The path to federation
Sen. Grace Poe’s gaffe about the purported link between federalism and political dynasties has revealed her flip-flopping approach in dealing with dynastic politicians. This is a criticism that she has to live with for the rest of the campaign period.
But more critically, such a statement, even if made during an ambush interview, also showed her lack of understanding of federalization. The irony is that many of those who pilloried her for making the remark are most likely as ignorant of federalism as she.
For many countries with the federal form of government, federalizing was principally about pulling all the constituent political entities together to establish a singular and united nation-state. The resulting central (federal) apparatus was essentially a platform to allocate power and resources between the national and the local levels of government. But the autonomy of the latter was always jealously preserved in the course of federation.
For the Philippines, the federalism pathway would be the reverse. First, a central state entity in full control of the entire country already exists. Second, local autonomy is yet to find a firm ground in the overall administration of government.
And worse, any attempt at federalization would have to first overcome a centralized government structure deeply influenced by centuries of colonial rule and 20 years of dictatorship. This system has sustained the culture of political patronage all these years, which of course has been the lifeblood of the hundreds of dynastic families nationwide.
So, to clarify: Federalism does not perpetuate political dynasties. It is actually patronage politics fostered by a highly centralized system of government that does. In fact, political dynasties are a huge obstacle to federalization because they undermine local governance.
But regardless of the anxieties unnecessarily caused by Senator Poe’s critical blunder, I still see federation as the political reform that Filipinos need to pursue. And I suggest we also consider another path toward this goal as a complement to constitutional revision.
According to Prof. Cheryl Saunders of the Melbourne Law School in “Options for Decentralizing Power: Federalism to Decentralization,” federalism is just one example of a decentralization arrangement among a spectrum of arrangements establishing greater or lesser degrees of local autonomy within a nation-state. And there are generally four types—delegation, devolution, regional autonomy, and federation.
It is interesting that Saunders would describe these kinds of decentralization arrangements as units in a spectrum, with delegation as the weakest and federation as the strongest autonomy regime. Because this means that countries like the Philippines can actually navigate the different levels of local autonomy.
Therefore, the shift to a federal form of government need not be seen to happen as a single and momentous event. The transition can actually be undertaken as a step-by-step process, beginning with an in-depth look at the Philippines’ current decentralization arrangement found in the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991.
Obviously, an analysis of the LGC demands more words than this space can allow. But I would like to mention two particular outcomes which can hamper a smooth and orderly evolution to a federalized system of government.
The first one is the finding in the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 that the allocation of responsibilities between the central and local governments in the LGC has not been clear and coherent, much to the prejudice of local communities.
The unequivocal allocation of government functions is very critical to the operational success of the federal structure. Therefore, it is especially important that public officials, and the community itself, for that matter, accept and understand that responsibility and authority between the central and local governments need to be clearly delineated.
This comprehension is absent in the Philippines even after more than two decades under the LGC. And it is obviously a serious cause for worry concerning our readiness to begin the federalization process.
The second issue is the “dole mentality” fostered among local officials by the LGC-mandated Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for local governments. Most, if not all, governors and mayors are extremely reliant on the IRA as their primary source of funding for development initiatives despite other means of raising revenue available under the law.
The IRA was specifically designed to facilitate fiscal autonomy for local governments. Ironically, instead of fostering self-reliance and self-determination in the governance paradigm of local leaders, it has created an environment wherein local executives are encouraged to be more dependent on the good graces of the central government.
A solid grasp of the intricacies of fiscal autonomy is highly crucial to efficient local development planning. And obviously, the independence of the constituent government to determine the socioeconomic advancement of its local area is the very lynchpin of federalism.
Therefore, the patronage frame of mind, particularly when pertaining to fiscal matters, afflicting the local leadership is especially detrimental to any attempt at progressing toward federalization.
Some commentators and scholars have praised the Philippines as one of the first developing countries to embrace the concept of local autonomy. But the reality is that Filipinos are still just coping with decentralization.
In fact, the most appropriate description of the current situation is this: “Decentralization in the Philippines has been neither a notable success nor a disappointing failure.”
But while the country is currently at the weakest point of Saunders’ decentralization spectrum, addressing the glitches in the LGC, such as the two identified here, is precisely part of moving toward the strongest end.
However, it is important to remember that the journey from one point to another in the decentralization spectrum—i.e., the federalization process—is not limited to improving the LGC. Other legislative reform measures such as the proposed antipolitical dynasty and political party reform laws are likewise imperative.
We also cannot forget that constitutional revision is absolutely necessary to complete the transition process. Indubitably, there are reforms that require the direct hand of the people. This is the only way we can truly call ourselves the “Federal Republic of the Philippines.”
Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a practicing lawyer, is the author of the book “Rethinking the Bangsamoro Perspective.” He conducts research on current issues in state-building, decentralization and constitutionalism.
