PRACTICABILITY CONSTRUCTIVE STATEMENT (NEGATIVE)

(by: Monette P. Galang)

Changing the form of government from unitary to federal is impractical in terms of time,

money and effort. We firmly believe that Philippines has a limited resources to apply federal form

of government. Because federalism is too expensive to form and to implement. And also

federalism can worsen the unequal development of regions and state.

Federalism is too expensive to form and to implement

According to Article XVII Section 1 and 2 of 1987 Constitution, amending or revising this

constitution should undergo in either of the three process; Constitutional Convention, Constituent

Assembly and by People’s Initiative. Shifting to federal form of government requires to amend the

current constitution and will require to undergo in any of the three process.

Based on the summary, the estimated budget of the House of Committee of Constitutional

Amendments, the government will spend Php 11Billion if the Congress convene the Constitutional

Convention while Constituent Assembly would cost Php 204Billion. This estimates is calculated

only for one-year expenditure. It may increase depending on the number of years that will entail

to finish amending the constitution.

The next phase which is the plebiscite more over adds this overwhelming expenditures.

According to Senator Pimentel, it would cost an addditional Php 8Billion.

This amount is just for the amending of the constitution to change the form of government

to federal. There are another issues in the implementation cost of the federalism in the Philippines.

Creating regional or state government would be costly. A study of Rosario Manasan a

senior reseacher of Philippine Institute of Development Studies, the salaries of the governors, vice
governors, regional senators and goverment staff, the government offices and other operating

expense could cost Php 44Billion to Php 72Billion in a year.

Regardless of the aforementioned expenditures, it is CERTAINLY impractical to change

the form of government. Change is an investment. And federalism is a big change, Therefore,

Federalism is a big investments for the Philippines. But this billions of pesos that will spend in

amending the constitution and implementing the federalism would be better if it will be invested

on social services such as health, education, and employment that would directly answer the real

problems of the country.

Federalism can worsen the unequal development of regions and states.

In the speech of Senator Koko Pimintel in the annual convention of the Integrated Bar of

the Philippines, one of the reason why federalism is better than unitary is that it hastens the

economic development among the various regions of the country. By devolving a power to the

regional government to mobilize their resources for development without being controlled by

national government to the regions.

Consider ARMM that represent the principle of a federal state here in the Philippines. But

despite of their autonomy and power to govern their own, ARMM remains as one of the poorest

region in the Philippines (Philippine Statistics Authority).

ARMM which has a low generating income a year and insufficient budget to support the

needs of its people is a proof that federalism is not an apt to the Philippines. There are still regions

and provinces that cannot stand on their own because of their limited resources and not capable to

keep pace in the development of other regions.

 We, the opposing team firmly believe that it is more practical to invest and prioritize on

other programs especially in social service such as health, education and employment that directly

addresses our current problems rather than allocating a large amount of money in changing the

form of government. It is also more practical to help and focus on the under-developed regions

that seek support to provide their people’s need rather leaving them behind. We, the opposing team

will stand that federalism is not the real and inappropriate answer for current problems of the

country.
 NECESSITY CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH (NEGATIVE)
(by: Pamela V. Lamando)

Shifting to a federal form of government does not guarantee solving all the problems of the

Philippines due to its weaknesses. The negative side believes that there are still problems that need

to be resolved first before shifting to federalism. As Sicat (2005) emphasized, poor economic

performance of the country is not due to the form of government but to the use of correct economic

policies. Economic progress of the country will be achieved, not by changing its government

structure, but by making and implementing good and effective economic policies (as cited in

Geronimo).

In addition, this transition of government is not necessary because it would not possibly

solve the problems in Mindanao and it is not a guaranteed success in terms of political and

economic development.

Federalism will not possibly solve the peace conflict in Mindanao. On the study of Omar

(2007) entitled “Bangsamoro Question: Autonomy, Federalism or Independence?” (as cited in

Geronimo), the result shows that the Bangsamoro people really want true independence, not an

autonomy nor federalism. The term Bangsamoro generally refers to the 13 Muslim ethno-

linguistics groups in the Philippines such as Maranao, Maguindanao, Tausug, Sama, Yakan,

Sangil, Badjao, Kalibugan, Jama Mapun, Iranun, Kalagan, Palawani, and Molbog (Geronimo,

2018).

Moreover, the preamble says, “…to build a just and humane society” which means the

purpose of all governments is to promote general welfare of the people. General welfare as defined

by Utilitarianism is the “greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Based on the research

paper entitled Federalism: A Legal Research (2008), giving up a part of sovereignty to appease the
Moros in Mindanao is not the promotion of general welfare. It would only result into disrupting

the peace within the federation.

It is not a guarantee of success in terms of political and economic development. On the

research paper entitled CHANGE IS COMING OR CHANGE SCAMMING: Duterte’s Federalist

Initiatives on the Philippine Government (2018), for many decades, federalism has no significant

and direct positive effect on the economic and political development to Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan,

Venezuela, and Brazil, also known as the “Third World Federalist Countries”. Most of the time,

federalism is ineffective and inefficient, particularly in developing countries with non-existent or

under-developed infrastructure as stated in the research paper entitled Federalism: A Legal

Research (2008).

As stated by President Rodrigo Duterte (as cited in Placido, 2017), “I think the Filipinos

are not yet ready for a federal type of government. It doesn’t seem to ring a bell in the Visayas and

Mindanao.” Why is there a need to shift for the federal form of government when the President

himself, said that we are not yet ready for it? If there are problems in Mindanao, why not focus

and address it only to Mindanao? Why should the whole country be affected? Let’s say for

example, there’s a broken window in your house, will you restructure the entire house than to

repair the broken window itself?

 BENEFICIALITY CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH
(by: James Harley Baldemor)

The negative side believes that it is beneficial to the Philippines not to shift in Federal form

of Government. In term of distributed power and authority, it might result unequal justice in the

federal regions.

First, uneven generated income makes federalism unfavorable to the non-prime states. In

Federalism, it allows the state to generate their own income. According to the draft constitution

Bayanihan Federalism Article XII Sec. 2 Within regional territory, The Federal region shall have

executive power over creation of sources of revenue and Financial administration and

management. The proposed government is only beneficial to prime states that generate a higher

rate of income from different sources. Poor states cannot stand longer in this kind of government

because it has lower income generation to support its need. According to Philippine Center for

Investigative Journalism (2018), the article entitled Stats on the state of the regions: Hubs of

Wealth, ponds of poverty, there are eight provinces with the highest poverty incident, included

here is Lanao del Sur in the region of Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The

said region experience a two decade of self-rule yet still remains as among the poorest and most

unstable region in the Philippines. This only shows that greater political autonomy is not a

guarantee of dynamic, stable, and prosperous self-governing state that federalism promotes. This

situation of the ARMM can be considered as a good example on how a regional government part

ways with the national government (Heydarian, 2018).

Second, power and authority of the states to create their own law different from the national

laws and policies will bring confusion to the citizen. For a Federal form of government, it has

numerous state and in every federal state there are different laws and policies. This is the only city
in the Philippines that prohibit both man riding a motorcycle. In developing countries like India,

Iraq and Nigeria, federalism has either failed to close developmental gaps and ethno-communal

tensions among various states (Heydarian, 2018). Philippines is one of those developing countries,

the federalist type of government is not far to fail if the said type of government was fully amended.

According to the article entitled “Change is or Change Scamming: Duterte’s Federalist Initiatives

on the Philippine Government” (Fiestada et al. 2018). As Attorney Lina (2018) says, former

senator and former governor of Laguna, “Federalism is already in 1987 Constitution.” Provision

in the said constitution promote the decentralization that federalism wish to solve, specifically the

general welfare clause in Section 16 which states: “Every local government unit shall exercise the

powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,

appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential

to the promotion of the general welfare.”

Amendment and full implementation of Local Government Code of 1991 is not expensive

rather than revising of whole constitution. According to Bernardo M. Villegas, an economist, the

said code is already giving local government the power to “implement infrastructure developments

and manage internal-revenue allotments”. Also, the said code is under Article 10, Section 5, “local

government units are given the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees

and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as Congress may provide, as well as to levy

taxes, charges and fees” (Gabriel, 2016). In addition to this, Attorney Christian Monsod said the

“constitution allows provinces to convene voluntarily and autonomously pull their resources and

push for change in the Local Government Code on the equitable division of the internal revenue

allotment” (Billiones, 2016).

 CONCLUDING STATEMENT
(by: Marjorie Lopez)

There are lots of issues that our country is facing right now that needs to be addressed

immediately. Disagreement of federalism is pertinent to focus on dealing with such concerns. We

oppose the implementation of Federalism for it will only add burden to our country. Earlier, you

heard the factors and evidences that were shown to prove that federalism is completely irrelevant.

Let me reiterate the five main reasons to support our stand. These are as follows: 1.) Unnecessary

2.) Uncertainty 3.) Costly. 4.) Partiality and 5) Division.

First, unnecessary. It's high time that we change our governance, not the form of

government. We need good governance more than federalism. Second, uncertainty. Federalism is

obscure for we have no basis unless the government amends the current constitution. Third, costly.

Federalism is too expensive to form because we need to fund the amendments of our constitution

and the implementation including the salaries of government officials and employees. Fourth,

Partiality. Federalism will make the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. We are living

in Makati City which is considered as a “prime city”. Having said that, if ever federalism will push

through, we, being residents of a prime city will not experience the disadvantage of federalism

since we will be autonomous and can utilize our funds without the control of the central

government. Have you thought about those who are situated in the poor regions? Those with

insufficient budget will have a hard time supporting the needs of its people. If you would wear

their shoes, how would you appreciate federalism? The fifth and last: Division. With federalism,

each region will have its own laws and policies which might differ from one another that would

probably create confusion and division among our people.

 As I stand and speak in front of you, I notice that we tend to be divided by our beliefs in

such issue. How much more division would it create if federalism is implemented? They say,

“Prevention is better than cure.” It is better to bridge the gaps and burn bridges. Therefore, I

conclude that federalism must be opposed for it will only create disunity and division among us

and our country men. There is strength in unity. And unity begets progress. My dear young people,

young as we are, let us stand up and strive for unity and impartiality.
 INTRODUCTORY CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH
(by: Renalyn Manlulu)

Good Afternoon Adjudicator, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Renalyn A. Manlulu

and I am the first negative speaker for this debate. We agree with the definition given by the

affirmative team. However, we the opposing team firmly believe that federal form of government

should not be implemented in the Philippines. The reasons and evidences are to be presented by

our debaters.

The Philippines can achieve economic progress not by changing the form of government

but by implementing strict and good governance. The Philippines is a unitary country which is

now being proposed to split into federal states to be organized and developed for economic reasons.

This changing would not possibly solve the problems in Mindanao and does not guarantee of

success in terms of political and economic development. Also, federalism has no effect in some

countries like Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Venezuela, and Brazil.

The distribution of power and authority in shifting to a federal form might result to unequal

distribution in the federal regions. It is only beneficial to richer states which generate a higher

income because it can offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than poorer states.

Federalism does not guarantee to promote stable and independent governance. It does not need to

change from unitary to a federal form of government because federalism is already in 1987

constitution. The government needs to have full implementation rather than revising the whole

constitution.

The federal system of government is costly to form and implement. It requires to amend

the existing constitution and undergo in any of the three process; Constitutional Convention,

Constituent Assembly and by People Initiative. Federalism promotes regional inequalities. It leads
to unnecessary competition between different regions. The government should not focus

supporting the federal form of government but to prioritize the other programs and current

problems in the Philippines.

If the proponents of federalism expect that a newly designated Philippine state can function

successfully and thereby achieve higher economic development within a reasonable time than it

would otherwise achieve under a unitary government. They need to sharpen their analysis a lot

more before they plunge the entire country into the unknown. Under existing Philippine political

condition, implementing federalism is clearly putting a square peg in a round hole.