On August 3, the Center of Local and Regional Governance (CLRG) under the National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG), UP Diliman (UPD) and the University of Fribourg Institute of Federalism (IFF) in Switzerland held the first in a series of dialogues on federalism.

To examine federalism as an option for the Philippines, the dialogues involved answering questions such as “Will federalism solve the long-standing conflicts in the Philippines?” and “Does the Philippines possess the conditions to shift to a federal system today?”

NCPAG Dean Alex Brillantes Jr. presents his position on the issue
as Dr. Nicole Töpperwien and broadcast journalist Che-Che Lazaro,
who acted as moderator, look on.

Panelists for the first dialogue included Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr.; NCPAG Dean Alex Brillantes Jr.; Dr. Carmen Abubakar of the UPD Institute of Islamic Studies; Dr. Rene Azurin, co-convenor of One Voice; Reynaldo Deang, secretary general of the Citizens Movement for a Federal Philippines; Dr. Macapado Muslim of Mindanao State University; and Dr. Steven Rood of The Asia Foundation.

So, what is federalism? According to Dr. Nicole Töpperwien, IFF’s associate expert, federalism is “constitutionally guaranteed self-rule and shared rule.” Self-rule means that certain areas of decision-making are made by federal states while shared rule means that these states participate in decision-making at the central level.

Unitary vs Federal
Sen. Pimentel, Dean Brillantes, and Deang stated that the present unitary form of government in the Philippines does not adequately address the necessity of developing all regions in the country.

If these regions were to become federal states, they argued, that would remove the burden from the central government. Deang explained if the states have power to govern themselves, they can focus on their own development, manage their own resources, and move along their chosen path without having to rely on the central government for approval of projects and budget allocations. Furthermore, this will allow the central government to focus more on matters that are national in character.

Sen. Pimentel emphasized the need to shift to federalism as soon as possible because “the pace of this country is being inhibited by the lack of autonomous power to initiate development.” Dean Brillantes concurred, saying, “The context has already been set by the Local Government Code. Let us push the envelope further. Federalism is the logical next step.”

Azurin disagreed. The important thing, he said, is to strengthen the implementation of the Local Government Code. His main contention is that “the devolution of power to local governments can be accomplished without resorting to federalization.” He asserted that local autonomy is already provided in the existing Constitution and there is no need to move towards a federalism, which will only add more layers to “an already bloated bureaucracy.” According to Azurin, it will only create more problems than solutions.

Federalism and the Mindanao conflict
According to Abubakar, the federal system of government as an alternative political structure for the country raises many issues, specifically for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). A federal set-up, stressed Abubakar, “should preserve or improve on the gains given to ARMM, not diminish them.” She pointed out that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before pushing for federalism.

Can the federal set-up eliminate the ambiguity of the ARMM’s relations to the provincial governments? Can it formulate a tax structure that will allow financial security and viability? Can it give states the right to make full use of their natural resources and enjoy their revenues? Can it accommodate the cultural, religious, educational, and economic aspects of life that are particular to ARMM?

Abubakar stated that the implementation of regional autonomy has fallen short of these goals. She posed the question of whether or not a federal set-up would do any better than the current one. In any case, she said, referring to the situation of the Bangsamoros, “this should be done in the context of self-rule, otherwise, it is just another futile exercise.”

Muslim agreed that the central government’s creation of the ARMM is a “weak response to the Mindanao conflict.” Most problems, he explained, arise from identity-related matters such as ancestral domain and the Shariah courts. “What we need is a politico-administrative set-up that has the capacity to address political and socio-economic issues as well as on identity-related matters.” He declared that federalism has great potential for solving the conflict in Mindanao.

Not so, countered Rood. He believes that federalism is not the answer to the long-standing conflicts in the Philippines. “If autonomy is not working, why would you, branding it as a state, make any difference?”

As expected, by the end of the day, people still had opposing views, though everyone agreed that the discussion was necessary. The arguments for and against federalism were delivered with much conviction, but as Dean Brillantes put it, “[change] has to come from the people.” Informing the people is still a top priority if the shift to federalism is to gain momentum. For this reason, a second dialogue was held in Dumaguete City on August 8. The dialogues are set to continue until 2009 as part of the three-year CLRG-IFF cooperation.