On federalism (1)

Koko Pimentel

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte campaigned and won on a platform of federalism and we in PDP Laban have been advocates of federalism since our party was founded in 1982 by Sen. Nene Pimentel, among others. In fact, federalism has been part of our party’s platform since its inception in the early ’80s.

More importantly, the debate on the appropriate form of government for our country has been fought since the beginning of our Republic. As early as the 1890s, our national hero himself Jose P. Rizal advocated for a federal form of government for our country. In his seminal work, “The Philippines A Century Hence,” Rizal wrote that the country would probably adopt the “freest government” and he predicted that the “islands will probably declare themselves a federal republic.”

While Rizal was a federalist, Andres Bonifacio, on the other hand, was a unitarian. Therefore, this debate is nothing new and the discussion on decentralization, devolution and local autonomy has been alive and well for more than a century.

So, let me begin my talk by discussing our experience with decentralization and how the adoption of the federal system of government maybe the next logical step for us to take after 25 years of devolution of certain central government powers to the local governments. I will also speak about the French system of government that our President has proposed for our country.

Briefly, our experience with decentralization or devolution has generally been positive. Since the Spanish colonial era up to the American

Occupation and all the way to the years of our independence as a Republic in 1946 our system of governance had always been highly centralized or unitarian. All power belonged to “Imperial Manila.” This system of government has stunted economic development and heightened tensions among the people in the impoverished areas of the country, particularly in the Moro dominated areas of Mindanao.

Then, in 1990 the landmark Local Government Code was introduced by Tatay, Sen Nene Pimentel, and was passed by Congress and made effective in 1991. Since then, certain powers of government like those that pertain to health, agriculture, and social welfare, and snippets of power over education, environment, tourism and to some extent, police had been devolved to and exercised by local governments.

Under the Local Government Code of 1991, local autonomy would now mean less reliance on the national government, including the “allotments” given by Imperial Manila, and increased reliance on internally-generated resources, or resources jointly generated with other institutions be they other LGUs or private institutions.

Before the adoption of the Local Government Code, the taxes of the nation and the revenues accruing to the government from natural resources like geothermal plants, gold, copper and iron mines, and timber had been monopolized by the central government. With the adoption of the Code, these were now mandated to be shared between the central government and the local government units.

Because of the devolution of certain central government powers to the local governments and the compulsory sharing of central government taxes and revenues derived from natural resources between the former and the latter, the local governments are now able to provide many of the basic services that they used to rely on the central government to deliver. Moreover, the Code gave LGUs the power to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges, thus allowing them to become selfeliant communities.

Today, more and more roads are constructed or repaired by the local governments through their local engineering offices. More and more schools and teacher needs are provided by the local governments (through the local school boards). More and more health services are delivered by local governments (through the local health boards). More and more agriculture and social welfare services are delivered through locally organized agriculture and social services offices.

In a word, more and more socio-economic activities are now undertaken by local governments than ever before.

While some local governments failed to deliver on the promised development for one reason or another, nonetheless by and large there has been a huge leap in the delivery of basic services to our people since the devolution of certain powers, finances and resources from the central government to the local governments.

Having seen what devolution can accomplish, there is no turning back. In fact, local governments now want more. They want at least 50 percent of the taxes and revenues collected by the central government. They want more powers over the police, tourism, trade, and development issues in general. In fine, local governments want to raise the ante in the matter of power-tax-andevenue sharing with the central government in order to spur more growth and development across the country.

Notwithstanding what the Code was able to accomplish, much remains to be done. Our country is still mired in poverty and underdevelopment. A separatist rebellion is still raging in Mindanao and a communist insurgency lives on in the countryside. And more and more of our young people are flocking to foreign shores to earn a living because our economy has not grown enough to provide jobs for our growing labor force. While our GDP has grown considerably in the past 10 years, the rich just keeps getting richer and the vast majority of our people who are poor, even poorer.

Clearly, the highly centralized and unitary system that we have had for more than a century has resulted in an imbalance in the distribution of resources among LGUs. And most importantly, it has hampered the speedy development of most areas in our country, particularly those in the countryside. This has to change.

Nothing shows the yearning for change in this country more than the election of our first Mindanaoan President who lamented about the “erosion of the people’s trust and confidence in government and its leaders” in his inaugural address to the nation.

The problem, we submit, is our highly centralized form of government and the solution, we submit, is the adoption of the federal system. We believe that the only way to bring about equitable development in our country is for the central government to share power – political and economic – with local governments across the nation.

Federalism is derived from the Latin word foedus meaning “covenant.” A covenant signifies a partnership or marriage wherein individuals or groups consent to unite for common purposes without giving up their fundamental rights or identities, thus giving birth to a federal society.

A federal society is one which recognizes the diversity that exists among the people. Indeed, federalism is a form of government made necessary by certain diversities in society. For a diverse and multi-cultural country such as ours with 7,100 islands spread across our great archipelago, federalism provides a system wherein national unity is maintained while at the same time recognizing and protecting the diversity of Philippine society.

In federalism, sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units, like states or provinces. Each level of government usually has its particular jurisdiction; areas of public policy in which it alone has final authority, unless it decides to share it with the other. Simply put, federalism can be viewed as a system that accommodates both self rule of the constituent unit and shared rule at the federal level. While there is no single model of a federal system in the world, there are common attributes that characterize federal systems:

1. Distribution of powers between central and constituent units;
2. The participation of constituent units in central decision-making;
3. The constitutional autonomy of constituent units;
4. Accommodation of diversity;
5. Fiscal equalization; and
6. Intergovernmental instruments.

For me federalism rests on the principle that the smallest unit of government knows what is best for the needs of its constituents. Decisions should therefore be made by the local governments because they know best who need help and how to help them. Since the beginning of my career, I have always believed that greater autonomy must be granted to the far flung regions of our country that are neglected and left behind in economic development.

This is a vision I share with President Duterte who recognized that with federalism, the wishes and aspirations of the various groups, tribes, and peoples in Mindanao would be addressed.

Thus, aside from expanding the powers and increasing the resources and finances to local governments, the next logical, and perhaps the only peaceful, legal and constitutional avenue left open to those who wish to lay down the foundations for a just and lasting peace in Mindanao, which will also speed up the economic development of the entire country, is for us to adopt a federal system of government.

May I, however, strongly emphasize that under a Federal system we will be one country. There will only be one constitution. One armed forces. One flag and anthem. One central bank. One monetary system. One foreign policy. And One public education system, among others. There will only be one federal republic with states and local governments under it.

My tatay, Sen. Nene Pimentel, has proposed 11 states under our Federal Republic and he has, in fact, already proposed a constitution for our new government. He will elaborate more about his proposal later.

In his Sona, the President proposed the French Model which is a hybrid presidential-parliamentary system while others have proposed the pure Parliamentary system of the United Kingdom and the Presidential-Federal system of the United States. There are also others who propose the Parliamentary-Federal systems of Canada and Germany, among others.

Since we are, more or less, somehow familiar with the US and British models since we have been exposed to these systems through the media, allow me to speak about the French system of government being proposed by the President.

Unlike the American political system and the British political system which essentially have existed in their current form for centuries, the current form of the French system is a much more recent construct dating from 1958 and today’s Fifth Republic. The current system – which gives substantial power in the President – is a response to the political weaknesses of the pre-war Third Republic and post-war Fourth Republic. Following a political crisis over France’s colonial war in Algeria, Charles de Gaulle took power under a new constitution which gave the President new executive powers; making the post uniquely powerful in European politics.

Under the French system, the head of state is the President and the head of government is the Prime Minister. The government under the leadership of the PM directs and decides the policies of the nation and is responsible or accountable to the French Parliament. As in other parliamentary systems, the French Parliament can dismiss the government with a motion of censure. But the similarities end there. (to be concluded)

(Excerpts from a speech by Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III during the Centennial Lecture Series on Aug. 4, 2016.)