The concept of federalis—vesting the regions comprising this country with an almost complete set of self-governing powers—has been a part of the national political dialogue for most of the postwar era, rising or ebbing with the prevailing tenor of national politics. It has never gone away. Having been declared as a key element of the incoming Duterte administration’s political agenda, federalism is back again in the forefront of public discussion.
Mention of the word federalism immediately brings the Constitution to mind. Can the adoption of a federal form of government be affected by an action of the legislature, which Rodrigo Duterte now controls? The answer is No. A Constitutional amendment will be needed. Whether attempted through a Constitutional convention or through the Congress constituted as a constituent assembly, bringing federalism into this country’s political structure will be a very difficult proposition.
Without a doubt, federalism is a highly attractive idea. What could be better than citizens’ having their affairs administered by people familiar to and easily accessed by them rather than by bureaucrats sitting in offices in far-off Manila. Indeed, if there were a coin with the marking “Federalism” on one side, “Imperial Manila” would be the marking on the reverse side.
In support of their proposal, the incoming President and his fellow-federalists point to the countries that have federal-type governments. They point to, among others, Germany, Canada, Australia and Brazil. Of course, they also point to the most prominent federalist country of them all: the US. They highlight the fact that, except in the fields of foreign affairs, national defense and justice, the citizens of Nebraska, Bavaria, Quebec, Sao Paulo and Queensland are able to manage their affairs without dictation from Washington D.C. or Canberra or Berlin. In these countries the federalist experience has clearly been good.
It should be noted that all but one of the countries cited above are First World countries. In other countries the experience with federalism has, for one reason or another, not been conducive to a belief in the superiority of the federal type of government. Almost all these other countries are in the Third World.
One only has to mention the phrase ‘drug lords’ to show that the components of the Estado Federal de Mexico have been operating like mini-estates and have often thumbed their noses at the Federales in Mexico City. On the other hand, the continued existence of Malaysia as a federation has largely been made possible by the fact that the component states are kingdoms in their own right and the fact that Malaysian politics is virtually controlled by a single party (United Malay National Organization).
This raises three questions. Can federal-type government and political immaturity go together? Can a Third World government operate effectively in a situation where the country’s parts—especially the distant regions—are not subject to central-government decision-making? And is there a halfway house between federalism and the centralized-administration type of government?
My answer to the first question is No. it is my belief that federal-type government and political immaturity cannot, and do not, go together. It takes an educated, economically empowered and assertive citizenry to make decentralized government work.
To the second question, which is closely related to the first, my answer is, likewise, No. In this country there are examples of far-flung provinces being governed well, but the preponderance of experience in this regard has been unsatisfactory. This is particularly true of provinces that are controlled by political dynasties. The provinces where political dynasties rule were clearly indicated by the results of the recent election.
If the political dynasties can thrive and flex their muscles under the present structure of government, how much more powerful and controlling will they be if they are allowed to manage their affairs without dictation from Manila? Indeed, the political dynasties must at this time be licking their lips at the very thought of a shift to a federal form of government.
Under present political circumstances in this country, federalism and political dynasties go together. The time will come when a shift to federalism will be appropriate. That time, in my view, is not yet here.
As for Question No. 3, a shift to federalism is not the only way to vest the regions and provinces with greater control over their affairs and to correspondingly weaken the central government’s hold over them. Another way—one which will not require a Constitutional amendment—is to amend the Local Government Code of 1991 so as to increase and speed the access of the LGUs (local government units) to taxes collected within their borders. The Constitution mandates the immediate release to the LGUs of their shares of tax collections. The Department of Budget and Management has been violating this Constitutional mandate. Let the Duterte administration work for the speedy resolution by the Supreme Court of the long-pending case on this issue.
E-mail: rudyromero777@yahoo.com
