HEAD TO HEAD: GOVERNANCE: UNITARY VS FEDERAL - BY RONNEL TUMANGDAY &

ROY LAYOLA JR.

The System is often blamed for the many inefficiencies and problems faced by the
nation today. There have been numerous pleas for changing the way the
government is set up, mostly for reasons such as welfare and development. We pit
the Philippines current government setup against that of its major political
influence, the United States the federal system.
In the current state of the Philippines under the unitary system, a centralized form
of government that roots itself in Metro Manila, a shift to the federal system
probably making Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao states of their own can yield a lot
of changes for the dynamic of the country. Put the two against each other within the
context of the country and ask: which one gives a better edge?

The unitary system

The unitary system, which revolves around a central authority, is the system used in
most presidential and parliamentary countries today. Some refer to this type as a
top-to-bottom government since the power comes from the top and trickles down to
the bottom.
This central government is in fact in charge of policy making and is the ultimate law
making body in the land. In many cases like the Philippines, it delegates these
tasks to subsequent provincial and local government units. These units implement
enact laws as mandated by the central agency.
The main advantage of the unitary system is uniformity among the different local
and provincial governments. All major laws and policies are then implemented the
same regardless of the level of government.
Local and national disputes are also less frequent. Since the national government is
the ultimate governing body, local government units cannot enact their own laws
that could duplicate services or undermine laws in effect. Much like a father with
his family, it is the central governments house, so its rules must be followed.
The unitary system is not without skeletons in its closet. One huge problem with
this structure is that the central agency cannot tackle local problems head on. This
is a problem since upon being carried out by the local governments, specific needs
are easily overlooked in the smaller case analysis. Like a stressed, overloaded brain
of the human body, the higher government is not able to specifically address many
local issues as it tries to balance its many other responsibilities.
Local government units up to the provincial government may also be ill-equipped to
tackle local concerns. Since the national government deals with national problems
and is responsible for budgeting of sectors, it may allocate funds for bigger projects
and programs, leaving the local governments to fend for themselves.

The federal

HEAD TO HEAD: GOVERNANCE: UNITARY VS FEDERAL - BY RONNEL TUMANGDAY &

ROY LAYOLA JR.
Running a country is obviously not an easy thing to do. There is an economy to be
managed, international relations to be mended, projects to be implemented, and
problems to be solved. There is only so much a single governing body can handle,
and when macromanagement becomes too much for a single body to handle, its
time to divide and conquer. This is the essence of a federation.
Unlike a nation under a unitary form of government, a federal state is divided into
several smaller, self-governed states or regions. These states function almost like
independent countries, and may even have their own set of state-specific laws
same-sex marriage may be allowed in some but not in others, for example but are
directly concerned with nationwide issues such as national defense or foreign policy.
Those issues are handled by a central government, which acts like a governing body
of the smaller, state-governing bodies. The states and the central government
follow a set of rules and policies that define their relationship and what can and
cannot be done by both.
The federal type of governance has many advantages. Geoffrey de Q. Walker,
Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Queensland, explains some of these
advantages. One of these is the right of choice and exit by the citizens. A
federation citizen has greater freedom of choosing and moving to a state that he or
she considers satisfactory. In a sense, movement by citizens in-between states is
an act of voting with their feet, allowing people to compare different political
systems in the same country.
Another advantage is the possibility of experimentation. Though experimentation is
definitely not a pleasant word to hear for a leadership role where lives and
resources are at stake, the fact that states have some degree of autonomy allows
the central government to determine which political system, laws, and policies in
effect work positively and maximize welfare.
The third advantage according to Walker, and arguably also one of the most
important, is the accommodation of regional preferences and diversity. This
advantage holds much more significance in larger countries where culture and
lifestyles can differ across regions. By these means, overall satisfaction can be
maximized and the winner-take-all problem alleviated, particularly in policies
wherein the populaces opinions are divided. By not forcing culturally and ethnically
different people to make decisions that would go against their beliefs and opinion,
solidarity as a whole federation may be achieved.
However, a federation is not without its blemishes. Because each state government
has its own style of governance, citizens all over the federation will be experiencing
different levels of welfare. The competencies and efficiency of each state
government will also not be the same, potentially creating further disunity. A policy
exercised across different states may differ in magnitude, like penalties for criminal
offenses. Finally, there is always the possibility of disagreement and conflict
between state and central governments over authority and power.
The idea of a United States of the Philippines has fascinated several political
minds enough for them to fight for a conversion to the federal system. Back in

HEAD TO HEAD: GOVERNANCE: UNITARY VS FEDERAL - BY RONNEL TUMANGDAY &

ROY LAYOLA JR.
2008, the Senate proposed the Senate Joint Resolution 10, which called for a
convention for talks about the shifting of the Philippine government from a unitary
body to a federal one.
Final verdict
Though the federal system offers many attractive and highly applicable advantages,
its benefits are only realizable when properly implemented. The unitary form of
government still prevails because of several reasons. Everyone is treated equally,
and alienation brought on by decentralization is avoided. Rebellions and insurgency
cases may be reduced in a unitary system, as compared to a federal system.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the countrys current level of alleged
corruption and the existing inefficiencies in the whole system render a conversion to
federal system infeasible.
As appealing as the United States of the Philippines would sound, a conversion is
not applicable just yet, not until the people and the government itself are
prepared for the drastic change and the responsibilities brought on by doing so.