PRACTIFUCKIBILITY NEGATIVE

“Philippines is in its transitional period therefore, there is a need for a change in the Constitution.”

The main meat of the discussion on whether we should adopt federalism or not is that shifting to
federalism will empower local governments to facilitate faster delivery of basic services necessary
and appropriate to their respective constituents. This is viewed by the proponents of a federal structure
of government as the formula to surge economic development and alleviate poverty. The current
administration passionately believes that this will finally solve the “Imperial Manila” laments of the
“probinsyanos”, specifically the Southerners, and the armed conflict in Mindanao. However, the fact
that federal system is actually a state-building effort is not always mentioned.

Previous legislators have responded to unsustainable and staggering economic development by

enacting the Local Government Code in 1991, which, in a manner, a federal system. We can see that
despite the mitigated unitarism for the past two decades, it is not the nature of a system of government
that causes it to fail, rather it is the people who operate the system. By merely changing the system of
government without changing the people, we cannot expect a different positive result.

The weak points in the proposed system are as follows:

First, economically backward provinces or regions would have to be dependent on equalization

payments from richer areas one. The locally-generated funds of some municipalities are still small and
are still dependent on the IRA for their operations.

Second, as many as 70 percent of Filipino politicians are connected to dynasties who were able to
perpetuate themselves in power and amass vast wealth through corruption. Imagine how much more
influence and wealth will these dynasties monopolize if more powers from the national government
are devolved and handed over to their control.

Finally, this is not a silver bullet solution to the armed uprisings in Mindanao as what many would
envision because the Moro’s want a separate nation, not autonomy.

In the list of what can make our country better at this time, given the prevailing political culture, our
need for laws to fight corruption ranks much higher in importance and urgency than the need to shift
to a federal system of government. Federalism will not yield positive results for the country at this time.
Federalism will not solve poverty and inequality, simply because it does not touch the real center. It
only redraws the periphery. What we need at this time is to allow well-meaning citizens a chance at
public service, instead of allowing government positions to be the birthright of de facto royal dynasties.
Besides, the local autonomy is yet to find a firm ground in the overall administration of government.
Even the promise to eradicate crime, drugs and corruption in three to six months can hardly happen if
there is no central authority.

At the very least, strengthened anticorruption instruments must first be in place before any shift to a
federal system of government is undertaken. These are indispensable preconditions for a federal
system of government to function for the people’s welfare.

The forms and structures of governments, should be born out of the unique experience and history of
the nation and not to be patterned from foreign structures and expect the same outcome. As what
political analysts would say“we should not repeat the haste under pressure in making our present
(1987) Constitution.”

Bottomline, under ideal political conditions, a federal system of government may be better than a
unitary form of government. Unfortunately, we are not under ideal political conditions.