Advantages and Disadvantages

One advantage in a federal government is that the government remains close to people. Each province has political,
social and economic problems peculiar to the region itself. Provincial government representatives live in proximity to the people and
are most of the time from the same community, so they are in a better position to understand these problems and offer unique
solutions for them. This expands government on national, state, and local levels, giving people more access to leaders and
opportunities to get involved in their government.
A federal government encourages development of the nation in a decentralized and regional manner and allows for unique
and innovative methods for attacking social, economic and political problems. It offers representation to different populations. Citizens
of various provinces may have different aspirations, ethnicity and follow different cultures. The central government can sometimes
overlook these differences and adopt policies which cater to the majority. This is where the regional government steps in. While
formulating policies, local needs, tastes and opinions are given due consideration by the state governments. Rights of the minorities
are also protected.
State governments have the freedom to adopt policies which may not be followed nationally or by any other state. This gives
federalism a room for innovation and experimentation. Two local governments can have two different approaches to bring reforms in
any area of public domain, be it taxation or education. The comparison of the results of these policies can give a clear idea of which
policy is better and thus, can be adopted in the future.
Division of work between the central and the regional governments leads to optimum utilization of resources. The central
government can concentrate more on international affairs and defense of the country while the provincial government can cater to the
local needs.
Federalism also ensures the separation of powers and prevents tyranny. Even if one person or group took control of all
three branches of the federal government, federalism ensures that state governments would still function independently. Federalism,
therefore, fulfills the framers’ vision of a governmental structure that ensures liberty.
Lastly, it fosters state loyalties. Many people feel close ties to their home state, and federalism maintains that connection by
giving power to the states and it provides a barrier to the dominance of the majority.
However, the sharing of power between the central government and the states includes both advantages and disadvantages
of federation. Sometimes there can be overlapping of work and subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for what. It can
lead to duplication of government and inefficient, over-lapping or contradictory making of policies in different parts of the country.
Another disadvantage would be that federalism can lead to over-government that will eventually result to corruption because
of the too many elected representatives with overlapping roles.
Federalism can also lead to inequality between the states and lead to unhealthy competition and rivalry between them.
There can be a rebellion by a regional government against the national government too. Both scenarios pose a threat to the country's
integrity. Also, natural resources, industries, employment opportunities differ from region to region. Hence earnings and wealth are
unevenly distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poor states can. Thus, the gap between rich
and poor states widens.
Federalism can make the state governments selfish and concerned only about their own region's progress. They can
formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions. For example, pollution from a province which is promoting
industrialization in a big way can affect another region which depends solely on agriculture and cause crop damage.
It is also said that federal system of government is very expensive as more people are elected to office, both at the state
and the center, than necessary. Thus, it is often said that only rich countries can afford it.
 One of the staunchest advocates of federalism, former University of the Philippines President Jose Abueva, formed the Citizens’ Movement for a
Federal Philippines (CMFP) to campaign for a shift to a federal of government. In a paper titled Some Advantages of Federalism and
Parliamentary Government for the Philippines (Revised for June 29, 2005), he listed eight advantages of the federal system:

1. The Federal Republic will build a just and enduring framework for peace through 
 unity in our ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity,
especially in relation to Bangsa Moro or Muslim Filipinos and our lumad/indigenous peoples.

2. Decentralization and devolution cannot move further under the old unitary system despite avowed goals expressed in the 1987 Constitution and
the Local Government Code.

3. The Federal Republic will empower our citizens by enabling them to raise their standard of living and enhance their political awareness through
their participation and efficacy in elections and the making and carrying out of government decisions at the regional and local levels.

4. The Federal Republic will improve governance by challenging and energizing state and local leaders, entrepreneurs, and citizens around the
country to take hold of their destiny. Federalism will release them from the costly, time-consuming, stifling, and demoralizing effects of excessive
central government controls and regulation in our traditional unitary system.

5. The Federal Republic will thus stimulate and hasten the country’s political, economic, social, and cultural development.

6. Federalism, together with parliamentary government, will improve governance by promoting the development of strong, united, disciplined, and
program-oriented political parties that are responsible and accountable to the people for their conduct and performance in and out of power.

7. Metro Manila State will have a unified political structure that will integrate its various cities and municipalities under the state assembly that
combines legislative and executive powers and authority. Unlike the state assemblies of the other states, the mayors in Metro Manila will
constitute the Metro Manila State Assembly. The Metro Manila Governor and State Cabinet will direct and coordinate the various metropolitan
functions and services.

8. Gradually, the Federal Republic and its parliamentary government will broaden and deepen democracy.

The CMFP had proposed the holding of a plebiscite early in 2007 to ratify the proposed revision of the 1987 Constitution, so that the election in
May 2007 would be for the officers in the 1987 Constitution as revised.

Unfortunately, it is precisely the need for amendments to the Constitution that doomed the proposal. There was massive opposition to Charter
Change (Cha-Cha) because most people believed it would open the Constitution to other amendments – specifically the removal of term limits for
elected officials, which would benefit then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. She was then already becoming unpopular because of charges of
corruption and of cheating in the 2004 Presidential election, and she was widely believed to be positioning herself to be the country’s leader even
after her term’s end in 2010.
Federalism: Its Advantages and Disadvantages
{ February 11, 2007 @ 4:30 pm } · { Political and Government Systems}
February 7, 2007:Wednesday
Federalism: Its Advantages and Disadvantages
Lea Baluyot

First what is federalism? Federalism is defining as the allocation of power between the national government and regional government. A system
of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. Is it advisable for a country like us to
adapt this kind of government?

According to Jose Abueva, former president of University of the Philippines and a professor of public and administration we should take federal
kind of government. He said that the Philippines would take a period of no less than 10 years to make a successful transition to federalism,
involving a period of consolidation of several regions and intensive socioeconomic development in each of consolidated regions. Advantages of
federal government are the following: (1) It ensures that government remains close to the people because the state government argue that they are
more in tune with the daily needs and aspirations of people especially relevant to small and isolated places. (2) It encourages development of the
nation in a decentralized and regional manner and allows for unique and innovative methods for attacking social, economic and political
problems. (3) It provides a barrier to the dominance of the majority, while the disadvantages are the following: (1) It can lead to duplication of
government and inefficient, over-lapping or contradictory policies in different parts of the country. (2) It can lead to inequality between the states
and lead to unhealthy competition and rivalry between them. (3) It cal lead to over-government that will result to corruption. I have cited both
faces of federal government in order to inform all of you that federal government is a good system of government and a good example of
successful federal kind of government is the United States of America. But the question here is do we really need it? Is it advisable for our
country to change the government into federal?

On my point of view, we do not need here a change of government all we need is to strengthen the centralized government. And also it’s very
expensive to have a federal kind of government. We have no enough funds because we are still paying our debts. We have already LGU’S and
NGO’S to monitor the needs of people that have a power equal to the national government. We are making our situation complicated if we
change our present government into federal. Lastly, the Philippines is a third world country and according to survey last September 16, 2006 we
have 25 only of the world’s 193 countries have federal political system, and 3 out of 25 is belong in Asia. It only indicates that a third world
country like us is not ready and cannot afford the federal government.

PROS

Locals decide for themselves. Regions have their own unique problems, situations, geographic, cultural, social and economic
contexts. Federalism allows them to create solutions to their own problems instead of distant Metro Manila deciding for them.

The states can establish policies that may not be adopted nationwide. For example, liberal Metro Manila can allow same-sex
marriage which the state of Bangsamoro, predominantly Muslim, would not allow. In the United States, some states like Colorado
and Washington have legalized recreational marijuana even if other states have not.

This makes sense in an archipelago of over 7,000 islands and 28 dominant ethnic groups. For decades, the national government
has been struggling to address the concerns of 79 (now 81) provinces despite challenges posed by geography and cultural
differences.

With national government, and thus power, centered in Metro Manila, it's no surprise that development in the mega city has spiralled
out of control while other parts of the country are neglected.

More power over funds, resources. Right now, local government units can only collect real estate tax and business permit fees. In
federalism, they can retain more of their income and are required to turn over only a portion to the state government they fall under.
Thus, local governments and state governments can channel their own funds toward their own development instead of the bulk of
the money going to the national government. They can spend the money on programs and policies they see fit without waiting for
the national government's go signal.

Promotes specialization. The national and state governments can specialize in different policy domains. With most administrative
powers now with the regional governments, the national government can focus on foreign policy, defense, and other nationwide
concerns, like healthcare and taxation.
States have more autonomy to focus on economic development using their core competencies and industries. The state of Central
Luzon can focus on becoming an agricultural hub. The state of Mimaropa, home to Palawan, can choose to use eco-tourism as its
primary launch pad.
Possible solution to the Mindanao conflict. The creation of the state of Bangsamoro within a federalist system may address
concerns of separatists who crave more autonomy over the administration of Muslim Mindanao.

Decongestion of Metro Manila. Through fiscal autonomy for state governments, federalism will more evenly distribute the country's
wealth. In 2015, 35% of the national budget went to Metro Manila even if it represents only 14% of the Philippine population.

Lessens dependence on Metro Manila. When there is political upheaval in Metro Manila, other regions that have nothing to do
with the chain of events are left waiting for the resources that ony the national government can release. With federalism, regions
work independently of Metro Manila for most concerns.

Brings government closer to the people. If detractors say federalism will only make local political dynasties more powerful,
supporters give the argument that, in fact, it will make all local leaders, including those part of political dynasties, more accountable
to their constituents. State governments will no longer have any excuse for delays in services or projects that, in the present
situation, are often blamed on choking bureaucracy in Manila.
Assuming more autonomy for regions leads to economic development, there will be more incentive for Filipinos to live and work in
regions outside Metro Manila. More investors may also decide to put up their businesses there, creating more jobs and opportunities
to attract more people away from the jam-packed mega city.

Encourages competition. With states now more self-reliant and in control of their development, they will judge themselves relative
to how their fellow states are progressing. The competitive spirit will hopefully motivate state leaders and citizens to level up in terms
of quality of life, economic development, progressive policies, and governance.

CONS

Possibly divisive. Healthy competition among states can become alienating – creating rivalries and promoting the regionalism that
some say already challenges the sense of unity in the country. It could enflame hostilities between ethnic groups in the country like
Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Bicolanos, Ilocanos, Tausugs, and Zamboangueños.

Uneven development among states. Some states may not be as ready for autonomy as others. Some states may not be as rich in
natural resources or skilled labor as others. States with good leaders will progress faster while states with ineffective ones will
degrade more than ever because national government will not be there to balance them out.
But in some federal countries, the national government doles out funds to help poorer states. A proposed Equalization Fund will use
a portion of tax from rich states to be given to poorer states.

Confusing overlaps in jurisdiction. Where does the responsibility of state governments end and where does the responsibility of
the national government begin? Unless these are very clearly stated in the amended Constitution, ambiguities may arise, leading to
conflict and confusion. For instance, in times of disaster, what is the division of responsibilities between state and national
governments?

May not satisfy separatists in Mindanao. Separatists are calling for their own country, not just a state that still belongs to a larger
federal Philippines. Federalism may not be enough for them. After all, the conflict continues despite the creation of the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao.
How the Philippines would look when federal

In some proposals, there will be 10 or 11 autonomous states. Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr envisioned 11 states plus the Federal
Administrative Region of Metro Manila.

Here's how the Philippines will look like as laid out in Pimentel's 2008 Joint Resolution Number 10.
Cost of federalism

Shifting to federalism won't come cheap. It would entail billions of pesos to set up state governments and the delivery of state
services. States will then have to spend for the elections of their officials.

Attempts at federalism in PH

There was an attempt during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. One of her campaign promises was to reform
the 1987 Constitution.

A consultative commission she created recommended federalism as one of the goals of the proposed charter change. But the
attempt failed because of opposition from various sectors who believed Arroyo wanted to use the reform to extend her term limit.

(Note that shifting to a federal government does not necessarily mean an extension of term limits for the sitting president. Such an
extension would only take place in a shift to a parliamentary government.)

In 2008, Pimentel Jr and Bacolod City Representative Monico Puentevella filed joint resolutions to convene Congress into a
constituent assembly with the goal of amending the constitution to establish a federal form of government. – Rappler.com