The Federal Republic of the Philippines

[b_9904]

If we are going to have federalism, then the NCR should be a State all to its own.

Then we will have our versions of Puerto Rico, Massachusetts, et al. Wonder who will those be?

Hmmmm.... Will Panay be Calif? Bukidnon as San Fran?

But who will be Hawaii, Phili, Alabama?

Calabarzon will definitely be Red Neck country, loose gun and all. But will they be also the Bible Belt?

Will the ARMM be Germany, Canada, or Poland? I think Ottoman.

Sierra Madre will be the "Rockies", I am sure of that. :D

Since the NCR feeds a third of the total economy, then how the hell can socialist Philippines support its communist agenda?

I wonder... It gives me a head ache just thinking about it.

All that i am sure of is that the North will be Israel, or is it Davao, maybe Zambo?

[111prez]

Hmmm, always the comparison to the U.S.

There is also the Swiss Confederation model.

Kung left of center is DU30, eh di subukan nya yung old SSR model

[Monseratto]

Our neighbour Malaysia is a ferderation. Singapore was a part of it but was kicked out...

[b_9904]

Hmmm, always the comparison to the U.S.

There is also the Swiss Confederation model.

Kung left of center is DU30, eh di subukan nya yung old SSR model

But, but... the Ottoman is a monarchy!

Or are they theocratic now?

Hmmm... same difference.

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[Altis6453]

I don't see how federalism addresses the age-old political problems of dynasties and feudal relationships of landowner and farmers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[b_9904]

I don't see how federalism addresses the age-old political problems of dynasties and feudal relationships of landowner and farmers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does not. This is the result of GDP envy.

But hey so long as DU30 gets his parliament right? Funny thing that system, the PM can dissolve Parliament. Lolz

I wonder if the Philippines ever had that funny experience as well.



Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[badkuk]

So kung mag federal nga tayo, and the same trapos/warlords are running things...will it make things better?

Speaking as an ignorant non-Mindanaoan: i can't shake the feeling that going federal will only legitimize the warlords and their private armies. What with the rido and revenge killings that are all the rage in Mindanao, magka giyera pa yan, state vs. state.

We talk about this form of government being better than the other, but most of the time it's the people in government that's the problem. imho, it's people that need to change.



Sorry for being such a noob: if we do go federal, would what happened to USSR, where several states declared independence, be a possibility for PH? Is it somehow easier to do so in a federal form of government?

[Altis6453]

So kung mag federal nga tayo, and the same trapos/warlords are running things...will it make things better?

Speaking as an ignorant non-Mindanaoan: i can't shake the feeling that going federal will only legitimize the warlords and their private armies. What with the rido and revenge killings that are all the rage in Mindanao, magka giyera pa yan, state vs. state.

We talk about this form of government being better than the other, but most of the time it's the people in government that's the problem. imho, it's people that need to change.



Sorry for being such a noob: if we do go federal, would what happened to USSR, where several states declared independence, be a possibility for PH? Is it somehow easier to do so in a federal form of government?

A part of me is kind of tempted to say, "To hell with it, go ahead!" if only to prove to the proponents that it likely won't work.

[Flipo]

A part of me is kind of tempted to say, "To hell with it, go ahead!" if only to prove to the proponents that it likely won't work.

Changing to federal system not easy | Inquirer Opinion

Changing to federal system not easy
By: Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer 02:11 AM May 21st, 2016

As I see it, incoming President Rodrigo Duterte’s timeline so far has this feature: Three to six months into his term, he will have reduced criminality and corruption in the country by a substantial amount. Please, Mr. Duterte, tell us how we are to measure the success (or failure) of such an effort. What will constitute “substantial”? The number of shoot-to-kill orders carried out? The increase in the number of cases filed against government officials and employees? The crime rates (which ones?) reduced by 25 percent, or 50 percent, or 10 percent? The jailing of Jojo Binay (you promised he would be the first one you would go after, remember)?

Then we have a second feature: Within two years, he will submit his federalism proposal to either a plebiscite or a referendum.

Duterte explains that within this period, he will create a commission (Commission to Study Federalism?), whose main task (quoting from newspaper reports, which may be dangerous) would be to start the discussion on how the country could effect the shift to a federal form of government. After that, he would call for a constitutional convention (obviously through Congress, because the latter is the only one who can call it, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members).

So, Reader, Duterte does not have a specific proposal in mind. The commission will package it, from scratch.

Frankly, I don’t think he will be able to achieve either of these two promises/proposals within his projected timeline. But his first promise, from all the analyses I read, is what got him elected. I don’t think people voted for him because of federalism. What does he hope to achieve by it?

Well, he asserts that nothing short of federalism could solve our Moro problem. The Moros don’t seem to think so. They think that the Bangsamoro Basic Law does not need constitutional change. He also asserts that our presidential, unitary form of government has led to unequal distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, he gives us no evidence to back his statement. I know of no study or research that does.

But hold on. How did “presidential” get into the picture? We can have a federal and presidential government at the same time (e.g., the United States). So does that mean he ultimately wants a federal, parliamentary form of government, as opposed to our current unitary, presidential? If so, why hasn’t he said it out loud? Is the parliamentary form of government his actual objective, and he is only hiding behind federalism? Is he using the parliamentary promise to keep Congress in line (they want it so badly)? Please, Mr. Duterte, say it isn’t so. I can see benefits to federalism, although it also has its costs. But a parliamentary form of government will mean no more term limits, more political dynasties, and more chances to keep feudalism alive and well. In other words, it will mean the triumph of trapos and their kin, the buwayas who have impoverished our country.

Reader, if you are now thoroughly confused with the words “parliamentary,” “presidential,” “federal” and “unitary,” let me try to dispel the confusion.

Presidential vs. parliamentary has to do with the horizontal sharing of power in a country: We all know what a presidential system is. In a parliamentary system, the legislators also are the executives. The head of government (there are exceptions) is generally chosen among the legislators, and so is the Cabinet. Hence my dismay. There are other features, too, but now is not the time to bring them up. It helps me to think of presidential vs. parliamentary as forms of government.

Federal vs. unitary has to do with the vertical division of power, between the national (or central) and the state/local governments. In a unitary system, the central government holds all (or most) of the power, and in a federal system, power is divided between central and local governments. It helps me to think of federal vs. unitary as systems of government.

The federal system is based on the principle of subsidiarity, which is basically the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary (that is, a supporting, rather than a subordinate) function, with the central performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, categorizes our present system as a “mitigated unitarism” since 1987 because the new Constitution gives the local government some powers, such as the power of local taxation and the encouragement of local autonomy. It even authorized two autonomous regions.

Reader, changing to a federal system is not so easy. Aside from dividing powers vertically, it will require the very ticklish problem of dividing our country into states. What will be the basis? Language and culture? Economic viability? Obviously, geographic contiguity is a must. Will we have three states (Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao), or five, or seven, or 11, or 15, or 80? Think of politicians trying to keep their power. I guess the Duterte commission is expected to thresh out all of that.

Do we have to go this route? There are quarters who say that the Constitution does not have to be amended, only the Local Government Code, and some laws, assuming that the main objective is more autonomy, and devolved powers and resources to the local government units. Now if there are other objectives like staying in power indefinitely, that’s something else. In the meantime, while all these discussions are going on, who will be minding the store? Or will we go back to being the “sick man of Asia”?

[safeorigin]

So kung mag federal nga tayo, and the same trapos/warlords are running things...will it make things better?

Speaking as an ignorant non-Mindanaoan: i can't shake the feeling that going federal will only legitimize the warlords and their private armies. What with the rido and revenge killings that are all the rage in Mindanao, magka giyera pa yan, state vs. state.

We talk about this form of government being better than the other, but most of the time it's the people in government that's the problem. imho, it's people that need to change.



Sorry for being such a noob: if we do go federal, would what happened to USSR, where several states declared independence, be a possibility for PH? Is it somehow easier to do so in a federal form of government?

the question would be: if you are skeptical of diluting power, shouldn't you be more skeptical of centralizing/concentrating it?

as in the case of the rest of the world, be it monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, federal, central or confederate, none of those matter when you have a bunch of extremists in your turf and they would wreak havoc wherever they please.

but looking back at swiss confederate history, in people's minds there were fears of local warlords just running the place at the time of william tell after they got their independence. turns out they did pretty well and they have a LOOOONG history of keeping arms in their households(and for the most part avoided wars and conflicts). swiss don't even have a distinct culture as they are pretty much a melting pot of european descents and languages.

one can only dream of becoming one. but we're not alone in that regard. brits too want to be like the swiss.

[safeorigin]

as it stands, our country's government is top-down meaning power WAAAAY concentrated to the top.

time and time again, this has the tendency to produce excessive bureaucracy and ever expanding power over the ordinary citizen's life

on the other hand, countries that tend to prosper are among those who have the freest laws and where power isn't as much centralized, i.e. smaller communities have autonomy

How Switzerland's political system works

IJA137

[Flipo]

Understanding federalism | Opinion, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

Understanding federalism
Elfren S. Cruz - May 22, 2016 - 12:00am
Although the topic of federalism has been discussed since the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there are still many areas that are not clear even to political analysts. In the interest of full disclosure, I will state now that I have always been in favor of a federal system of government and I have written several columns in the past about this topic. However, today I want to focus on clarifying certain issues.

There is a wrong impression that the choice is between a unitary form of government – which we have now – and a federal form of government. There are actually three choices for forms of government – unitary, federal, confederate. Federalism is actually the middle choice between centralization and confederation.

In a unitary form of government, there is one level of government – the national government. All other forms of government are subordinate to the central government.

In both federalism and confederalism, there are two levels of government. In a confederation, however, the central government is subordinate to the regional governing bodies. In a federal form of government, there is a clear division of authority between national government and the state or regional government. The central government will remain more powerful than the state because of its authority over national concerns.

For example, in a federal government, the national government retains sole power in the areas of foreign affairs, national defense, monetary and fiscal policies and constitutional issues. The central government will, therefore, continue to have sole power to make treaties, control the armed forces, and a common currency. The Constitutional bodies will remain – Supreme Court, Central Bank, and Comelec.

A brief look at American history might shed some light on this issue. The original United States was actually a confederation of 13 states. When the US Constitution was being drafted, a Federalist Party was organized to support a stronger central government while maintaining the 13 states. A group called the Anti-Federalists wanted a weaker central government. The final US Constitution invoked federalism which was considered as being in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary government.

The American Civil War (1861-1865) was between the South who wanted a confederacy and the North who wanted to retain the federal union. That is the reason why the Southern states that seceded from the United States of America called themselves the Confederate States of America.

The other issue that must be clarified is that the choice of having a presidential and parliamentary form of government is a different debate than choosing a unitary or federal government. Just for emphasis, a parliamentary or presidential form of government can be instituted in a federal, unitary or confederate form of government.

There are also three choices that are available – parliamentary, presidential and a combination of the two. United States is an example of a presidential form; Japan and the United Kingdom have a parliamentary form; and, France has a combination of both presidential and parliamentary.

Division of powers

In a federal form of government, the constitution must prevail. Therefore, the division of powers between the federal and regional form of governments must be clearly stated in the constitution. The constitution must also provide for powers that are not explicitly stated in the constitution. In Germany and the United States, the powers that are not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states. Other countries, like Canada and India, are different in that powers not explicitly given to the states are retained by the federal government.

In the granting of powers to the state, there are also two ways. If all the states have the same powers, this is called “symmetric federalism.” In a federal form of government where some states are given different powers or some possess greater autonomy, this is called “asymmetric federalism.” This is often done when it is clear that a state or region possess a distinct culture. In the case of the United Kingdom, Scotland has been given greater autonomy than England, Wales or Northern Ireland. In Spain the regions dominated by the Basques and the Catalans have more powers than the other Spanish regions.

In the division of powers, India has four lists of powers – Union List, Concurrent List, State List, and Residuary List. I am not advocating that we copy the India model. But I am presenting it here as a possible basis for discussion.

In the Union List, there are approximately 100 areas which is reserved for the federal government. Some of the areas are defense, armed forces, atomic energy, foreign affairs, citizenship, airways, currency, foreign trade, inter- state trade and commerce, banking, customs, elections and the Supreme Court.

In the State List, there are more than 60 items on the list. Some examples are police, local governments, public health and sanitation, land tenures, fisheries, trade and commerce within the state, public markets and gambling.

The Concurrent List has more than 50 items where uniformity is desired but not considered essential. If there is any conflict between the laws made by the federal and state government, the legislation by the federal government shall prevail. Some items on this list are criminal law, marriage and divorce, adoption, forestry, labor unions, education, administration of justice except Supreme Court and High Courts.

In the United States, the federal government sets the minimum wage but the individual states have the right to enact its own minimum wage which, however, must be higher than the federal minimum wage.

The shift to federalism, even with Charter change, will be an evolving process and not an overnight change as some people wrongly envision. Even in the United States, the delineation of powers between the national and the state governments is continuously changing.

There are advantages and disadvantages to instituting federalism in the Philippines. There will be losers and winners in any shift to a different form of government. So we need to have a vigorous national debate. But the first step is to understand what federalism really means and while Charter change will formalize the structure, the process of federalizing can actually begin without Charter change.