AFFIRMATIVE SPEECH ON FEDERALISM

Change is inevitable. Change is coming!

Good morning everybody. As the first speaker of the affirmative side, I am tasked to

present to everyone the proposition that will be debated today, tackle some issues why

the current government system is dissatisfying and of course, suffice everyone with

arguments detailing why there is a need to adopt federalism in our country.

Proposition: LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BE

CHANGED TO FEDERALISM

By changing the system of government to federalism means that a charter change will

be made through a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention for the adoption

of a federal-presidential form of government for the Philippines. The resolution will

revolve on the merits of the proposal of former senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr eyeing for

the creation of 11 federal states while keeping the presidential form of government and

increasing the number of elected senators.

The Philippines is currently under a unitary form of government – this means that the

central government is the highest governing power. It receives a large part of every

region’s income and redistributes it to LGUs. Moreover, the autonomous regions,

provinces, municipalities and barangays can only exercise powers and enact policies

that the central government chooses to delegate to them.

With these reasons, I will present to you some points on why is it necessary for the

Philippines to adopt a federal system of government.

POINT 1: FEDERALISM WILL COMPLEMENT THE COUNTRY’S GEOGRAPHICAL

SETUP AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY.

In an assessment paper presented by U.P. Public Administration and Governance Prof.

Alex Brillantes, and Donna Moscare, the Philippine geography makes travel and

communication difficult, time-consuming and costly. Composed of several islands, the

highly centralized unitary form of government is ineffective in dealing with contingencies

in far-flung parts of the country. The administration and power is concentrated in Manila

which results to inequitable development among the different regions. Development is

inequitable and stunted because there is difficulty in reaching and responding to the

needs of remote areas.

Professor Ronald Watts of Queen’s University Canada during the International

Conference on Federalism held at Switzerland mentioned that federalism provides a

constitutional organization that allows action by a shared government for certain

common purposes while permitting for autonomous action by constituent units of

government for purposes that relate to preserving their distinctiveness. He also cited a

major lesson from the various experiences on federalism saying: federal political

systems do provide a practical way of combining, through representative institutions, the

benefits of unity and diversity, but they are no panacea for all of humanity’s political ills.

A federal government would enable the needs of a nation to be achieved while

providing a space for diversity. As a phrase goes, it provides “unity in diversity”. The

federal structure devises a flexible arrangement for varying forms of self-government to

suit different circumstances and contingencies. History would show us several countries

that used federalism in dealing with diversity. In Switzerland and Canada for instance,

the adoption of federalism was, to some extent, a result of a need to accommodate

diverse communities. After World War 2, India, Malaysia and Nigeria used the federal

mechanism to settle ethnic diversity. Pakistan also used the federal design to manage

ethno-national diversity after it emerged as an independent state.

Regions have their own unique problems, situations, geographic, cultural, social and

economic contexts. Federalism allows them to create solutions to their own problems

instead of distant Metro Manila deciding for them. This makes sense in an archipelago

of over 7,000 islands and 28 dominant ethnic groups. For decades, the national

government has been struggling to address the concerns of 79 (now 81) provinces

despite challenges posed by geography and cultural differences.

Furthermore, The Federal Republic will build a just and enduring framework for peace

through unity in our ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity, especially in relation to

Bangsa Moro or Muslim Filipinos and our lumad/indigenous peoples.

According to Pimentel, federalism will dissipate the causes of the recurrent armed Moro

challenges against the government and, thereby, lay the basis for a just and lasting

peace in Central and Southwestern Mindanao.

He also stated that the government has tried several approaches, including assimilation

and integration of the Moro people into the mainstream of the country’s society. It has

tried regional autonomous governments; local government devolution of power, and

even military pacification campaigns. In short, government approaches were tried but all

to no avail. Yet Pimentel sufficed that the Moro traditional, political, rebel leaders and

Moro academics whom he had the privilege of conversing appear to unanimously

support the idea of federalizing the Republic and creating a Bangsamoro Federal State

as a means of dissipating the causes of Moro rebellions and of laying the foundations of

a just and a lasting peace in Mindanao.

This was further strengthened when the president-elect Duterte has repeatedly said that

one of the benefits of this structure would be putting an end to insurgent rebellions in

the south waged by the Muslim minority, their main claims to this rebellion is unjust

treatment to them. And with the new states, they would have autonomy over this. There

have been positive comments and strong support from the Muslim rebel leaders

recently and have been indicative of being receptive and cooperative with the plans.

POINT 2: FEDERALISM WILL HASTEN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AMONG

THE VARIOUS REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY BY ALLOCATING POWER WHICH AT

PRESENT IS CONCENTRATED IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO THE

REGIONS THAT WILL BE CONVERTED TO FEDERAL STATES.

As presented by Former senators Pimentel Jr., Angara, Enrile, et al, the unitary system

of government shows that the country’s development programs are centrally

determined, planned, funded and implemented by the national government in MANILA.

However, the concentration of such enormous powers in Manila has created only one

center of finance and development in the country resulting in a highly centralized

system of government leading to a spotty development of the nation where preferential

treatment has been given to localities whose officials are friendly with or have easy

access to an incumbent administration. This lopsided arrangement has spawned a host

of problems including massive nationwide poverty to runaway insurgencies and

rebellions that feed on the societal inequalities in the nation.

Even President Duterte has described Metro Manila as "imperial" and has even refused

to stay at Malacañang, saying that it is a symbol of oppression. A look at the 2016

national budget showed that Metro Manila got a 14.27 percent share with P428.5 billion,

excluding the budget for the Office of the President, Office of the Vice President and

Congress which are based in the capital region. Meanwhile, Luzon got 20.94 percent

with P628.3 billion, Visayas got 9.94 percent with P298.3 billion, and Mindanao got

13.23 percent with P396.9 billion.

Furthermore, Budget and fiscal autonomy have been a long-standing issue among

local government units (LGUs) in the country, according to political analyst Jan Robert

Go, assistant professor of political science at the University of the Philippines Diliman.

One contention of federalism advocates is that major tax revenues are turned over to

the national government. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) collects national

internal revenue taxes which include income tax, estate and donor's taxes, value-added

tax, other percentage taxes, excise taxes, documentary stamp taxes, and such other

taxes that may be imposed and collected by the BIR.

The pooled collection of national internal revenue taxes is split 60-40, with 60 percent

going to the national government and 40 percent to the LGUs through the internal

revenue allotment or IRA. This distribution of the IRA is also contested by federalism
advocates. In one interview, Duterte said it was unfair that what Davao City gets from

the IRA wasn't even at par compared to the amount it remits to the national government.

Go added that LGUs are seen as the primary service providers but if funds are lacking,

these services may be difficult to run and be provided to the public.

Duterte as the first Mindanaoan president and having served as Davao City mayor for

nearly two decades is seen as someone who understands the issue well. President-

elect, Rodrigo Duterte has plans to demolish “Imperial Manila” by radically shifting the

current Philippine government onto federalism. He says this is critical in fighting and

ending poverty and to also alleviate the tension and deadliness of Muslim separatist

insurgency.

Pimentel’s proposal stated that sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central

governing authority and constituent political units called states or regions. The

autonomous states shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to enact laws relative to health,

agriculture, land use and development, fisheries, public works and infrastructures, trade,

industry and tourism, whereas the federal government will have the power over national

security and defense, foreign relations, customs, and currency to name a few.

But a major advantage of federalism is that the states will have more power over their

funds and resources. They do not have to rely on collecting real estate tax and business

permit fees. In this system, 80% of their total earned income stays while only 20% goes

back to the national government. This means that states are able to channel their own

income for their own development, creating policies and programs suitable for them

without having to wait for the national government to approve. Within the 80% budget

that remains with these states, 30% will be funneled to the local state government and

70% will be allocated to the provincies, cities, municipalities and barangays. With

federalism sharing administrative decentralization and fiscal autonomy among states,

genuine autonomy is achieved.

I have now presented my points and I would like to thank you all for listening intently.