The speaker then emphasized the need to fully study three important aspects of federalism for the system to work in the Philippines.
The most IMPORTANT aspect pertains to the task of revenue generations and the apportioning of rents between national and local elites and the trade—offs that will happen between local demands and centralizing priorities.
She further explained that the information gained from the said lecture presupposes a presumption of an “informed” vote when the right of suffrage is exercised.
Interestingly, a thorough discussion of the political structure of a federal system and its vital role on national and local governance was distinguished by the speaker.
It may be possible that the Bangsamoro, for example, is given more powers and resources in contrast to other regions in a federal system—to enable it to catch up, and to take into account the rival rule systems that emanate from clan institutions and Islamic norms and traditions.
In an asymmetric federalism, government can offer more resources and powers to disadvantaged regions that could probably stem secession or separatism.
Second, government has to deal with the lack of fiscal integrity in many parts of the country which is aggravated by the presence of rival claimants to revenues (i.e. Lastly, the issue of “institutional multiplicity” has been an important bone of contention in autonomous states as the government has to deal with rival rule systems, norms, and traditions that spring from certain ethnic, religious, or language differences. Lara put forth options other than federalism in achieving the same objectives as those of adopting federalism.
This was the last of the four-part lecture series on federalism that is jointly organized by the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (CPBRD) and the Institute for Autonomy and Governance (IAG). Clarita Carlos (Professor of Political Science University of the Philippines), Dr.These options, the speaker argued, could achieve the same of objective of deepening capacity for self-determination of many regions that are bound simply by language, and allow more control over their resources. Lara also pointed out the conflicting actuations of the current administration on its stand on federalism.He argued that although the President has been relentless in his drive to institutionalize a shift to some form of federalism, the current situation makes it more difficult to see how federalism will look like when its own advocates are by word and deeds actually utilizing the absolute powers of coercion that only a strong central state would provide in dealing with drugs, or traffic, or violent conflict.The CPBRD and the IAG put together a panel of experts to discuss the concepts and practices in asymmetrical federalism which is defined as a form of government found in a federation or confederation in which different constituent states possess different powers: one or more of the states has considerably more autonomy than the other sub-states, although they have the same constitutional status. Steven Rood (Country Representative, Asia Foundation), Attorney Benedicto Bacani (Executive Director, Institute for Autonomy and Governance), and Dr.The best examples are the Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR). Chetan Kumar (Expert on Governance and Constitutional Processes in the Context of Peace Building, UN/UNDP). titled “Asymmetric Federalism: Managing Diversity and Internal Conflict” focused on two major topics, namely: (i) the current situation and concerns in the country that may influence the success of adopting a federal form of government; and (ii) the important factors that should be considered before adopting a federal form of government. Lara explained that there are basically three factors that pose as problems in adopting federalism.
Search for accommodating diversity:
This is because such body of laws conforms to the unique historical background of each sub-national state that addresses the issues and challenges.