Federalism is doing well not only in the United States but also in our close neighbor

in southeastern Asia, Malaysia whose people can be comparable to the Filipinos in

culture, outlook and ways of looking at government. Federalism can assure for us an
authentic and really working local autonomy, not the same old pretension of
devolution today, where major and even tactical decisions are all done in the
imperialistic Metro Manila. The southern regions today are still marginalized
considering that most of the powerful officials are from Luzon.

Today, the president, the vice president, the speaker of the House, the chief justice
and most of the fifteen Supreme Court justices are from Luzon. Most of the cabinet
members are from Luzon. Military officials, bureau directors are almost all from
Luzon. The Visayas and Mindanao citizens are only relied upon as taxpayers, and as
sources of food supplies, mining products, and suppliers of cheap labor both in the
domestic and global labor markets. Even the commanding generals of the army, the
navy, and the air force are all from the north.

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.

Federalism will result to friendly "coopetition" or "cooperative competition," as well

as synergy and mutual reinforcement. Mayor Duterte is making waves because of
the vast potentials of federalism, his top advocacy.

For many countries, such as the United States, Malaysia, Australia and Germany,
federalization was actually a state-building effort. Each began as a loose collection
of disparate political entities that gradually, and with painful upheavals,
transformed themselves into a unified nation-state through the process of
federalization.

It would essentially be the reverse in our case. Consequently, we face a much harder, more
complicated, and possibly harsher version of federalization. It is thus disconcerting that
purported advocates of federalism seem oblivious to the gravity of this sociopolitical reform.
They quickly harp on the promise of enhanced local autonomy without even considering the
readiness of the local leadership to assume the big responsibility of local governments under
federalism, as if the fitness of the current crop for this form of government were already a given.
Note that one of the most important lessons in the discourse on the proposed Bangsamoro Basic
Law is the recognition of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as a failed experiment.
The lesson being: Increasing the autonomy of local governments will ultimately amount to
nothing if local leaders are incompetent and incapable of properly utilizing expanded powers and
resources.
In fact, the overdependence of local government executives on the Internal Revenue Allotment
and the continued existence of central-government largesse, or pork barrel funds, signify the
stark reality that the development perspective of local leaders has not reached the level of
sophistication necessary to sustain a federal government structure.
Political dynasties constitute the unequivocal proof that the quality of our local leaders is still
below par as far as federalism is concerned. According to a groundbreaking study by the Asian
Institute of Management Policy Center in 2012 titled An Empirical Analysis of Political
Dynasties in the 15th Philippine Congress, lower standards of living, lower human
development, and higher levels of deprivation and inequality persist in the communities
governed by political dynasties.
It would thus not be unfounded to conclude that federalizing with political dynasties still firmly
entrenched in power would actually condemn the affected communities to perpetual poverty. It
would certainly be justified to be concerned that federalizing with the quality of local leadership
still at an untenable state would only make socioeconomic development more inequitable than it
is. With these trepidations in mind, it is indeed very difficult to conceive of Filipinos as primed
and ready for federalism.
Still I maintain that the switch to a federal form of government is a constitutional reform that we
can all rally behind. But we have to disabuse ourselves of the idea that the switch will be as
effortless as turning on a light switch.
Indeed, the primary task in the pursuit of this goal is to improve the quality of local leadership.
Ardent believers of federalism can actively push for the enactment of these pieces of legislation:
the Anti-Political Dynasty Law, the Freedom of Information Act and the Political Party
Development Act of 2014.

There are other ways of uplifting leadership standards for our governors and mayors.
Nevertheless, these three laws are particularly vital because they impose structural reforms that
can instigate drastic improvements to the way local governance is currently conceived and
delivered.
However, I must emphasize, too, that the transition to federalism also requires the elevation of
the electorate to a higher level of political consciousness. First and foremost, Filipinos must have
a clear understanding of what this massive sociopolitical undertaking entails. And the best way to
commence with this task is to abandon the populist approach that some supporters of federalism
are taking.
The obvious danger here is that rhetoric and sound bytes, while good for catching the medias
attention, could make a caricature of the advocacy and thus diminish its potency.
I suggest a clinical and academic approach that would facilitate a circumspect and level-headed
discussion on federalization among all sectors of Philippine society. Accordingly, I envisage a
community congregation organized for such a purpose through the barangay-assembly apparatus
and moderated by genuine promoters of federalization.
Admittedly, dissecting the intricacies of federalism does not exactly fall within the powers of the
barangay assembly under the Local Government Code (LGC). But this mechanism is still the
most convenient way to gather ordinary citizens and give them the opportunity to speak out and
be heard. After all the LGC itself considers the barangay a forum wherein the collective views
of the people may be expressed, crystallized and considered.
The desired result is for all Filipinos between Batanes and Tawi-Tawi to see themselves not as
passive observers in the sidelines but as continuing stakeholders in the establishment of
federalism in the country.
Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a practicing lawyer, is the author of the book Rethinking the
Bangsamoro Perspective. He conducts research on current issues in state-building,
decentralization and constitutionalism.

Understanding federalism
0
0
0
Share

Elfren S. Cruz (The Philippine Star) - May 22, 2016 - 12:00am

Although the topic of federalism has been discussed since the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
there are still many areas that are not clear even to political analysts. In the interest of full
disclosure, I will state now that I have always been in favor of a federal system of government
and I have written several columns in the past about this topic. However, today I want to focus
on clarifying certain issues.
There is a wrong impression that the choice is between a unitary form of government which we
have now and a federal form of government. There are actually three choices for forms of
government unitary, federal, confederate. Federalism is actually the middle choice between
centralization and confederation.
In a unitary form of government, there is one level of government the national government. All
other forms of government are subordinate to the central government.
In both federalism and confederalism, there are two levels of government. In a confederation,
however, the central government is subordinate to the regional governing bodies. In a federal
form of government, there is a clear division of authority between national government and the
state or regional government. The central government will remain more powerful than the state
because of its authority over national concerns.
For example, in a federal government, the national government retains sole power in the areas of
foreign affairs, national defense, monetary and fiscal policies and constitutional issues. The
central government will, therefore, continue to have sole power to make treaties, control the
armed forces, and a common currency. The Constitutional bodies will remain Supreme Court,
Central Bank, and Comelec.
A brief look at American history might shed some light on this issue. The original United States
was actually a confederation of 13 states. When the US Constitution was being drafted, a
Federalist Party was organized to support a stronger central government while maintaining the 13
states. A group called the Anti-Federalists wanted a weaker central government. The final US
Constitution invoked federalism which was considered as being in the middle of the political
spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary government.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) was between the South who wanted a confederacy and the
North who wanted to retain the federal union. That is the reason why the Southern states that
seceded from the United States of America called themselves the Confederate States of America.
The other issue that must be clarified is that the choice of having a presidential and parliamentary
form of government is a different debate than choosing a unitary or federal government. Just for
emphasis, a parliamentary or presidential form of government can be instituted in a federal,
unitary or confederate form of government.

There are also three choices that are available parliamentary, presidential and a combination of
the two. United States is an example of a presidential form; Japan and the United Kingdom have
a parliamentary form; and, France has a combination of both presidential and parliamentary.

Division of powers
In a federal form of government, the constitution must prevail. Therefore, the division of powers
between the federal and regional form of governments must be clearly stated in the constitution.
The constitution must also provide for powers that are not explicitly stated in the constitution. In
Germany and the United States, the powers that are not specifically granted to the federal
government are retained by the states. Other countries, like Canada and India, are different in
that powers not explicitly given to the states are retained by the federal government.
In the granting of powers to the state, there are also two ways. If all the states have the same
powers, this is called symmetric federalism. In a federal form of government where some
states are given different powers or some possess greater autonomy, this is called asymmetric
federalism. This is often done when it is clear that a state or region possess a distinct culture. In
the case of the United Kingdom, Scotland has been given greater autonomy than England, Wales
or Northern Ireland. In Spain the regions dominated by the Basques and the Catalans have more
powers than the other Spanish regions.
In the division of powers, India has four lists of powers Union List, Concurrent List, State List,
and Residuary List. I am not advocating that we copy the India model. But I am presenting it
here as a possible basis for discussion.
In the Union List, there are approximately 100 areas which is reserved for the federal
government. Some of the areas are defense, armed forces, atomic energy, foreign affairs,
citizenship, airways, currency, foreign trade, inter- state trade and commerce, banking, customs,
elections and the Supreme Court.
In the State List, there are more than 60 items on the list. Some examples are police, local
governments, public health and sanitation, land tenures, fisheries, trade and commerce within the
state, public markets and gambling.
The Concurrent List has more than 50 items where uniformity is desired but not considered
essential. If there is any conflict between the laws made by the federal and state government, the
legislation by the federal government shall prevail. Some items on this list are criminal law,
marriage and divorce, adoption, forestry, labor unions, education, administration of justice except
Supreme Court and High Courts.
In the United States, the federal government sets the minimum wage but the individual states
have the right to enact its own minimum wage which, however, must be higher than the federal
minimum wage.

The shift to federalism, even with Charter change, will be an evolving process and not an
overnight change as some people wrongly envision. Even in the United States, the delineation of
powers between the national and the state governments is continuously changing.
There are advantages and disadvantages to instituting federalism in the Philippines. There will be
losers and winners in any shift to a different form of government. So we need to have a vigorous
national debate. But the first step is to understand what federalism really means and while
Charter change will formalize the structure, the process of federalizing can actually begin
without Charter change.
- See more at: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/05/22/1585630/understanding-federalism#sthash.snJcj8gt.dpuf

Why Federalism may not be good for the Philippines

Federalism for the Philippines is an idea thrown around a lot these days, given the
popularity of Duterte and his staunch support of it. But do we really know what it
means? And is it really what we need?

Xenon Lequin

Recommend
Recommend this story!

Many ideas are floating around on the internet from supporters of Duterte about the merits of
federalism for our country. And the principal reason for their support is that federalism
supposedly promotes more equitable distribution of government revenues under a scheme of
"what they collect, they keep," as compared to our current system, where major tax revenues are
centrally administered at the national level. The current system, they allege, is biased towards
NCR when allocating resources, to the detriment of the other provinces and regions. To sum up
their argument: when taxes are administered at the "state" level in a federal system, the LGUs

and municipalities will have more funds available to them compared to what they are getting in
the current system.
However, supporters of federalism appear to be missing many points relevant to any kind of such
move. I'm afraid even they themselves are not aware of the full effects of such a transition and
what it would mean for our country. I'm not even sure if many of them realize what the true
definition of federalism is, aside from vaguely understanding it as "autonomous independent
states under one federal governing body." If we look into the question more closely, we will find
that the issues are more complex than they suppose, and the cause and effects are not as
straightforward as they seem, as there are "hidden" (hidden only for the less informed) factors
that would have to be considered.
In the following items, I seek to expound why I do not support federalism, and the reasons and
factors that led to my stance:
1. Federalism does not necessarily solve the issue of unequal distribution of government
revenues, and may potentially worsen it.
It is not as if all the revenues in the current system are being swallowed by NCR and surrounding
regions, to the detriment of the remote provinces, as many federalism supporters will claim. A
large part of the national revenues still go back to the LGUs through a standardized formula as
the IRA (internal revenue allotment). The IRA system is actually a way to redistribute income
from the wealthier communities to the less wealthier ones: for small municipalities, IRA
allocation may finance a greater part of their budget compared to highly urbanized areas.
Because the highly urbanized areas have greater revenues from other sources, more of their
budget can be financed with these other sources. In the current scheme, it is actually the
"generosity" of the larger cities which contribute to the development of the smaller communities.
If all tax revenues were kept at the point they originated, we might actually see the wealthier
municipalities getting more income and the poorer ones getting less, resulting in a worsening
wealth concentration problem.
While it is true that some of the budget are still allocated at the national level (by NEDA, for
example, which is headed by the president), it is not as if the process is wholly arbitrary and
inherently biased towards NCR. NEDA has regional offices, which can propose projects for their
regions, for the consideration of the national government. There may be perceived "biases"
towards the highly metropolitan areas, but this may simply be because these are the areas where
the funds spent could generate higher returns. Obviously, metropolitan areas have more people
and more businesses, and thus need more infrastructure and support. It should not be
surprising for us that many of the highly visible projects are there. But if the regions can make a
good case for projects on their locations, they should be able to make a proposal for it and

escalate it to the proper local/regional/national agency for prioritization and inclusion in the
budget.
With the above, I believe that the current system is theoretically sound and overall does not need
a drastic revision (such as shift to federalism). If you feel that your town/province/region is not
getting a lot of projects right now, I don't think it is a problem with the budgeting and income
distribution framework. It is more likely because some official is embezzling the funds for your
town, or the development officials in your region are sleeping on their jobs. In these cases, it is
a problem with the officials; change government structures and systems all you want; if it is the
same corrupt, lazy and incompetent people running the show, nothing will change.
So, do we need federalism to promote equitable distribution of revenues? It does not seem so.
The current system actually looks good in structure, but what we urgently need is to implement
an effective framework or mechanism of oversight, accountability and transparency to ensure
that our resources are being used fairly and equitably. Also, the structure of government should
be conducive to transparency and efficiency. Will implementing the federal structure result in
more transparency and efficiency? I think not, as I will discuss in item 3 below.
2. Overall, Federalism would increase the cost of administration and government.
Duterte's supporters often speak of federalism, but I honestly don't have the vaguest idea of how
specifically they want to implement federalism in our country. I have not seen anything that
would describe Duterte's vision of federalism; but, assuming that we will draw from the US as an
example, I believe the key features to identify such a government would be as follows:
a. Each state will have its own executive department which will carry out the functions of the
government such as taxation, administration of basic services, budgeting, etc.
b. To check on the power of the executive department, each state should have a legislative
department. This department is responsible for drafting the basic laws of the state, and for
checks-and-balance functions such as approving the state budget drawn up primarily by the
executive.
c. I think you know where this is going, but yes, since each state will have its own state-specific
laws, there should be a state-specific judicial department which is responsible for interpreting the
laws developed by the state legislature.
Whereas previously, the structure of the Philippine government is as follows:
National government > Provincial governments > City/municipality governments > Barangays
Under federalism, it would now look like the following:

National government > State government > Provincial governments > City/municipality
governments > Barangays
Stating the obvious, the state government needs money to pay for its officials and its
infrastructure. How would the state government get this money? You got it: more taxes, fees and
debt. State taxation is actually also a feature of federalism as implemented in the US.
It thus seems that proponents of federalism are pushing it supposedly to make more funds
available for their regions and municipalities, but they have failed to consider the incremental
and continuing costs of running this type of government, and the potential additional burden to
citizens in the form of higher taxes.
3. A larger government is not conducive to transparency and efficiency
A large and bloated government is not only costly, as discussed above, but can also be difficult to
oversee, unwieldy and inefficient. Our objective in the Philippines should be to reduce red tape
and bureaucracy and streamline the government, not to bloat it further by adding an additional
layer.
Most modern, innovative businesses make a good case for streamlined, compact organizations.
For example, in my current organization, there are only 6 levels from the bottom to the top. The
advantage of this is that decisions are made faster and more efficiently (lesser approvals going
up) and top level management have a better grasp of what is occurring at all levels, including the
grassroots (better oversight).
In a compact organization, you would need less resources to control the activities of each of the
members, to ensure that each member is working within established rules or limits (in another
analogy to business, smaller internal audit/operational risk management group). As the size and
complexity of an organization grows, it becomes more difficult to identify and root out offending
members, and accountability also becomes an issue (with more people, it is harder to identify
who is responsible for what). This is precisely the current state of the Philippines.

To sum up, there is no assurance that LGUs and regions will receive more funding under a
federal system compared to our present system. What is likely to happen instead is that the
revenues of high income communities/regions will rise further, and those regions who have
lower revenue generating capacity may have their funding reduced.r Also, federalism (if
implemented in the way I described above) will impose additional governing costs and
inefficiency, since it adds a new layer of government, and each state will have its own set of
governing bodies and functions independent of other states. Also, taxes will be imposed at both

national and state levels. Finally, the Philippines should be working towards having a more
streamlined and transparent government, but implementing federalism seems to be a step
backwards on this.
What we need to resolve our fundamental governance problems are measures that
enhance transparency, accountability and efficiency of our government, and not a
mere change in the government structure.

DAVAO CITY, PhilippinesThe argument for federalism has not changeda centralized form
of government leads to neglect of areas far from the seat of power.
This was stressed through a question by Leoncio Evasco, mayor of Maribojoc town, Bohol
province, who supports the move to federalism now being espoused by his friend, Davao City
Mayor Rodrigo Duterte.
Have you ever been to Don Marcelino town, Davao del Sur, at the height of the Disbursement
Acceleration Program (DAP) and Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scandal?
ADVERTISEMENT
Evasco raised the question to stress the need to shift to a federal form of government. He
answered it himself.
If only youve been to the national highway of Don Marcelino town on the way to Jose Abad
Santos town at the height of the discussions of the DAP, then youd understand why Mindanao
leaders are pushing for the federal form of government, said Evasco, also a former aide of
Duterte.
The roads are so difficult and yet in Manila, you keep hearing about the DAP and the PDAF,
said Evasco.
They are stealing all the money and then you ask: What are they doing with all the money when
we still have a national road like this? Evasco said.
Duterte, who was a guest at an event sponsored by Federal Movement for a Better Philippines in
Cebu City, has been pushing for federalism as one of the solutions to the problems besetting
Mindanao.
Evasco was quick to say Dutertes push for federalism doesnt have anything to do with a
campaign to push the Davao City mayor to run for president in 2016.
Those are two different things, Evasco said, adding that Duterte had consistently rejected calls
for him to run for president.

Although the federalism issue crops up only when the election season draws near as a side issue
of politics, Evasco said the federal form of government would be more effective in dealing with
problems peculiar to Mindanao compared with a centralized form of government.
In the Cebu forum, Duterte raised the possibility of creating a federal state, called the
BangsaTausug, to appease the group of Moro National Liberation Front chair Nur Misuari.
Misuari, according to Duterte, does not see eye to eye with the other Mindanao ethnic groups
that would govern the Bangsamoro entity if it was passed by Congress under a peace agreement
between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Aquino administration.
Evasco said that with Duterte pushing for the federal form of government, he hoped that the
proposal would catch fire.
We all know that Mindanao produces as much as 60 percent of the gross domestic product but
only about 40 percent returns to it in terms of services, Evasco said. Germelina Lacorte,
Inquirer Mindanao
Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/643859/argument-for-federalism-manila-stealsfunds#ixzz4AdEgZgyE
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

I will post this comment again, three point response from one of my fellows:
1. Federalism is not solely about equal distribution of revenues. It's about the ability to decide and control the development of a region without having to rely on the decision of the national government. That a national government has a say on a regional development is a point of corruption/ineffectiveness. First, it can be used as a political tool. Second, in theory NEDA personnel could ask for grease money in order for a project to be approved. Third, NEDA do not simply see the urgency the way locals see it.
2. Federalism probably would increase the cost of government. But i f the results will be good then the cost of government is peanuts compared to what can be gained. For one thing, unitary government has not been good with us. It even produced a dictator, which is a huge tendency for a unitary government.
I would like to correct the level of government: Federal government > State or Provincial (regions bunched together) > City/municipality > Barangays
3. State government is more transparent and responsive to local people. They know who their leader is, they know where he/she's from. The people can demand to their state government with more ease compared to demanding to a president.
Under a unitary governm ent, transparency and accountability will never succeed for the Philippines. Several decades of unitary government has proven that. Unitary is despotic by nature and easy to corrupt. And every year it is getting worse.

Pass BBL in 2 years; make Bangsamoro pilot for federalism

By Carolyn O. Arguillas on April 23 2016 11:21 am
DAVAO CITY (MindaNews /23 April) A Moro civil society leader said the Bangsamoro
Basic Law (BBL) needs to be passed not later than two years from now in accordance with the
Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), to allow for the establishment of the
new Bangsamoro political entity that can be the pilot project for the shift to a federal form of
governemnt.
Guiamel Alim, executive director of Kadtuntaya Foundation and a member of the Council of
Elders of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society (CBCS) told a press conference here
Friday that the BBL has to be passed within this period as the CAB provides for a transition
period of at least one year for the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) that would prepare for
the establishment of the Bangsamoro, the new autonomous political entity that would replace the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

IN TWO YEARS. Guiamel Alim, executive director of the Kadtuntaya Foundation and a member
of the Council of Elders of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society tells a press conference
on 22 April at the Ateneo de Davao University that the Bangsamoro Basic Law needs to be
passed not later than two years from now in accordance with the peace agreement between
the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. MindaNews photo by TOTO LOZANO
Under the CAB, the ARMM is deemed abolished upon the ratification of the BBL. The BTA then
takes over until the first elected officials in the Bangsamoro political shall have assumed their
post during the inauguration of the new Bangsamoro political entity.
Congress adjourned on February 3 without passing the BBL, paving the way for the holding of
elections in the ARMM on May 9. Under the law, each ARMM administration has a three-year
term of office. The next ARMM election is in May 2019 if the next Congress does not pass the
BBL again.
A reporter asked if the peace groups that gathered here for a symposium dubbed TItayan:
Bridging for Peace (Inclusive Political Transitions in the Bangsamoro) are planning to make a
barangay as a pilot project for the implementation of the CAB.
Mindanaos lone Cardinal, Orlando Quevedo said there are candidates who are advocating
federalism but federalism is a long-term project as it involves amending the 1987 Constitution.
PILOT. Cardinal Orlando B. Quevedo, OMI, tells a press conference at the Ateneo de Davao
University on 22 April that federalism is a long-term project as it involves amending the 1987
Constitution but
the Bangsamoro which is going to adopt a parliamentary system of government, can be a pilot
project. MindaNews photo by TOTO LOZANO
What we would like is begin with a pilot project not a barangay but the Bangsamoro
territory. If it succeeds, then perhaps all the others would say ah dapat ganyan, more power
more autonomy sa mga provinces we hope that this will happen, Quevedo, the Archbishop of
Cotabato and lead convenor of Friends of Peace, said.
The proposed Bangsamoro is adopting a parliamentary system of government.
Alim said the shift to federalism may not come soon. I dont think that will happen very soon..
it will take time before we can change the Constitution.
But he said the idea of making the Bangsamoro region as an example is possible because you
know the system that is being adopted in the CAB is more of a federal type of government.. than
presidential.

If this works then we can improve on it, if this is the way we think can help the country. But for
now, federalism is only in the mind. There are so many things to consider in adopting
federalism, he said: geographical cohesion and competence of l local government units (LGUs).
What are the geographical boundaries in creating these federal states. Two is the competence of
LGUs without which we will be creating only a layer of bureaucracy like what is happening
today, Alim said.
He explained that the ARMM is merely a layer of bureaucracy between the national government
and the local government units (LGUs). This is a government that has no oversight over LGUs
and so it is an intermediary organization, not helping so much and I think this is why the (phrase)
failed experiment was coined because it is not responding positively to the needs on the
ground.
The lone Presidential candidate advocating a change in the system of government from the
present unitary, Presidential form to a federal system is Presidential frontrunner and Davao city
Mayor Rodrigo Duterte.
In his visit to the MILFs Camp Darapanan, Sultan Kudarat in Maguindanao morning of
February 27 and in his rally in Cotabato City in the afternoon, Duterte said that if he wins the
Presidency, he would push for the passage of the BBL and make the Bangsamoro an example for
the rest to follow under a federal system of government.
At the MILF camp, Duterte told MILF officials led by Ghazali Jaafar that he would convene a
Constitutional Commission to amend the 1987 Constitution to change the system of government
into federalism but if it takes time, and if only to defuse tension, in my government I will
convince Congress to pass the BBL then make it as a template for federal states.
At the Cotabato City plaza, Duterte said there is a need to correct the historical injustices
committed against the Moro people and vowed that under his administration, we will try to go
federalism.
Yang Bagsamoro sa mapa ngayon, wag nang galawin yan. Gawin na lang nating example na
makopya sa lahat. Ang mangyayari nito, uunahin ko na lang pakiusapan ko ang Congress na we
will pass the BBL (The Bangsamoro on the map now, lets not touch that anymore. Lets make it
an example for the rest to copy. I will immediately ask Congress to pass the BBL).
He said he will also tell Nur Misuari kopyahin na lang natin sila para sa Mindanao at buong
Pilipinas (lets copy that for Mindanao and the rest of the Philippines). Misuari, whom Duterte
considers a friend, is founding chair of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) with whom

government signed a Final Peace Agreement in 1996 and whose implementation has yet to be
fully completed.
The Friends of Peace had earlier invited Presidential candidates to a dialogue on their peace
agenda. Duterte confirmed attendance to the February 12 Conversations with Presidential
Candidates on the Bangsamoro Peace Process at the Waterfront Insular Hotel in Davao City.
Duterte, however, fell ill during an engagement in Manila the afternoon before and was advised
by doctors to rest. He sent his City Administrator, Melchor Quitain.
Quevedo told the Titayan symposium on April 21 that administration bet Mar Roxas met with
the Friends of Peace in Cotabato City on March 31 and talked about continuing the peace agenda
of the Aquino administration.
He said Senate President Franklin Drilon, who accompanied Roxas, said they will pass a BBL
different from the House or the Senate versions that they deliberated on within 360 working
days from the start of the next administration.
Drilon is seeking reelection.
Quevedo said there were schedule problems in the Conversations with the other Presidential
candidates Vice President Jejomar Binay, Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Grace Poe.
(Carolyn O. Arguillas / MindaNews)

Read more http://www.mindanews.com/top-stories/2016/04/23/pass-bbl-in-2-yearsmake-bangsamoro-pilot-for-federalism/

'Federalism hope for peace'

BANGSAMORO CIVILIANS VOW
TO PROTECT DUTERTE VOTES
By Manny Piol
Frustrated and disappointed over the "death" of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), Muslims of
the Southern Philippines are rooting for Presidential frontrunner Rody Duterte because his
advocacy on Federalism could yet prove to be the best hope for peace.
While most of the traditional political leaders in the region have pledged support to other
candidates, the Bangsamoro civil society and civilian leaders said they will "offer their lives" to

protect Duterte's votes from an area notorious for rigging elections in favour of administration
candidates.
Appearing as guest in yesterday's "Mindanao, Panahon Na!' program aired over seven radio
stations all over Central Mindanao, lawyer Ranibai Dilangalen, said the Federal system of
government which Duterte proposes is acceptable to most Bangsamoro leaders in view of the
thrashing of the BBL.
While she admitted that supporters of the BBL in the Bangsamoro community, especially the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), were deeply hurt and disappointed by the failure of the
administration of President Aquino to pass the BBL, Dilangalen said they are pinning their hopes
on Duterte to bring about peace in the Southern Philippines.
"The Federal system of government which he (Duterte) advocates is acceptable to the
Bangsamoro and because of that we are going to support his candidacy," she said.
"We have already talked to the traditional political leaders and asked them to respect the will of
the Bangsamoro people in this election," Dilangalen said when asked how the civilian leaders
would protect Duterte's votes.
In the Federal System of government which Duterte and the stalwarts of his party, PDP Laban,
are advocating, the Muslims of the Philippines, with an estimated population of about 12-million,
are promised two Federal States - one of the Bangsamoro tribes in the main island of Mindanao
and another for the seafaring tribes in Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-tawi.
The rest of the areas of the country will also be Federalised with highly autonomous states very
much like the proposed Bangsamoro State under the BBL but without the proposed autonomous
police force and armed forces.
There is no exact data on the number of Bangsamoro voters in the Philippines but estimates say
there are between 4 to 5 million who have registered to vote in the coming elections, including
those living in Metro Manila and other parts of the country.
Fiercely clannish, the votes of Muslims of the Southern Philippines have proved to be pivotal in
many close elections in the past.
Muslim votes were a critical factor in narrow victory scored by President Fidel V. Ramos over
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago in 1992 and in 2004 when President Gloria MacapagalArroyo squeaked past actor Fernando Poe Jr. in an election which was widely believed to have
been rigged.

Dilangalen said that in addition to the very appealing Federalism advocacy of Duterte, his blood
ties to the Bangsamoro have made him an emotional favorite for the Muslims of the Philippines.
Duterte traces his maternal roots to a grandmother who was a full-blooded Maranao, one of the
Muslim tribes in the Southern Philippines.
A victory by Duterte in May would make him the first President of the Philippines to come from
Mindanao and the first to have a Bangsamoro blood.
Duterte's fair treatment of the Muslims in Davao City, even at the height of the war between the
government and Moro rebel groups, has endeared him to the Bangsamoro.
He appointed Deputy Mayors representing the different Moro and indigenous tribes in his city
and worked for the passage of an Anti-Discrimination ordinance which imposed stiff fines and
jail terms for those who will display biases against the Muslims and the tribes.
(Photo shows lawyer Ranibai Dilangalen in her appearance in the radio program "Mindanao,
Panahon Na!" Monday, John Pagaduan)