Fed up?

Go Fed: Probing the Feasibility of a Federal-Parliamentary Philippines

By: Alcher T. Migriño

Federalism is the talk of the town nowadays. This is ignited when Rodrigo Duterte,

the former mayor of Davao City, won as the president of the Republic of the Philippines last

2016 Presidential Elections. This, together with its siblings, to wit: martial law in Mindanao,

War on Drugs, Anti-Corruption Campaign, the fight for the legislation of the Bangsamoro

Organic Law, and peace talks with the leftist and secessionist groups, have flooded the

political drama of the contemporary Philippine politics. However, this research will be

focusing on the feasibility of having a federal structure of the Philippine government.

Furthermore, this research will also delve on the aspect of blending federalism with a

parliamentary form of government. This research paper adopts Structuralism as a lens in

analyzing the state vis-à-vis its government. In structuralism, the concept of system

transformation is being emphasized wherein the human society is likened to an organism in

which the needs thereof must be met in order for it to survive. The needs of the society

evolve as time progresses hence human society must evolve for it not to perish into oblivion.

In this research paper, federalism is viewed as the state’s way of evolving itself in order to

meet the needs of its constituents. In the course of probing the feasibility of a federal-

parliamentary structure of government, the researcher also seeks to point out the necessity of

revising and improving some archaic portions of the 1987 Constitution such as the

qualifications of the positions in public offices, arrangements in Foreign Direct Investments,

the political party system, the Bicameralism of Congress, and Constitutional provision on

political dynasties. Lastly, like most of the newly introduced political phenomenon, the move

towards changing the charter has been met with several oppositions. The disagreement

emanates from the fear that the changing of the Constitution will be used by the

1|P age
administration as a Trojan horse to further cement President Duterte and his political allies in

power. Partisanship aside, this research ought to be like a libra that seeks to provide adequate

data-based information to the readers which will enable them to weigh the pros and cons of

having a federal-parliamentary system of government.

A Glimpse of the Yesteryears

In the quest towards the federalization of the Philippines, one cannot help but ask:

before the American colonialism ended in the country, why the Americans did not taught nor

pass their federal system of government to the Filipinos whom they believed to be in need of

their tutelage. Instead, they maintained the highly centralized form of government, which was

made by their Spanish colonial predecessors, with a bicameral form of Congress and a

president and vice-president popularly elected and can originate from different and often

conflicting political parties (Lorenzana, 2014). These features of a system of government are

completely foreign to them. However, they still managed to implement the alien system over

theirs. Teehankee (2018) argues that this is due to the reason that the Americans wanted to

deal with one elite only and easily subjugate the Filipinos hence they centralized the political

power.

Contrary to common conception, the struggle for federalism is not alien to Filipinos.

Charter Change also known as Cha-Cha is not new to Filipinos. The struggle for Charter

Change has reached the shores of Philippine politics long before television was in its infant

stage. In this section, the researcher ought to paint the history of charter change advocacy in

the Philippines. Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines, advocated federalism in the

country. This is depicted in his essay entitled Las Filipinas Dentro de Cien Años (Philippines:

A Century Hence). Coronel (2005) posited that the idea of a Federal Republic of the

Philippines started even before the establishment of the Revolutionary Government of Emilio

2|P age
Aguinaldo in 1898 as leaders in Iloilo have planted the seeds of a federal state of Visayas,

anticipating the formation of a Philippine Federal Republic of Luzon and Mindanao as its

other components (as cited by Lorenzana, 2014). Furthermore, Aguinaldo was pursuing

Rizal’s 1890 idea of a federal republic covering the archipelago, which explains why the flag

of the Revolution and the First Republic had the three stars within the triangle, representing

Aguinaldo’s image of the major island groups constituting the archipelago as a federation

(Jimeno, 2016). However, since it is wartime, the need to establish a united front against the

American colonial masters is more pressing than having a federal form of government. For

this reason, the 1898 Malolos Congress adopted a unitary form of government in order to

firmly centralize power and combat the American colonizers (Ibid). Moreover, Resil Mojares

(a Cebu-based historian) pointed out that a group of Filipinos submitted to the Philippine

Commission a draft constitution for a Federal Republic of the Philippines which would divide

the country into 11 states in 1899 (Ibid). In 1900, Isabelo delos Reyes proposed that a federal

constitution with seven states be created and named after Filipino heroes such as Burgos for

Northern Luzon, del Pilar for Central Luzon, and Soliman for Mindanao (Lorenzana, 2014).

Eventually, this proposal was rejected by the Americans because it would not strengthen their

control over the Philippines (Jimeno, 2016).

In the creation of the 1935 Constitution, the sole basis was the Constitution of the

United States of America. For this reason, the former was almost a duplication of the latter

since a federal government was excluded (Brillantes, Jr and Moscare, 2018, as cited by

Ancheta and Candelaria, 2018). In the 1973 Constitution, the local autonomy was expanded

through broader taxing powers and the eventual legislation of the first Local Government

Code also known as the Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Cureg and Matunding, n.d., as cited by

Ancheta and Candelaria, 2018). However, there was a little support for the shift of the system

of government towards federalism in the 1986 Constitutional Commission (Ibid). As a matter

3|P age
of fact, Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., a respected Constitutional Law expert and a former

member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, readily admits that in 1986 when the present

Constitution was drafted “emotions were high and the major pre-occupation was how to

ensure in the speediest way possible the restoration of the democratic processes… it was not

the best time to engage in protracted debates, especially about the fundamental government

structure” (Bernas, 1993, as cited by Aguja, 2015). In other words, the fundamental structure

of the government was not thoroughly thought during the formulation of the 1987

Constitution as it was not the main concern of members of the 1986 Constitutional

Commission. During the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, the call for Charter Change was

initiated by the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization, and Action (PIRMA), an

organization for Charter Change pushing the amendment of the Constitution specifically

allowing then Pres. Ramos to run for re-election. However, this initiative was a failure. (La

Viña et al., 2014). When Joseph “Erap” Ejercito Estrada became the president of the

Philippines, a similar attempt to change the 1987 Constitution was also initiated. It was called

CONCORD or Constitutional Correction for Development which would only amend the

'restrictive' economic provisions of the Constitution considered to be impeding the entry of

more foreign investments to the Philippines. However, like its predecessor, it ended as a

failure.

In the 2004 Elections, there were two political parties which were at the forefront of

federalism as a political campaign platform, to wit: PDP-Laban and Probinsya Muna

Development Initiative or PROMDI (Cureg and Matunding, 2018). This platform was

proposed to then presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr. but since he died, it was unheeded

(Ibid). During the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, there were other two proposals

submitted, apart from the respective proposals of the Senate and the House of

Representatives. These were the proposal of the CMFP whose advisory body was chaired by

4|P age
Dr. Jose V. Abueva, and the Coalition for Charter Change Now! led by Former House

Speaker Jose de Venecia. This time, federalism is intimately tied with a parliamentary form

of government. However, due to the expanding number of opposition, the shift towards a

federal-parliamentary government during Arroyo administration was not realized.

The struggle for Charter Change still continued despite the reluctance and lack of

interest of the succeeding administration, the administration of Benigno “Nonoy” C. Aquino

III. During this time, Charter Change ceases to become a national concern and descended to a

mere academic topic and a subject in high school or college debates. This is because the 1987

Constitution is viewed as a legacy of the Cory Administration and had given democracy to

the Filipino people thus thoughts of changing it must be stopped. Contrastingly, the political

tide suddenly shifted when a person from Mindanao won the presidency of the Republic of

the Philippines-Rodrigo Roa Duterte. He utilized federalism as one of his platforms during

the campaign. He perceived federalism as a solution for the problems that the people of

Mindanao are experiencing especially those related to proper distribution of resources and

self-determination.

Presidential Form of Government

A government is considered presidential in form if the executive is constitutionally or

politically independent or separated from the legislative branch of the government (Heywood,

2007). Moreover, the executive power is not held directly accountable to or removable by the

assembly (Ibid). All countries having a presidential form of government shares common

features such as the following (Ibid):

 The executive and the legislature are separately elected and each is invested

with a range of independent constitutional powers.

5|P age
  There is a formal separation of the personnel of the legislative and the

executive branches.

 The executive is not constitutionally responsible to the legislative and cannot

be removed by it (except through impeachment).

 The president or executive cannot dissolve the legislative which means that

the electoral terms of both branches are fixed.

 Executive authority is concentrated in the hands of the president, the cabinet

and ministers being merely advisers responsible to the president.

 The president wears “two hats” because the roles of the head of the state and

the head of the government are combined in the office of the president.

Under the present presidential form of government in the Philippines, the executive

power is vested on the President. He or she acts as the head of the state and the Chief

Executive Officer of the country. Moreover, the president is popularly elected by the

electorate. He or she has a fix term of six years and is not allowed to seek for re-election.

Furthermore, the president can be ousted from office through impeachment. In this,

only the House of Representatives has the power to initiate and the Senate has the power to

try and decide on the case.

The various departments composing the executive branch of the government are

headed by the respective secretaries who act as “alter ego” of the president. For this reason,

the stay of the department secretaries, bureaus and agencies under the executive branch

depends upon the pleasure of the President. The constitution vests upon Congress the power

to verify the appointments done by the President. In addition, the president is the head of the

state and the head of the government. As La Viña et al. (2014) pointed out that the President

is one single person vested with vast amount power and authority merging of the two

6|P age
personalities. The present constitution grants the President power that covers foreign

relations, appointment of cabinet officials, and other high ranking officials and being the

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Ibid).

In as far as check and balance is concern, the Philippine presidential system of government

adheres to the doctrine of separation of powers in which it is believed that the three branches

of government, namely: executive, legislative, and judiciary, are co-equals and one branch is

independent from the other. Each branch of government has its own function that is distinct

from the other. The legislative legislates laws, the executive implements them, and the

judiciary interprets them whether they are in consonance with the Constitution. This is

intended in order to prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that

might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of the republican

institutions (Cruz, 1998).

Parliamentary System

A parliamentary system of government can be distinguished from its presidential

counterpart because, in the former, the legislative and executive branches of governments are

fused. Usually headed by a Prime Minister, a parliamentary government serves as both the

implementing and the legislating body of the state. Heywood (2007) posited chief features of

a parliamentary government, namely:

 Governments are formed as a result of assembly elections, based on the strength of

the party representation; there is no separate elected executive. The Prime Minister

and the Cabinet Ministers are not popularly elected because they are elected directly

by the parliament.

7|P age
  The personnel of government are drawn from the assembly, usually from the leaders

of the party or parties that have majority control.

 The government is responsible to the assembly in the sense that it rests on the

assembly’s confidence and can be removed if it loses that confidence. It is for this

reason that the prime minister and the cabinet ministers do have term limits because

they can be taken out from their position by the time that they lost the confidence of

the assembly. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers are individually and

collectively accountable to the members of the Parliament.

 The government can, in most cases, dissolve the assembly which means that electoral

terms are usually flexible within a maximum limit.

 Parliamentary executives are generally collective in that they accept at least the

formal principle of cabinet government.

 As the head of the government is a parliamentary officer, there is a separate head of

state: a constitutional monarch or a non-executive president. For example, in the

United Kingdom and Japan, the government is headed by the Prime Minister. He is

tasked of running the government while the state is headed by their respective

monarchs (Queen for UK and Emperor for Japan). However, in Germany and France,

the personality of being the head of the state is accorded to the President. The head of

state is imbued with ceremonial functions and is perceived as the symbol of the

nation’s unity.

Like the presidential system, the parliamentary form of government also has a mechanism

of check and balance. This is through the presence of a shadow government. How does it

function? After the election of the members of the parliament, the party who has the most

number of votes will be considered as the government while the party who does not get the

most number of votes gets to become the opposition party. The government is headed by the

8|P age
Prime Minister with his or her Cabinet Ministers such as the Minister on Education, Minister

on Commerce, Minister on Transportation, Minister on Health, and so on. Their task is to

formulate projects that are in consonance with their party platform. On the other hand, the

opposition is headed by the Opposition Leader with his or her Opposition Ministers which

will act as a counterpart of the Cabinet Ministers. The task of the shadow government is to

criticize the projects and platforms of the government while formulating their own alternative

projects. This is depicted in the perpetual debate occurring in the parliament such as that in

United Kingdom and Canada especially during Prime Minister Questions (PMQs Session)

wherein the Prime Minister is being asked and debated by leader of the opposition. Moreover,

despite being a heading the government, the Prime Minister is viewed as primus inter pares

(first among equals).

Unitary: Describing the Status Quo

Before this research would discuss federalism and a parliamentary form of

government in theory and in practice, the researcher considered it imperative to describe the

status quo of the Philippine political arena.

It is important to note that a unitary form of government, like its federal counterpart,

is a type of government that concerns on the relation between the national and the local

government. According to De Leon and De Leon, Jr. (2011), a unitary form of government is

one in which the control of national and local affairs are exercised by the central or national

government. Furthermore, the book entitled Politics and Governance of the Department of

Political Science of MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology defined a unitary form of

government as one in which the central or national government is supreme, possessing

complete government powers. The powers possessed by the local government units are

delegated from the national government; hence, they can be withdrawn by the national

9|P age
government anytime (Ibid). For this reason, any autonomy granted to the local government

units is temporary. This is granted through special laws in which its terms and conditions are

subject to the definition set by the national government. In other words, in a unitary form of

government, the national government is seen as the supreme entity. Local government units

should bow down before it. This is manifested in how Philippine politicians act in the

political drama of the country. Every after election, it is an expected scene that politicians

change political parties depending upon the political party affiliation of the president. This is

in order to ensure political alliance with the president who, through the Department of Budget

and Management, will release their PDAF. La Viña et al. (2014) stipulated that the flow of

governance in a unitary set up of government follows a single line from the national

government to the regional units then to the provincial government up to the cities and

municipalities. For this reason, Heywood (2007) pointed out that since constitutional

supremacy is vested with the center in a unitary system, any system of peripheral or local

government exists at the pleasure of the center.

Contrastingly, Heywood (2007) provided advantages of having a centralized form of

government, to wit:

 National Unity: Since the central government alone can articulate the national

policy, it is presumed that it will prioritize the whole rather that a portion of it. The

presumption being that it will prioritize the interest of the entire nation rather than

those of sectoral, ethnic, or regional groups.

 Uniformity: Central government alone can establish uniform laws and public

services that help people to move more easily from one part of the country to

another.

10 | P a g e
  Equality: Only the central government can rectify inequalities that arise from the

fact that the areas with the greatest social needs are invariably those with the least

potential for raising revenue.

 Prosperity: Economic development and centralization invariably go hand in hand.

For instance, only the central government can manage a single currency, control

tax and spending policies with a view to ensuring sustainable growth, and, if

necessary, provide an infrastructure in the form of roads, railways, airports, and so

on.

Federalism: The Defining Moment

Dr. Hilton J. Aguja, a professor of political science in MSU-Iligan Institute of

Technology, would always posit that politics and economics can never be divorced because

economics act as the substructure while politics is its superstructure. To him, this is the

reason why federalism and other issues involving charter change are again hitting the

headlines. Clearly, federalism, in his perspective, is portrayed as a political solution to an

economic dilemma such as the concentration of economic resources. Since there is

concentration of economic resources, there is also concentration of power. As Lord Acton

would posit that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

According to the Federalist Papers, federalism is a system of government in which

power is shared between a central or federal government and the States. In order to prevent

confusion, it is imperative to state that in other literatures, the word states assumes many

names, including, but not limited to, cantons, tiers, and provinces. With this, it can be inferred

that federalism is a form of government that pertains to the relationship between the national

and local levels of government in which the national or federal government is tasked with the

national concerns while those concerns that are of local or regional in nature are concerns of

11 | P a g e
the state or local level government. In the current PDP Laban Model of Philippine

Federalism, the federal government shall have exclusive legislative powers over national

defense, police and national security, foreign affairs, currency, immigration, and other

matters that concern the entire nation, while those concerns that are related to the delivery of

basic services of the people are delegated to the regional governments. Moreover, in the

Centrist Proposal of the 1987 Constitution, the Federal Government shall have exclusive

powers on national defense and national security, foreign affairs and treaties with other

countries, currency, coinage, and central banking, and customs, tariffs and international trade

(Article II, Section VI of the Centrist Proposal for the Revision of the 1987 Constitution). On

the other hand, state governments are tasked with concerns related to trade, arts and culture,

loans, grants, aids, science and technology, education, and agriculture and sports (Article IX,

Section VII of the Centrist Proposal for the Revision of the 1987 Constitution). With this, it

can deduce that there are two distinct levels of government. Neither is politically and legally

subordinate over the other.

The word federalism comes from the Latin word foedus which means pact or

covenant (Heywood, 2007). Its etymology would implicitly state reciprocity or mutuality. For

this reason, it is important to point out that the central feature of federalism is the notion of

shared sovereignty. This means that sovereignty is not concentrated in one level of

government but is distributed. In a federal form of government, the orders of government

such as governmental powers, authority, function, responsibilities, and resources are

distributed and shared between the federal government and state or local government. In fact,

Article 9, Section 8 of the Centrist Proposal for the Revision of the 1987 Constitution

provides that all Federal and State authorities shall render legal and administrative assistance

to one another. In addition, Article 9, Section 9 of the same proposal stipulates that the

Federal Government shall provide financial assistance to the Federal States to avert a

12 | P a g e
disturbance of the overall economic equilibrium, equalize differing economic capacities

within the federal territory, to promote economic growth or in times of natural disaster or

exceptional emergency. Thus, in a federal set-up of government, there is mutual support from

both levels of government. This is called the Principle of Dual Sovereignty.

In the course of federalizing the Philippines, one might think that since the basic

services are given to the local government, few of which are those related to the economy,

this might lead to uneven distribution of economic growth. Regions that are originally

wealthy will become wealthier while originally weak regions will turn out to be weaker. This

reasoning is misplaced because in a federal form of government, cooperation among states is

always secured. As a matter of fact, Article 9, Section 10 of the same proposal provides that

the Federal Parliament shall pass an equalization law with due regard to the financial

capacities of the Federal States in providing grants to weaker States. In seminal vein, Scruton

(2007) posited that federalism is a system of government in which a central government, both

legislative and executive, exists side by side with State or Regional governments, again with

both executive and legislative powers. Both federal and state governments will derive what

powers they have from single federal constitution, but both are supreme in their particular

fields, so that the state government cannot be construed as a delegation of federal power

(Ibid).

There is no “one-fits-all” type of federalism. Each federal countries has a distinct

feature from the others. This is due to the reason that the relationship between the national or

federal government and local or state government is not determined by constitutional rules

only but complex political, historical, cultural, geographical, and social circumstances need to

be considered. However, Heywood (2007) pointed out that there are certain features that most

countries having a federal system of government share, to wit:

13 | P a g e
  Two relatively autonomous levels of government: Both levels of government enjoy

a degree of power that is appropriate to their respective concerns. Those concerns that

are national in nature are given to the federal or national government whilst those that

are local in character are assigned to the state or local government. One level of

government cannot encroach upon the other. The range of power that one level of

government possesses includes at least a measure of legislative and executive

authority and the capacity to raise revenue and thus enjoy a degree of fiscal

independence. For example, in Germany and Austria, a system of “administrative

federalism” operates in which the central government is the key policy maker, and the

provincial government is charged with the responsibility for the details of policy

implementation (Ibid).

 Written Constitution: This is an important feature because it delineates the

responsibilities, functions, and powers of the two levels of government. Being the

supreme code of the land, it serves as a backbone of all entities subsumed by the

federal set up of government. It is through a codified or written constitution that the

relationship vis-à-vis autonomy of the two levels of government is determined.

Moreover, a written constitution delineates that it cannot be unilaterally amended by

one level of government. An example of which is the amendment of the US

Constitution which requires the support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and

three-quarters of the 50 state legislatures. Furthermore, in Australia and Switzerland,

amendments to the constitution must also be ratified through the use of referendums

(Ibid). This is one way of ensuring that no level of government can encroach upon the

other and a manifestation of shared sovereignty among the two levels of government.

 Constitutional Arbiter: The formal provisions of the constitution are interpreted by a

supreme court, which thereby arbitrates in the case of disputes between federal and

14 | P a g e
 state levels of government (Heywood 2007). The function of the judiciary is to secure

that federalism works in practice. As a matter of fact, Article 13, Section 8, paragraph

a of the Centrist Proposal for the Revision of the 1987 Constitution provides that the

Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,

other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,

mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. For this reason, the Supreme Court, as

the court of last resort, serves as an agent securing that federalism works as stipulated

in the new written constitution.

 Linking Institutions: Federal system of government is not complete or is regarded as

a weak set up if mutual support and cooperation is not secured (Ibid). It is for this

reason that the Federal Government is mandated to pass an equalization law and to

provide financial assistance in order to equalize differing economic capacities among

states (Article 9, Sec. 8 and 9 of the same proposal).

Arguments for Change

The news of Charter Change is not as shocking as the fall of the Berlin Wall. As

discussed above, it has been introduced to the Philippine political arena for since time

immemorial. It had gained popularity among the Filipino people over the time. In fact, they

have given their imprimatur on it. The Pulse Asia in a national survey in December 2001

observed that, for the first time in a decade, that 52% of the Filipino people favored changing

the Constitution (Abueva, 2002; as cited by Aguja, 2015). Moreover, Jurado (2006) cited a

survey conducted by the University of Santo Tomas-based Proberz Poll which indicated that

64% of the Filipinos favor changing the constitution (Ibid). For this reason, this research

study came into a reality.

15 | P a g e
 Before this research dwells on the justifications of changing the Constitution of the

Philippines, it deemed it necessary to present first the general criticisms which critics of

constitutional reform are always posing. Ayson and Reyes (2000) made an excellent

explanation on the disadvantages of a federal form of government, to wit:

 The federal form of government is a complex political machinery.

 It would cause a heavy financial burden to the government and more so to the

Filipino people because of the duplication of offices and personnel and the

maintenance of the operation of governmental system. It is for this reason that

former Chief Justice Hilario Davide would describe federalism as anti-poor.

 There would be an occurrence of overlapping of functions in many areas of

government activity in the consternation of both central and local government.

 Lack of uniformity on legislation on many matters makes the problems of

administration more difficult.

These disadvantages are superficial as they are outweighed by the advantages of a

federal form of government. For every action requires a justification. Perhaps, one of the

reasons of revitalizing Charter Change is the statement of Fr. Bernas (1993) that because of

the euphoria surrounding the 1986 Constitutional Commission which is ensuring the

speediest way possible to escape from the ambits of the Marcos Regime and his Martial Rule,

deliberating the fundamental structure of government was not given proper attention. Another

one would be the growing clamor of those in the periphery of being disadvantaged and

unheard.

In this portion, this research debunked the aforementioned disadvantages of federalism

by highlighting its advantages. The Philippines is an archipelago. Thus, the country’s

geopolitical structure dictates that having a unitary form of government where decisions and,

16 | P a g e
hence, power is centralized in “Imperial Manila” is unlikable. Physical distance from the

government would affect the acceptability or rightness of its decisions (Heywood, 2007). A

federal form of government would increase responsiveness of the government (Ibid). In a

federal form of government, power is being decentralized as it is being devolved to the local

or state government. Those concerns that are local in character such as trade, arts and culture,

loans, grants, aids, science and technology, education, agriculture and sports are given to the

state government due to the reason that the state government knows the needs of its people

better than the national or federal government. Through addressing the specific needs of the

citizens, the government is nearer to its people. In return, the citizens will be more

participative in the political life of the community. The more informed the citizens are, the

more participative they can be (Ibid). The central or federal government has a subsidiary

function performing only those tasks that should not be performed by the local level such as

international relations, national defense, tariffs and customs, and currency and coinage

(Lorenzana, 2014).

Federalism is an advance form of subsidiarity (Ibid). It involves decentralization of

power to the local government hence empowering the latter. This springs from the idea that a

government should start at the bottom and not on top. The main objective of decentralizing

power is to make local governments become centers of control on their own (Ibid). For this

reason, federalism is not complex because it is commonly composed of two tiers of

government: the state or local level and the federal or national level. The former is imbued

with the tasks that are local in nature hence making the government more responsive to the

needs of its people. Whilst, the latter has subsidiary function focusing on those tasks that are

national in scope such as those mentioned above. How hard can that be?

17 | P a g e
 Critics of federalism would dispense federalism as anti-poor because it would imposes

additional taxes upon the Filipino people: the state tax and the federal tax. They then

furthered this argument by saying that giving more taxes in the local level would open more

doors of corruption as it would strengthen local political warlords hence corruption. Clearly,

this is hasty generalization. Federalism is not anti-poor however it helps it helps states to be

competitive as this. Clearly, this is hasty generalization. Federalism is not anti-poor however

it helps it helps states to be competitive as this type of government influences Filipinos to be

innovative. In a federal set up, the two types of taxes, the state tax and the federal tax, simply

means that the tax revenues generated from the people of the state are divided among the

federal government and the state government. There are no additional taxes imposed. In the

PDP Laban’s Model for Philippine Federalism, 60% of the tax revenues will be controlled by

the state government while only 40% will be given to the federal government. This is in order

for the state government to fully perform its task to responding to the specific needs of its

citizens. In the current set up of fiscal administration, 83% of the tax revenues are controlled

by the national government while a small amount of 17% of it are given to the local

governments. This set up of fiscal administration is the Philippine unitary form of

government does not promote empowerment of the local government but reduces them more

of like a beggar begging for money. In a unitary form of government, the national

government, being supreme, can get what it can give. Therefore, the local government is

under the mercy and pleasure of the national government. It is for this reason that in every

election, political turncoats or changing of political parties is prevalent depending upon the

party which the president is affiliated. This is due to the fear that the president might

withhold “pork barrel” funds thus patronage politics is being promoted by a unitary form of

government. The presidential “pork” might be withheld if political alliance turns sour. In this

sense, political warlords cannot be eradicated. Moreover, national defense would still be

18 | P a g e
within the ambits of the national government thus dismembering the country would be

impossible. Contrary to the statements of its detractors, federalism would not divide the

country because Filipinos would still be carrying a uniform passport, raising the same flags,

having the same emblem, and singing the same national anthem.

Moreover, having a federal form of government will give a fitting experience to local

leaders if they are seeking for higher office. This is due to the reason that the head of the state

government has the same function with the head of the federal government which is

implementation. In the Philippine setting, the “best” preparatory level for the presidency is

the senate. If one would examine the nature of the both works, the president’s job is more on

implementation while a senator’s is legislative. This would result to having an unfit training

for being the head of the government.

Furthermore, this research also would like to highlight the need to lift the economic or

protectionist restrictions that our Constitution dictates. Article 12, Section 2 of the 1987

Constitution provides that a company must be 60% owned by the Filipinos for it to be

allowed to invest in the country. Here is where the problem comes in because this does not

encourage perfect competition among the players of the Philippine market. Protectors of this

constitutional provision would posit that this is pro-Filipino because it protects the

Philippines from foreign exploitation. However, it is evident that this constitutional provision

paved way for oligarchs to infiltrate the Philippine Economy. In 1999, then President Estrada

issued Executive Order 43 to create the Preparatory Commission of Constitutional Reform

(PCCR). Its tasked is to facilitate the study of proposal on economic reforms that can be

accomplished through Constitutional amendments (La Viña, 2014). In its report, the PCCR

said that the restrictive provisions of the 1987 Constitution have limited the ability of our

country to compete in the global economy. PCCR submits that “the basic legal framework of

19 | P a g e
the (1987) Constitution presents practical and philosophical difficulties in approaches to

economic, trade and investment policies.” It has limited the flexibility of the government to

respond to the changes in the global environment, hence adversely affecting the economy’s

capacity to achieve higher growth (Ibid).

More Filipinos are becoming part of the marginalized sector as employability in the

country decreases. With this, Filipinos preferred to work overseas living their families in the

Philippines. Thus, cutting the social fabric of the Philippines. It is for this reason that

promoters of constitutional reform are advocating the economic restrictions mandated by the

Constitution be lifted and make the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) be regulated by

legislation. Other Asian countries made such and look where did it brought them now?

Having the FDI regulated by legislation has given their country progress. Allowing foreign

investors in the country would mean more opportunities of growth as this would encourage

local business to innovate in order for them to be competitive. More so, it would give more

jobs for Filipinos thus preventing them to seek it abroad.

In the aspect of relationship between the executive and legislative branches of

government, it is interesting to note that in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, those who

argued for a parliamentary set up lost to those who argued for a parliamentary structure by

only one vote (Abueva, 2002; as cited by Aguja, 2015). In this dichotomy, Dr. Jose V.

Abueva (2002) of the University of the Philippines posited: “Political Scientist have

concluded that democracies with a parliamentary system are more stable and productive” (as

cited by Ibid). Moreover, Linz and Valenzuela (1994) in a book The Failures of Presidential

Democracy observed that in South America, which is the continent of presidentialism, rarely,

if ever, produced lasting political democracy (Ibid). Which they further noted that the most

stable democracies of Europe have been parliamentary regimes while most countries with

20 | P a g e
presidential constitutions have been unstable democracies or authoritarian regimes (Ibid). In

addition, Dr. Hilton J. Aguja in his article Cost Data Analysis of the Philippine Legislative

Process provided:

Table 1. 30 year average GDP growth rates of selected Asian countries

Country Rate Form of Government

Korea 6.4% Parliamentary

Singapore 6.3% Parliamentary

Malaysia 5.9% Parliamentary

Thailand 5.7% Parliamentary

Indonesia 5.3% Presidential

Philippines 3.1% Presidential

This table is the 30 year average GDP growth rates of selected Asian countries and it

shows that the Philippines has half of the rate of other Asian countries. This shows that there

is a link between economic growth and political structure of government. Moreover, the

succeeding table presented the top 10 corrupt leader of the world as cited by Aguja (2015):

21 | P a g e
Table 2. Top Ten Corrupt Leaders in the World

Mohamed Suharto President, Indonesia $15-35 Billion

Ferdinand Marcos President, Philippines $5-10 Billion

Mobutu Sese Seko President, Zaire $5 Billion

Sani Abacha President, Nigeria $2-3 Billion

Slobodan President, Serbia $1 Billion

Jean Duvalier President, Haiti $300-800 Million

Alberto Fujimori President, Peru $600 Million

Pavlo Lazarenko Prime Minister, Ukraine $114-200 Million

Arnoldo Aleman President, Nicaragua $100 Million

Joseph Estrada President, Philippines $78-80 Million

The table above shows that the Philippines has two of its leaders included in the list of

top ten corrupt leaders in the world. Cleary, the table above establishes a link between the

political structure of government and its proneness to corruption. No wonder why

parliamentary government is preferable over its presidential counterpart. However, it is

necessary to establish the reason as to why a presidential form of government is prone to

corruption. The researcher believed that one reason for such is its mechanism of checks and

balance. In the Philippines, where a presidential system is being followed, the system of

checks and balance is depicted through the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. In this doctrine,

it is believed that the three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judiciary, are

22 | P a g e
separated. As discussed above, all of the branches are believed to be co-equals. No one is

allowed to force or dictate the other. This is excellent on paper. However, practice would

opine the otherwise. As pointed above, turncoats are prevalent every after election as every

local politicians are seeking political alliance with the president. This might be in order to get

favorable presidential “pork” and eventually power and dominance. If this is the case, the

president can dictate the legislative because the latter is under the mercy and pleasure of the

former. This is called political patronage which is an indicator of corruption.

On the other hand, the mechanism of check and balance for a parliamentary

government is through a Shadow Government. It is the party which lost the most number of

votes during election. They act as an opposing party in the parliament. Hence, they still are

still present during parliamentary sessions. The Opposition Leader, head of the Shadow

Government, opposes the Prime Minister in his government’s projects. While the Opposition

Ministers will oppose their counterparts in the Governing Party. One might think that this is

the same way politics is done in the Philippines. Not quite. This is because each party has its

own party bureaucracy doing various researches in order to improve their stands and projects

and in so doing, proving that they are better and their political nemesis is wrong. Through

this, electorate will be voting for political candidates based on their platforms and track

records not on popularity or family lineage. Hence, personality politics will be “off the table”.

Anent, another reason is the strong political party system that a parliamentary form of

government has. Lorenzana (2014) pointed out that political parties are primary vehicles to

gain political power by engaging themselves in political contests, primarily elections.

Political parties can influence the citizens to engage in politics as they can get represented by

the political party in the political arena. In addition, Sosmeña (2014) pointed out the various

benefits if political parties are institutionalized:

23 | P a g e
  Political parties can help local government and local issues incorporated in

the national governance agenda.

 A political party communication platform can help local governments link

with its constituency, and the general public in real-time to discuss national

and local issues and interest.

 A reformist political party can assist local governments in undertaking a

political education program for its constituency. A politically educated

society is one of the primary political strength of the country.

 Capacitating a State requires a political party and local institutions in a

representative government.

 A reformist political party can help insure an accountable local government

administration as mandated in the Constitution.

 Party orientation among local government constituencies is a constructive

form of democratic politicization. It means that the citizenry will have

better understanding of government and politics.

An institutionalized political party system is the best defense against oligarchic

political dynasties because in a party system, every party candidate is filtered by their

respective parties. In practically all parliamentary systems, a legislator cannot advance in his

political career without the support of his party leaders. So for both his survival and

advancement in his career, a legislator depends heavily on his party, in the same manner that

his party cannot govern or perform its role in government without his cooperation and

support. With this, turncoats are not prevalent in a parliamentary system because this would

be considered as “political suicide” meaning a legislator destroys not just his political career

but integrity since allegiance in a political party is a big-deal in a parliamentary system. The

24 | P a g e
Philippines has a weak political party system as political candidates are always changing

political party affiliation every election.

In addition, it is necessary that the political leaders of the Philippines must have a

high standard of qualification. It is imperative to add an educational requirement with is at

least a bachelor’s degree to their qualifications more than just the ability to read and write.

There might a blurry connection between educational attainment and the progress of a

country but still a bachelor’s degree is an edge in understanding the complexities of

governance.

A Bicameral Congress is an expensive Congress. That is why Lee Kwan Yew said

that politics in the Philippines is only for the elite (Lorenzana, 2014).

Table 3. Cost of Legislation Budget of 1st to 12th Congress.

Congress Session Year Bills Passed Congress Budget (in Budget/Bills

pesos) Passed (in pesos)

1st 1946-1949 428 15, 106, 160.00 35, 294.77

2nd 1949-1953 543 24, 825, 219.68 45, 718.64

3rd 1953-1957 1078 30, 122, 930.00 27, 943.35

4th 1957-1961 1401 50, 616, 263.00 36, 342.80

5th 1961-1965 1192 150, 318, 700.00 126, 106.29

6th 1965-1969 1481 157, 889, 900.00 106, 610.33

25 | P a g e
7th 1969-1972 512 210, 625, 556.00 411, 378.04

8th 1987-1992 1000 4,498, 495,562.00 4,498,495.56

9th 1992-1995 534 4,634,149,000.00 8,678,181.65

10th 1995-1998 573 6,054,386,000.00 10,566,118.67

11th 1998-2001 415 8,876,539,000.00 21,389,250.00

12th 2001-2004 76 11,231,882,000.00 147,787,921.05

This table is from Coronel, Chua, Rimban, and Cruz (2004) in a book The

Rulemakers: How the Wealthy and Well-Born Dominate Congress. The table above gives

readers a grasp of the political system of the Philippines that is for the elite only. A country

like the Philippine with a lot of perennial deficit cannot and should not maintain a very costly

system of legislation (Aguja, 2015). This is furthered by the circuitous legislative process that

the Philippines have. A bill relate to tariff must undergo the three readings in the House of

Representative after it is being done, it will be forwarded to the Senate which will endure the

same process. After the reading, it is will submitted to the President for approval. If he

approves it or does not deal with it (Presidential inaction) for 30 days, it becomes a law.

Good if that is the case. However, if it will be vetoed, it will return to the house where it

came and must gain 2/3 votes of all the members of the House of Representative and 2/3 for

the Senate to override the veto and make it a law. If the House of Representatives and the

Senate has conflicting versions of the bill, they must convene the Bicameral Conference

Committee to settle the differences. When approved by both houses, it will be submitted to

the President for approval. If he approves, it becomes a law. But if the president vetoes it, it

will return to the House where it came (Aguja, 2015). This is how redundant and circuitous

26 | P a g e
the legislative process of the Philippine Bicameral Congress is. But if the legislative branch

would be unicameral, after the three readings, a bill becomes a law. There is no need for it to

be submitted to the executive because in a parliamentary set up, the executive and the

legislative are fused hence the former sits with the latter in parliamentary sessions. It would

save the government a lot of money. In the computation of Aguja (2015), it would be a

whooping amount of 3,873,48,000 pesos per year. The basis for that computation is mainly

the pork barrel of the 24 senators, their salaries and that of their staff. That could be translated

into 25, 823 low coast housing units for the millions of homeless Filipinos (Aguja, 2015).

CONCLUSION

Lee Kwan Yew said: “The Philippines has chosen the most difficult political system

to operate, with its checks and balances and gridlocks between executive and the legislature.

If this were the system chosen by South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or we ourselves, we

would not have attained the status that we have now” (Enrile, 2002). Change has been an

inevitable concept. As a common proverb would say “it is the only constant here on Earth”.

The present Constitution is not any more attuned with time. It should evolve with it in order

for it to become more responsive to the needs of the Filipino people. A federal-parliamentary

constitution is what the Philippines need. It is the only government that puts empowerment of

the Filipino people especially from the lowest strata of the Philippine society at the forefront.

Changing the system of government cannot be done overnight. It is a step-by-step

process towards progress. But do not worry, we are going there. Maybe not tomorrow but

surely we will. We may have a long way to go but rest assured we are cut out for it. The path

toward change is not plain and wide. There will always be hindrances but heads up and eyes

on the prize. Some of us may not be able to really feel the effects of change but at least our

children and children’s children will as we owe the future of our Philippines to them. Surely

27 | P a g e
there will be pains but these birth pains are the necessary evils that our country must face. We

cannot survive if we are not susceptible to change. We will perish to squander to oblivion if

we resist it for only those who have embraced change will be the masters.

28 | P a g e