- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 38
For the topic about federalism, I still have doubts if this system is appropriate in our country. Here are some of my points, I believe:
1. If federalism should be implemented, there is a need to change the Constitution. There are No provisions in the Constitution that allow federalism, but, only to give autonomy to some regions of the country. Should the Constitution be changed (ChaCha), there will be a need for a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) or the Constituent Assembly (ConAs). The danger here actually is that once, the Constitution has been opened for amendment/s, revision, or repeal, we can think that this will be like opening 'Pandora's Box', unlocking all evils.
2. They say that our system is unitary and there is a need for a more parliamentary-federal type of government.
For a Unitary form of government:
1. For me, the unitary system is much more doable and practical. The Power of the State is delegated among the three branches of government and each branch is interdependent upon the other.
a) The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court, CA and Regional Trial Courts) for legal decisions and interpretation of the laws;
b) The Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives) to legislate/enact laws; and
c) The Executive Branch which consists of:
1) The President (with his Cabinets) to govern the nation, implement laws and decisions of the Supreme Court, manage government institutions/GOCCs, oversee LGUs, allocate funds, appoint cabinets/ commissions, etc.; and
2) The Local Government Units (LGUs) which are to govern locally (provincial/municipal/cities), they have their set of local lawmakers (councilmen) that create ordinances, etc..
I agree that taxes or revenues collected will go to the national level and 60% will be retained. The remaining portion will go back to the LGUs. In this set-up, a part of the national budget will be used to allocate funds for infrastructure, other special projects and programs for both national and local levels (as the President may think it necessary) to extend its services to the people. Actually, the main issue here is that the Local Government Units (LGUs) want to increase the budget allocation from 30% to 70%, so, they could massively implement their own projects and programs in their area of responsibility.
Other issues of paramount importance about the unitary system are:
1. On the part of the Executive.
Bureaucracy or 'the top-down approach' (which the author mentioned in his article) has become the major problem. There could also be a possible collusion between the legislature and the executive branch, since, legislation is not part of the powers of the President, therefore, he is handicapped to implement his economic or political reforms. To overcome this limitation, he needs to collude with some legislators, which in turn, may have compromised him by giving them some extraneous benefits or secret deals, etc.
2. On the part of Congress.
People said that Congress is inutile, since, most of the laws that they've enacted were ineffective and do not meet to the needs of our time. They also become a focal point of corruption issues due to the Pork Barrel scam. Moreover, they have used their time unwisely by doing so many investigations 'in aid of legislation' that hampers law making.
3. On the part of the Supreme Court (SC)
People said that administration of justice is so slow, since, the SC could not create or amend laws. Other issues include the need to change the system in courts, from a 'One-Judge rule' to the 'Jury system' which people think is better, since, the latter speeds up the process of giving a more impartial decisions.
For the federal-parliamentary form of government:
The federal type of government, I believe is considered fit, only when you have a huge country like the US, Germany, etc. Wider geographical area may mean a bigger scope of responsibility on the part of the national government. That is why it needs to decentralize some of its functions and responsibilities to its federal states. Singapore, I think, is not a federal country, only it applies a parliamentary form of government and the power of the President also called 'a ceremonial position' is limited only in choosing his cabinets and to head the State military)
Should federal-parliamentary form becomes a law and implemented, the following issues or concerns will be expected:
a) The power of the President will become limited or dissipated.
It is expected that the President's power to run a nation will become limited. One feature of federalism is that there will be a reversal of budget allocation (70/30), the 70% will go down to the federal states and the remaining or smaller portion of the budget will be retained in the national government. Therefore, the President may have a limited capacity to interfere with the affairs of the federal states.
Since, most of the powers of the President are delegated to the Chief Ministers in federal states, it is expected that the Chief Ministers will solve the problems in their respective areas or zones and attend first hand to the needs of their constituents. The role of the President, in this case, will only be of a supporting character.
The main concern here is that what if federal states are led by corrupt politicians? Surely, the huge budget will just simply go to their pockets, thus, making the lives of their constituents more miserable and since, power and control is given much to them, they can exploit everything. As a consequence, we can expect a massive diaspora of their constituents to move to other states where they think they are safe, pampered and not exploited. This can create bigger problems in the future.
In federalism, I have learned that it calls for the abolition of Congress, and instead, the legislative and executive branches will be unified in every federal state. This is usually, headed by a Chief Minister and his many cabinets, and counterbalanced by a Shadow Minister and his black cabinets. (I think this is like a two party/bloc/group system, which is composed of the minority and the majority).
The big question here is that if the above set-up will be followed and more politicians sit in the government, and we know for sure, that if there will be MANY politicians sit in the federal governments, there will be a MASSIVE corruption. Although, they are saying, that corruption will be stopped because both groups will be in constant monitoring against each other, the question is, 'Are we sure that they are going to perform their job?' Or perhaps, they are there to fool people around, just to create a political drama for entertainment. In the end, the ones that benefit are the politicians, but, the sufferings will be on the tax payers.
Since, the above is a two-bloc system, there will only be limited choices from a pool of candidates. Therefore, political dynasty is expected and will become prevalent in this kind of set-up.
With federalism in place, federal laws will be different from one state to another. There might be laws that might be repressive in one state or that which limits your freedom and rights, or perhaps, laws that are favorable to some groups due to its dominance. In this case, the national government could not easily interfere, since, the legislative function is already delegated to the federal states and their laws must be respected.
Although, independence is what we can see in federalism, but, the question is, how long can this independence be able to thrive? The threat is real and imminent! If we have federal states which have different laws, these will possibly create more divisions and differences, and the worst, national disintegration. What if some states favor prostitution or abortion or creation of militant groups? How will the national government respond when the system limits its interference? I am afraid that this nation will become more chaotic than before, and instead of unifying, there will be continuum of disunity.
Any reaction/s?
1. If federalism should be implemented, there is a need to change the Constitution. There are No provisions in the Constitution that allow federalism, but, only to give autonomy to some regions of the country. Should the Constitution be changed (ChaCha), there will be a need for a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) or the Constituent Assembly (ConAs). The danger here actually is that once, the Constitution has been opened for amendment/s, revision, or repeal, we can think that this will be like opening 'Pandora's Box', unlocking all evils.
2. They say that our system is unitary and there is a need for a more parliamentary-federal type of government.
For a Unitary form of government:
1. For me, the unitary system is much more doable and practical. The Power of the State is delegated among the three branches of government and each branch is interdependent upon the other.
a) The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court, CA and Regional Trial Courts) for legal decisions and interpretation of the laws;
b) The Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives) to legislate/enact laws; and
c) The Executive Branch which consists of:
1) The President (with his Cabinets) to govern the nation, implement laws and decisions of the Supreme Court, manage government institutions/GOCCs, oversee LGUs, allocate funds, appoint cabinets/ commissions, etc.; and
2) The Local Government Units (LGUs) which are to govern locally (provincial/municipal/cities), they have their set of local lawmakers (councilmen) that create ordinances, etc..
I agree that taxes or revenues collected will go to the national level and 60% will be retained. The remaining portion will go back to the LGUs. In this set-up, a part of the national budget will be used to allocate funds for infrastructure, other special projects and programs for both national and local levels (as the President may think it necessary) to extend its services to the people. Actually, the main issue here is that the Local Government Units (LGUs) want to increase the budget allocation from 30% to 70%, so, they could massively implement their own projects and programs in their area of responsibility.
Other issues of paramount importance about the unitary system are:
1. On the part of the Executive.
Bureaucracy or 'the top-down approach' (which the author mentioned in his article) has become the major problem. There could also be a possible collusion between the legislature and the executive branch, since, legislation is not part of the powers of the President, therefore, he is handicapped to implement his economic or political reforms. To overcome this limitation, he needs to collude with some legislators, which in turn, may have compromised him by giving them some extraneous benefits or secret deals, etc.
2. On the part of Congress.
People said that Congress is inutile, since, most of the laws that they've enacted were ineffective and do not meet to the needs of our time. They also become a focal point of corruption issues due to the Pork Barrel scam. Moreover, they have used their time unwisely by doing so many investigations 'in aid of legislation' that hampers law making.
3. On the part of the Supreme Court (SC)
People said that administration of justice is so slow, since, the SC could not create or amend laws. Other issues include the need to change the system in courts, from a 'One-Judge rule' to the 'Jury system' which people think is better, since, the latter speeds up the process of giving a more impartial decisions.
For the federal-parliamentary form of government:
The federal type of government, I believe is considered fit, only when you have a huge country like the US, Germany, etc. Wider geographical area may mean a bigger scope of responsibility on the part of the national government. That is why it needs to decentralize some of its functions and responsibilities to its federal states. Singapore, I think, is not a federal country, only it applies a parliamentary form of government and the power of the President also called 'a ceremonial position' is limited only in choosing his cabinets and to head the State military)
Should federal-parliamentary form becomes a law and implemented, the following issues or concerns will be expected:
a) The power of the President will become limited or dissipated.
It is expected that the President's power to run a nation will become limited. One feature of federalism is that there will be a reversal of budget allocation (70/30), the 70% will go down to the federal states and the remaining or smaller portion of the budget will be retained in the national government. Therefore, the President may have a limited capacity to interfere with the affairs of the federal states.
Since, most of the powers of the President are delegated to the Chief Ministers in federal states, it is expected that the Chief Ministers will solve the problems in their respective areas or zones and attend first hand to the needs of their constituents. The role of the President, in this case, will only be of a supporting character.
The main concern here is that what if federal states are led by corrupt politicians? Surely, the huge budget will just simply go to their pockets, thus, making the lives of their constituents more miserable and since, power and control is given much to them, they can exploit everything. As a consequence, we can expect a massive diaspora of their constituents to move to other states where they think they are safe, pampered and not exploited. This can create bigger problems in the future.
In federalism, I have learned that it calls for the abolition of Congress, and instead, the legislative and executive branches will be unified in every federal state. This is usually, headed by a Chief Minister and his many cabinets, and counterbalanced by a Shadow Minister and his black cabinets. (I think this is like a two party/bloc/group system, which is composed of the minority and the majority).
The big question here is that if the above set-up will be followed and more politicians sit in the government, and we know for sure, that if there will be MANY politicians sit in the federal governments, there will be a MASSIVE corruption. Although, they are saying, that corruption will be stopped because both groups will be in constant monitoring against each other, the question is, 'Are we sure that they are going to perform their job?' Or perhaps, they are there to fool people around, just to create a political drama for entertainment. In the end, the ones that benefit are the politicians, but, the sufferings will be on the tax payers.
Since, the above is a two-bloc system, there will only be limited choices from a pool of candidates. Therefore, political dynasty is expected and will become prevalent in this kind of set-up.
With federalism in place, federal laws will be different from one state to another. There might be laws that might be repressive in one state or that which limits your freedom and rights, or perhaps, laws that are favorable to some groups due to its dominance. In this case, the national government could not easily interfere, since, the legislative function is already delegated to the federal states and their laws must be respected.
Although, independence is what we can see in federalism, but, the question is, how long can this independence be able to thrive? The threat is real and imminent! If we have federal states which have different laws, these will possibly create more divisions and differences, and the worst, national disintegration. What if some states favor prostitution or abortion or creation of militant groups? How will the national government respond when the system limits its interference? I am afraid that this nation will become more chaotic than before, and instead of unifying, there will be continuum of disunity.
Any reaction/s?
Last edited:
