Last week, the University of the Philippines (UP) Alumni Association Inc., under the leadership of its president, Atty. Ramon Maronilla, organized a forum on federalism at the Bahay ng Alumni in UP Diliman.
Since federalism was the topic, it was no surprise that many UP alumni, officials, faculty, and students attended the forum. After all, President Rodrigo Duterte seems determined enough to replace the existing unitary government of the Philippines with a federal one.
Another reason for the success of the forum was the choice of speakers—ex-UP President Jose Abueva and retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza.
Dr. Abueva is a scholar on political issues, and Justice Mendoza is an acknowledged authority on Constitutional Law. Both are distinguished UP alumni.
Abueva declared that he favors retaining the existing unitary government, and that the solution to the nation’s social and political woes lies not in creating a federal government, but in putting up a parliamentary one, devoid of political dynasties. His disdain for political dynasties was well-received by the audience.
Justice Mendoza began his speech by stating that the proposal to create a federal government in the Philippines is fraught with dire consequences too serious to ignore.
Breaking up the country into eleven autonomous states, Mendoza said, is federalism in reverse procedure. He noted that existing federal governments throughout the world were formed when nations (not mere provinces or political regions) agree to unite by surrendering part of their individual sovereignty, while retaining some degree of individual independence.
By way of example, Mendoza cited the United States of America which was formed when 13 population centers in North America simultaneously declared their independence from Great Britain, but eventually united as a federal nation when they realized that they had a better chance at defending their independence by force should the British try to reimpose their colonial authority on them.
Mendoza also cited the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia. Canada was established when its three provinces agreed to unite because they feared being overrun by American expansionism. For its part, Australia was established when its six population centers united for fear of conquest by Prussia, which manifested its presence in the Pacific, by Germany which occupied parts of nearby New Guinea, and by France which colonized neighboring New Caledonia.
The common denominator of those federal governments, Mendoza revealed, is the prior existence of distinct, autonomous communities, which eventually found a need to federalize in order to gain political or military strength. The Philippine attempt at federalism, Mendoza stressed, is the reverse—the fragmentation of an independent country into smaller, weaker, separate units.
To repeat, Mendoza predicted that the move towards federalism has dire consequences for the nation.
First, if the federal adventure fails, there will be no turning back. The component states that once made up the independent country called the Philippines will find themselves bereft of moorings. They will inevitably become weak entities and become easy prey to other nations.
Many analysts agree with Mendoza. So far, Communist China (which has seized Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea in violation of international law) and Malaysia (which tried to dismember the Philippines by its involvement in the now-defunct Bangsamoro Basic Law) have no regard for the territorial integrity of the Philippines. Imagine the island-seizing buffet Beijing and Kuala Lumpur will enjoy when the islands comprising what used to be the country called the Philippines become helpless “states.”
Second, the change in the political landscape of the Philippines will intensify existing regional differences, or even create differences where there are none. Past efforts at national unity will be put to naught.
Third, local tyrants or regional despots will arise in lieu of a national dictator. Right now, there are many warlords in Mindanao. What will happen when these warlords seize the reins of state government?
Mendoza also emphasized that even if the Philippines is an archipelago, this fact does not, by itself, warrant a federal government. He said that 2,000 of the 7,000 islands comprising the archipelago are uninhabited, and that the archipelago’s islands constitute one country that has fought wars under one flag and sings one anthem. Filipinos, Mendoza added, may speak different languages, but Filipinos have both a national language and English which allow them to communicate with one another.
While the country, Mendoza said, may have some isolated problems concerning diversity, the Constitution addresses that problem precisely by creating autonomous regions in the Cordilleras and in Muslim Mindanao.
Parenthetically, Mendoza mentioned that the Bangsamoro Basic Law failed to pass in the last Congress because many of its provisions were perceived to be unconstitutional for creating not an autonomous region but a Bangsamoro sub-state.
Mendoza acknowledged that the concentration of power in the national government is the main obstacle to the even development of the country. That notwithstanding, Mendoza maintained that the solution is the decentralization of the national government, not federalism.
Decentralization, Mendoza explained, is a managerial concept involving the delegation of administrative powers to local governments while keeping policy determination in the central government. Mendoza emphasized that decentralization has been the policy under all the operative charters of the Philippines, as seen in numerous laws, past and present, calling for more autonomy for local government units. He cited, among others, the Local Government Code of 1991 which allots to local government units an unprecedented bigger share in government revenues.
In fine, Mendoza warned against an unorthodox approach to a problem that can be addressed through conventional means, because radical solutions often give rise to other, more serious problems. His reference to what the constitutionalist Paul Freund once said is very timely—“if it isn’t necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
Explaining the passion and enthusiasm that attended his speech, Justice Mendoza lamented, “We already lost Sabah, and we are now losing Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea. I cannot allow any further dismemberment of the Republic.”