The argument of reconsidering the establishment of a federal system of government in the archipelago has set in its highest peak when the Duterte administration has finally stepped into office. The campaign of the Duterte administration especially to the legislators of the Philippine Congress has hastily commenced, with an emphasis from the president’s will to implement such system in five to six years before his term’s completion. As a Filipino born and compelled to be complacent with the unitary form of government, this vehement move from the president has flourished different queries from my mind, such as “How will it work?”, “What are its pros and cons?” and the most dangerous question would be, “Will it solved the nation’s problem of secession …show more content…
The principle of there is no harm in trying is inutile and inoperable in such instance for there is no such thing as take twos or recycle bins in implementing directives that might make or break a country’s state and future. Only one verity is for certain that the transition of the Philippine government into a federal system would entail both advantages and disadvantages culturally, socio-economically, and politically. Thus, a necessity for a scrupulous scrutiny is compulsory, especially that every vital matter which concerns every Filipino is at stake.
Background on Federalism Coined from the Latin term “foedus”, meaning treaty, pact, or covenant, federalism was initially perceived as a mere inter-governmental partnership or agreement among sovereign states during 18th century. It was in the 19th century that the modern context of federalism as a composition of various
…show more content…
Such systems has been dated as early as the Spanish period when the independence from the Spanish Empire and conception of a Philippine republic were of main concerns. Even the national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal had reiterated on his prescient essay, Las Filipinas Dentro de Cien Anos, that a federal Philippines is a considerable possibility, possibly due to the influence of his political mentor, Francesc Pi y Margall, who was a federalist. After the death of the national hero, Emilio Aguinaldo, adopted such idea. Despite such pursuance, the Malolos Congress decided to establish a unitary state due to the impending and foreseen American interests in the country. Meanwhile, during the American colonialism, proposals were made for a federal system, yet, these were abated by the highly centralized unitary administration. This is also true in the succeeding 1973 and 1985 constitutional revisions where a paradigm shift from a unitary state was far from possible (Trillana, 2016). It was just until this 21st century that, once again, the elaboration of a federal Philippines has caught the interest of the many. Two of the staunch advocates are former senator, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr and University of the Philippines professor, Jose Abueva. On one of his papers, Abueva (2000) pointed out that “instead of making the change in a rush, as some advocate, I
The founding father’s idea when they created the Constitution was to prevent a centralized government. As expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, they believe that the power surrendered by people would be divided between the federal and state governments, creating balance of power that would enable both governments to control each other. Over time, the balance of power between the federal and state governments has shifted in favor of the federal government and this has taken place with the help of the Constitution and by enactments of Congress. The role that Chief Justice John Marshall played in defining the power of the federal and state governments during the early 19th century is important to mention because he shaped the nation.
May 1787. 55 delegates, one long, sweaty conference. The Constitutional Convention was a huge event for the United States. During this convention, the 55 delegates from all states except Rhode Island met up to change their Articles of Confederation. Instead of editing, however, the 55 delegates rewrote the whole thing into the Constitution, which is still used today.
Throughout history federalism has gone through several substantial changes, such as the boundaries and balances between the state and national government. Due to this we have experienced several different era’s of federalism from the original “dual-federalism” to the “new federalism” and just about everything else in between. Dual-federalism also known as divided sovereignty was a optimistic belief that federal and state government could exist if their was a clear division between authority. The problem with this is that there was a clever mechanism in the constitution that reserved a powers clause in favor of the national government. Such cases held in Marshall court favored the national government “McCulloch v. Maryland(1819)”, “Gibbons
Due to its failure to establish an executive branch and a judiciary branch, an imbalance of power was created within the government itself. The notion of forming a “more perfect union” was a practical
Federalism breaks apart the powers given to the central (Federal) government and those powers given to the states. As seen in document A1, a source from James Madison from Federalist Paper #51, 1788; Madison states, “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.” This idea from Madison is the idea of the division of power between the Federal Government and State Governments. Federalism provides a “Double security,” that protects the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. As the governments will be controlled by itself, the separate governments will also control each other.
Federalism is a system in which the power is shared between the national and regional government, following democratic rules. a. Dual Federalism: The first period of federalism was from 1789 to 1937, called dual federalism. In this stage, there was equality between the national and state government, but the functions of each of them were fundamentally separated; they rarely operate together.
Philippines: William Howard Taft and Tydings-McDuffle Act of 1934 (Philippines will be given independence after ten
Both Nell Irvin Painter and Kristin L. Hoganson have two different prospective on the annexation of the Philippines. Painter’s approach of explaining the annexation was more of an economic view rather then Hoganson’s, which was a more sexiest view. An example of Painter’s view is when he said,” the culprit, it seemed, was agricultural and industrial overproduction” (Painter). He is saying the America simply produced too much, and they did not care. Business thought taking over The Philippines would help American gain access to trading with China.
As Albert J. Beveridge pointed out in Document B, “would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, human, civilizing government of this republic to the savage, bloody rule… from which we have saved them?” Just, human, civilizing? Strict, biased, Christianizing was more like it. In these islands, the United States of America once again made the same mistake it had made with the Native Americans. Determined that there way was the best way, ‘the slaughter of the Filipinos’ (Doc.
William McKinley in his thoughts on American Expansionism has identified the reasons why America had no other choice but to incorporate Philippines as a part of it. This writing has been lifted from the excerpts of an interview with William McKinley soon after Spain had surrendered in the Spanish-American war. McKinley cleverly talks in this interview about how Philippines just came and fell into the laps of America thereby suggesting the helpless stance of America. He talks about how America’s sole intention and purpose had only been to safeguard its own interests as a country. He had to order that the Spanish fleets in Manila be destroyed because if left unattended, they would have crossed the Pacific and wreaked havoc in the American states
A federalist government is one with a Central government and many smaller state governments. This was an effective way to prevent tyranny because Central government still had power, but the States still could control their respective state. There is venn diagram in
Federalism is a type of government in which the states and federal government share powers. [Doc A is an excerpt from Federalist Paper #51 written by James Madison in 1788. The 85 Federalist Papers were written by
Interactions amid the provinces and the federal government, from constitutional issues to the most irresistible topics bang up-to-date in the country, are indemnified beneath the umbrella of “Federalism”. Authorities are shared so that on some matters, the state governments are decision-holders, whereas on the other matters, national government grasps the autonomy. In last twenty-five years, the upsurge of federal fiats on both governments, local and state, has shifted the power amongst state and national governments. Now, the national government is beginning to have more governance over the state’s engagements.
A historian once wrote that the 19th century was “a time of bitter conflict, as the world of the past fought to remain alive.” During the 19th century, there was an emergence of the political ideologies: liberalism, conservatism, and socialism. Liberalism sought to limit the government, preserve individual freedom and believed in the hierarchy of merit. Conservatism attempted to preserve the existing order and believed in tradition over reason. Socialists believed in strengthening parliaments and the working class to bolster laborers.
Federalism Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between federal government, state government and provinces government. While federalism has many benefits, among them is checks and balances between the federal and state government, thus reducing the chances of one party getting too powerful and abusing their power. Preventing one party from being too powerful and abusing their powers is a good thing. However, it comes with a price that federal and provinces (state and local) governments do not always see eye to eye and agree with each other, which turns into conflict.