Is federalism dead?

GOVERNANCE MATTERS

By FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JEJOMAR C. BINAY

When President Duterte failed to mention federalism in his State of the Nation Address (SONA), observers were quick to conclude that it was no longer a priority in his last three years in office.

The reason provided later, at least for public consumption, is that the debate on federalism has gotten to be too contentious.

What's more, federalism will only give more powers, uncontrollable powers, to local officials and leave the central authority unable to exercise control unless the system has a strong President.

But wait? Isn't greater power and autonomy for local governments the very purpose of federalism?

It wasn't long ago that the Palace and federalism advocates, particularly the DILG's Federalism Institute, were declaring the unitary form of government a failure.

Federalism, they maintained, will allow the envisioned federal states to blossom. Once they are released from the control of "Imperial Manila," economically disadvantaged states will be able to catch up with the more economically robust states, ensuring prosperity and political stability. But now, the cry is for more control over the federal states, not less.

Admittedly I am at a loss here, and so are perhaps the scholars and advocates of federalism. Unless the goal is a federal system patterned after Malaysia, this needs to be clarified.

Unofficially, the word is that the economic team succeeded in making a strong case against federalism.

The economic managers have made no effort to conceal or even sugarcoat their opposition to federalism, especially as envisioned by a presidential commission mandated to craft a proposed federal charter. Their publicly-stated positions offer grim scenarios: a dampening effect on the economy, a ratings downgrade from creditors, and billions in taxpayers money to be spent building the bureaucracy at the state levels, most of them replications of the existing national set up. Then there is the running cost of salaries for state legislators, officials and employees. The national government is expected to pick up the tab for an undetermined period since most federal states are not economically viable enough to pay for them. Add to that the high cost of running a much bigger bureaucracy.

Federalism proponents have also failed to convincingly address the intangible issues, which I have pointed out in my previous columns. Foremost of this is the impact of federalism on our sense of nationhood and national identity. We are still a collection of communities divided along ethno-linguistic lines. Federalism will deepen that divide. It will lead to the fragmentation of the country, and provide fertile soil for secessionist movements. That is my biggest fear.

But can we safely say that federalism is really dead? Given the administration's sterling record on walking back its public statements, there are, as always, nagging doubts about the finality of the federal initiative.

Indeed, just a few days after the SONA, an official of the DILG said the President himself will revitalize his federalism agenda in a national convention on constitutional reforms scheduled this month.

It is expected that a task force headed by the Interior Secretary will be finished harmonizing various proposals to revise the 1987 Constitution in time for the convention. Among these proposals is a shift from a unitary to a federal form of government. And once the President concurs with the harmonized Charter provisions, these will then be submitted to Congress.

So confident are the advocates of federalism that the former spokesman of the presidential commission was quoted as saying that they intend to organize a People's Initiative to back the planned Charter revision. People's Initiative is one of the recognized modes of amending the Constitution.

And with a supermajority in Congress, Charter revision in the last three years of the administration could not be totally ruled out.

But this early, some members of Congress seem more interested in proposing political amendments. A concurrent resolution has been filed in the House of Representatives extending the terms of congressmen from three to four years per term, thus allowing them up to 12 consecutive years in office, instead of the current nine years. This was first proposed by the Speaker, who deemed the longer term "more practical."

Sadly, proposals like these, perceived by the public as opportunistic and self-serving, are precisely why previous attempts to amend the Constitution failed miserably.

So is federalism really dead? Abangan.

[email protected]

CAPTION(S):

Former Vice President Jejomar C. Binay

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:	Opinions and Editorials
Publication:	Manila Bulletin
Date:	Aug 7, 2019
Words:	733
Previous Article:	'Indestructible' tardigrades may be alive on the Moon.
Next Article:	Two leaders and the people they lead.
Topics:	Federalism