Federalism: Transforming Unitary Government into a

Federation of States
A Position Paper

Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s assumption of power as the President of the Republic of the
Philippines signalled wide‐ranging and significant political and socioeconomic reforms, which
notably include a proposed shift from a unitary to a federal form of government. President
Duterte has openly advocated and called for support from policymakers towards this shift,
primarily to maximize regional growth potentials and to resolve decades of turmoil in Mindanao.
According to the 2012 report of Transparency International, a major constraint to the
development of the Philippines is the concentration of resources and the power to deploy them in
the hands of the national government in which, according to the report, has caused rampant
mismanagement, inefficiency in the delivery of government services and has complicate regional
inequalities by sustaining patronage, corruption, and the growth of political dynasties. Reducing
this concentration of resources is an essential initial step in addressing the long‐standing
problems of poverty and uneven economic growth, a motivation used by the supporters of
federalism to push an overhaul of the country’s current political system. Federalism entails the
establishment of bigger middle‐level governments that are capable of absorbing more powers
devolved from the national government. This facilitates a balanced distribution of resources and
power between the national and subnational levels (proposed states and regions) and better
coordination and integration in the delivery of government services (US Legal, 1997).
Proponents that carry the torch towards federalism see it as an “answer”. However, if
federalism is the answer, then what is the question? What problems does charter revision wish to
address that cannot be addressed through constitutional amendment, regular legislation, and
executive action? Are the threats to political and economic instability needed to be address
through a charter change or it just a call for character change?
The various resolutions expressing support for a shift to federalism claim that federalism
would be most suitable to the Philippines as an archipelagic and multi-linguistic country.
Moreover, federalism would enable regions to retain locally-generated income, plan on their own
without national government interference, and manage their own affairs. The House resolutions
argue that federalism will bring political stability, spur economic development, unshackle the
localities, and bring government closer to the people. Some resolution sponsors consequently
decried the failure of the 1987 Constitution to bring about these desired changes (UP, 2018).
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, for his part, has stated several times that only federalism will
accommodate the legitimate interests of Filipino Muslims in the South. Without discounting the
potential of a federal system to uplift the country, we should not be blind to its possible negative
consequences. We urge the proponents of federalism to duly consider the following pitfalls of a
federal setup as already experienced in several federal states such as Libya.
Poor Public Acceptance
The legislation of Federalism is a national endeavor. So since 2016, several proposed
resolutions either favoring the federal shift claim that there is a “public clamor” for the shift. But
according to a July 2016 survey done by Pulse Asia, around 61% are either opposed to or
undecided on a shift from a unitary to a federal system. In Pulse Asia’s quarterly surveys on most
urgent national concerns, top responses usually include controlling inflation, improving /
increasing workers’ pay, fighting criminality, creating more jobs, and fighting graft and
corruption in government. Since 2016, no higher than 2-4% of respondents consider shifting the
system of government as urgent. In the Publicus Asia / Vox Opinion Research’s survey last
August 2017, only 33% of respondents have read, heard or watched anything about the proposal
to change the present form to federal; among those aware, 22% said they understand the
discussions about federalism, 51% said their knowledge or understanding of the concept of
federalism is not full, and 27% said that they have no understanding about it. The Filipino people
need to hear answers about federalism and should base on grounded and evidence-based claims.
Our people deserve no less.
Issue of Timing
Federalism, they say, may be more efficient because the power of the government is
dispersed among the states to help in solving problems to contribute to a faster development, but
so as the time. It may not prosper in our nation (Arugay, 2016). The Philippines may not be able
to cater the federalism because it is currently under economic problems and issues. The country
as a third world is less likely capable to quickly shift from unitary government to federalism
mainly because of poverty, high crime rates, and corruption. The federalism as a system may not
be a click for the Philippines and if enacted, it will likely prove a bane rather than a boon for the
country.
Competition among States or Regions
Federalism is seen as an advocator of conflict and will create further division on our
archipelagic country as states will compete with each other in an oppositional way, by reducing
the amount of benefits they give to welfare recipients compared to, say, a neighbouring state,
motivating the undesirables to go to the neighbouring state, thereby, reducing their welfare costs
even more. This reduction of state benefits to needy has been deemed the ‘race to the bottom.’
Federalism could create a healthy competition among states that will lead to more rivalries and
worse, disunity among the Filipino people. Decentralization of local governments is also a
detriment that could worsen hostilities among ethnic groups, according to critics..
Regional Disagreements, Dependency and Resentment
Across federal states, resource faculty and levels of development would differ. Some
states might lag behind as some states are not as ready to be autonomous compared to developed
regions such as Metro Manila, which would create a lot of problems. Region in this social

1|Page
position greatly opposed the implementation of federalism – those that lack natural resources and
skilled labourers. Without an effective mechanism for revenue sharing across states whereby
richer states or units subsidize poorer ones, federalism could increase inequality among sub-
national units (IDEA, 2015). Subsequently, the poorer regions or states may become dependent
on fiscal transfers, causing resentment on the part of the more economically productive states
(Hague & Harrop, 2007). Such resentment is very much felt in federal Germany as well as
regionalized Italy.
Quality of Public Services
It is assumed that federalism will deliver the public goods and services more efficiently.
This may be the case in high-income regions or states, but the opposite may be truer in the
poorer ones. Full deterioration of public services could lead to gross disparities in the provision
and the quality of public services from one state to another, to the detriment of the affected
public (IDEA, 2015).
National Government Paralysis
One advantage of federalism is that it creates a system of checks and balances. On the
other hand, contemporary issues and key government functions are becoming more and more
interconnected, requiring government operations to be more interdependent. State governments
may fail to effectively coordinate emergency intervention from the central authority during
urgent situations like disasters or failure of governance. Moreover, federal states may resist bold
reforms issue from the national government (Heywood, 2013). How do we create a federal
system where there is greater coordination and sharing instead of just competition?
Monetary Requirements
Transforming the government into a federal system of government is going to be
expensive. Obviously, creating a new territorial and political subdivision complete with its own
bureaucracy and legislative body will entail additional operating costs, and require new
infrastructure, personnel, etc. (IDEA, 2015). The shift of our government into a federation would
cost billions of pesos in setting up federal states and delivering their services. A federal set-up
also invests heavily in inter-governmental mechanisms that will effectively coordinate shared
powers, manage shared revenues, and allocate budget for support. All these mechanisms require
highly technical human resources with complete staffing (UP, 2018).
Challenges National Identity
Some countries like Canada, India and Switzerland have opted for a federal structure to
bridge ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity within a divided society. Coutries like Belgium
were under pressure from ethnic or regional nationalism, have shifted to federalism (Bale, 2013).
In any case, federalism by itself simply cannot create unity in diversity or a sense of nationalism
that overcomes people’s subnational political identities. For instance, despite transforming

2|Page
into a full-fledged federal set-up in 1993, Belgium has yet to create a larger “Belgian” national
identity that would overlay the divide between the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking
populations. Moreover, minorities within federal states may continue to experience
discrimination and marginalization, with the national government unable to take direct action to
address the oppression (IDEA 2015, 6). It will take more than a shift to federalism to build a
strong, united country with a cohesive national identity, especially in multicultural settings
marked by politicized subnational identities. We must not expect outcomes on federalism that it
may not be able to deliver.
Abuse of Power
Under a federal system, they are best positioned to dominate the newly created local
legislature and state institutions, further consolidating their grip on power in the country's power
regions. It's no wonder, then that most surveys show the rest majority of Filipinos are either
against constitutions change or completely unaware of its implications. Some of the radical
Islamic separatists might want to have their own country and not just a state. In our country’s
history, the formation of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) did not stop
some of the terror groups from causing chaos and death in the country.
An eventual shift to federalism implies the significant expansion of the range and depth of
power and authority that will be transferred from the national government to the proposed federal
states and regions. We are concerned that in this time of uncertainty, a shift to a federal system
may not be what we need in dealing our unstable economic and political landscape. A character
change must first take place – a transparent government and honest officials who both desire a
better and united Philippines. From the current baseline and situation of our country, it is
imperative that such move must be preceded and complemented with a comprehensive research.
It needs to be addressed squarely if it is contemplated that the national government shall
eventually turn over to the local governments more power and authority over critical processes
such as taxation and regulation if a shift to a federal system is implemented. We, therefore, urge
that significant upgrades in local government efficiency and service capabilities be instituted and
strengthened as a vital precondition prior to a shift to a federal system. The government must
also hear the pulse of the people with regards to prioritizing and developing direct solutions to
problems like poverty and weak economic growth instead of taking the risk of transforming our
government into a federation that might be a wrong investment of time and money. This shift is a
national endeavour and if it will be further push by the current administration, it would be wise
to be involved and participate in the national dialogue process and surveys to scrutinize and
understand the shift from unitary to a federal government.

3|Page