two levels of government in the US as 'co-equally supreme'. In this, he echoed
the perspective of the founding fathers of the Constitution, James Madison
in Federalist 39 having seen the several states as forming
'distinct and independent portions of the supremacy' in relation to the general
government. Wheare, Kenneth (1946) Federal Government, Oxford
University Press, London, pp. 10-15. Madison, James, Hamilton, Alexander and
Jay, John (1987) The Federalist Papers, Penguin, Harmondsworth, p.
258.
2. Law, John (2013) 'How Can We
Define Federalism?', in Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 5, No. 3,
pp. E105- http://www.on-federalism.eu/attachments/169_download.pdf
4. Abueva, Jose, Towards a Federal
republic of the Philippines with a Parliamentary Government by 2010 in “Towards
a Federal Republic of the Philippines with a Parliamentary Government by 2010:
A Draft Constitution”, Kalayaan College, Marikina City, 2002, pp. 5-6.
5. Why
Talk Federalism Won’t Help Peace in Syria Foreign Policy
6. 'The
Federal Experience in Yugoslavia', Mihailo Markovic, page 75; included in
'Rethinking Federalism: Citizens, Markets, and Governments in a changing
world', edited by Karen Knop, Sylvia Ostry, Richard Simeon, Katherine
Swinton|Google books
REFERENCES
-Abueva,
Jose, Towards a Federal republic of the Philippines with a Parliamentary
Government by 2010 in “Towards a Federal Republic of the Philippines with a
Parliamentary Government by 2010: A Draft Constitution”, Kalayaan College,
Marikina City, 2002
-Federalism by
Dr Patrick Scott
-Law, John
(2013) 'How Can We Define Federalism?', in Perspectives
on Federalism, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. E105-6. http://www.on- federalism.eu/attachments/169_download.pdf
