iag PAPERSEditor’s note: This is the abridged version of Dr. Zainal D. Kulidtod’s paper on “Reexamining Phases of Power Sharing as Applied in the Mindanao Problem.” Read the complete paper in the third quarter 2013 issue of IAG’s Autonomy & Peace Review. The author is a native of Datu Piang, Maguindanao and the current Assistant Dean, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Mindanao State University, Main Campus at Marawi City. He holds the following degrees: AB Political Science (cum laude), Master in Public Administration, Doctor of Philippine Studies and Bachelor of Laws, all taken in the same university.

 

The term power-sharing maybe taken to mean the process of diffusing or dispersing the concentration of governmental power, authority, functions, responsibilities and resources from the center[1] to the periphery[2]. As understood and practiced in the ambit of sovereignty-based conflicts, power-sharing may be equated to granting of self-determination.

 

Viewed as a political process, the concept of power-sharing is given various labels by different writers. For example, experts in conflict resolutions offer this term power-sharing to solve intra-national disputes, while structuralists borrow such terminologies as sub-state, federated state, federacy, associated state and real union when dealing with the intergovernmental power structure of a sovereign state. On the other hand, leaders of national liberation movements are more comfortable to adopt the concept of autonomy, self-governance or independence in addressing their cause, while public administrationists oftentimes use the term decentralization, which embraces such models as deconcentration, delegation, devolution and even privatization, when referring to different mechanisms designed to bring the government closer to the people thereby making more effective and efficient the delivery of basic services to them.

 

The United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Synthesis Report Series, No. 3, adopted the definition of decentralization offered by Rondinelli[3] where he coined this term to mean “the transfer or delegation of planning, decision-making or management authority from the central government and its agencies to field organizations, subordinate units of government, semi-autonomous public corporations, area-wide or regional authorities, or governmental organizations.”

 

In the context of answering the quest for self-determination perpetuated by the Bangsamoro people, this concept is defined as “the process of transferring basic powers from the national to the local governments to allow maximum participation of the citizens in governmental and community affairs. The degree of local autonomy is dependent upon the extent decentralization is effected.”[4]

 

Thus understood, the type and degree of decentralization depends on the extent of the authority delegated as well as the institutional arrangements employed in the process. But in all likelihood, decentralization may take place in two instances: (1) functional decentralization and (2) aerial decentralization. The former refers to the transfer of authority from a central ministry to functionally specialized organizations or public corporations, while the latter transfers authority to public organizations within defined political boundaries, such as city, district or provincial governments. As a state policy of ensuring local autonomy in the Philippines, ‘decentralization simply means the devolution of national administration, not power, to local governments. Local officials remain accountable to the central government as the law may provide.’[5]

 

Why do governments have to decentralize/diffuse their functions? Proponents of decentralization advance the following reasons: (1) strengthening of the administrative capacity of local units; (2) lessening of red-tape and highly bureaucratic procedures; (3) promotion of more effective coordination of local planning, implementation and monitoring; (4)  increasing the efficiency of central government by divesting itself from local problems; (5) fostering of democratic process of development planning; (6) more effective and efficient delivery of basic services by the constituent units; and, (7) increasing the flexibility and initiative of local leaders in dealing with unique situations.[6]

 

Interestingly, under Philippine laws, the different operative principles of decentralization were outlined as follows, to wit: (a) Effective allocation of respective powers, functions, responsibilities, and resources among local government units; (b) Establishment of an accountable, efficient, and dynamic organizational structure and operating mechanism in every local government unit; (c) Strict enforcement of merit and fitness principle on the appointment and/or removal of local personnel; (d) Broadening of sources of revenue and share in national taxes and in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within the respective areas of the LGUs; (e) Strict enforcement of chain of command among local units; (f) Grouping, consolidation or coordination of LGUs’ efforts, services, and resources for their common benefit; (g) Enhancement of the capabilities of local government units by actively participating in the implementation of national programs and projects; (h) Creation of continuing mechanism to enhance local autonomy; (i) Joint efforts of both the local government units and the national government in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction; (j) Strengthening of effective mechanisms for the accountability of local government units to their respective constituents; (k) Improving coordination of national government policies and programs with those of the local government units; (l) Encouragement of the participation of the private sector in local governance; and, (m) Strict and continuous monitoring of the national government to its different decentralization measures to ensure their effectivity.[7]

 

For the purpose of this discussion, phases of power sharing are loosely arranged hereunder from the least to the most degree of diffusion. They are deconcentration, delegation, devolution, autonomy, federal system, federacy, special administrative region, free association, real union, personal union and independence.

 

A)    Deconcentration

Deconcentration is the first stage of governmental dispersal of functions from the center. This involves the “transfer of functions and decision-making authority within the central government hierarchy, through shifting the workload from central ministries to field officers, the creation of field offices or the shifting of responsibility to centrally-controlled local administrative units.”[8]Deconcentration can be effected either through: (a) decongesting workloads by delegating them from central line agencies to field offices, (b) establishment of local or field offices, (c) transferring or reassigning national personnel to regional agencies, or (d) transferring of responsibility to local administrative units.

 

B)    Delegation

This model involves the “transfer of functions to parastatal organizations, special project implementation units or regional or functional development authorities, which can often operate outside of some central government regulations or may act as the agent for the state in performing prescribed functions. Ultimate responsibility for those functions, however, remains with the central government.” Delegation emphasizes the assigning of specialized functions to regional organizations, authorities or agencies. In the Philippines, this is exemplified in the establishment of such government agencies, inter alia, as Southern Philippine Development Authority (SPDA), Southern Philippine Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD), National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF), Philippine Pilgrimage Authority (PPA), Growth and Equity in Mindanao (GEM) and other offices which were created for special thrusts and functions.

 

Deconcentration and delegation share a common feature, that is, there is no actual transfer of governmental power to regional or local agencies as both require only dispersal of governmental functions and responsibilities from the center. However, upon close scrutiny, one may also notice the following differences between them: While the former involves the sharing of any government function or program to field offices, the latter is concerned only on the assigning of specialized functions or tasks. In addition, deconcentration can also be effected through transferring of national personnel to regional agencies, but delegation cannot be done by this manner alone as this would always require the creation of specific offices. 

 

C)    Devolution

Technically, the first stage of power-sharing from the central government is devolution which obliges the actual transfer of power to the local government units. This refers to the “transfer of functions or decision-making authority from the central government to local governments.” In this arrangement, specific agencies and programs of the central government are already delegated to the local government units (LGUs). In the Philippine set-up, devolution of governmental powers to local governments was realized in the enactment of Republic Act No. 7160 (otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991).  Section 17 thereof enumerated the five (5) government programs and services devolved to the LGUs which include: (a) agriculture, (b) environment and natural resources, (c) health services, (d) social welfare and development, and (e) public works and highways. This entails that LGUs in the Philippines have the legal competence to enact measures affecting these five programs.

 

With respect to sharing arrangement between the national government and the LGUs on national internal revenue taxes, Section 284, Chapter I (Allotment of Internal Revenue), Title III of RA 7160 provides:  “Local government units shall have a share in the national internal revenue taxes based on the collection of the third fiscal year preceding the current fiscal year as follows: . . . (c) on the third year and thereafter, forty percent (40%).” This means the remaining sixty (60%) percent goes to the national government.

 

D)   Autonomy

Remarkably, in places where local communities have distinct historical and cultural heritage, devolution of power comes in the form of an autonomy. This is a special form of local government set-up granted to a specified region which presupposes “the right and conditions of possessing power for self-governance.” This may also refer to the “political subdivision of a state vested with the authority to exercise within its jurisdiction such powers as are necessary that can best serve the interests of the inhabitants and its localities consistent with the provisions of self-governance.”[9] As enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, this political set-up in the country came in the form of autonomous regions specially granted to Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras whose geographical areas they inhabited for generations shared common and distinct historical and cultural heritage, economic and cultural structures, and other relevant characteristics.[10]

 

By adopting the “principle of enumeration” in granting powers to local government units, the supreme law laid down those powers delegated to and are therefore within the exclusive prerogative of the autonomous regions to include: (1) Administrative organization; (2) Creation of sources of revenues; (3) Ancestral domain and natural resources; (4) Personal, family, and property relations; (5) Regional urban and rural planning development; (6) Economic, social, and tourism development; (7) Educational policies; (8) Preservation and development of the cultural heritage; and, (9) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.[11]Hence, following the doctrine of inclusio unius est exclusivo alterius, all powers not expressly granted to the regions are deemed reserved to the national government.

 

Although autonomy is just a variant or phase of decentralization, experts on local governments offered several distinctions of the two including, but not limited to, the following:

  “1. Autonomy connotes an exercise of powers broader than those granted under decentralization which allows merely sharing of part of the governmental powers by  the central government with the local government units;

  “2. In autonomy, the purpose is to provide self-government; while in decentralization, the purpose is to share part of the governmental authority;

  “3. Powers devolved in autonomy are substantially outside the direct control of the central government; while in decentralization, powers shared are within the  guidelines set by the central government subject, of course, to adjustment to suit local conditions; and,

  “4. There is independence of government in autonomy while still forming an integral part of the central government; while in decentralization, it consists of handing   over of some amount of administrative responsibility to local government units under the general supervision and control of central government.”[12] 

 

In the above passages, one may notice that decentralization is equated into mere devolution of governmental functions and authorities to local government units; thus, the differences.

 

As distinguished from a federal set-up, in autonomy the range of powers given to local units is still limited in substance since the central government remains supreme in all matters not expressly granted to LGUs, be it local or national in scope.

 

In sum, a cursory reading of experiences of countries in the world reveals that autonomy exists only in nation-states having the following peculiarities: (1) if the structure of the government set-up is unitary[13], (2) if there exists a clear sense of national (dominant) identity of the whole population, and/or (3) if there is a segment in the population ethnic or cultural minorities who share common and distinct historical and cultural heritage not possessed by the dominant majority.

 

In the landmark case of Limbona vs. Mangelin, G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989; 170 SCRA 786, the Supreme Court distinguished political autonomy (decentralization of power) from administrative autonomy (decentralization of administration). Says the Court:

 

“Autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power. There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to make local governments ‘more responsive and accountable,’ ‘and ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress.’ At the same time, it relieves the central government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns. The President exercises ‘general supervision’ over them, but only to ‘ensure that local affairs are administered according to law.’ He has no control over their acts in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own. 

 

 “Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the favor of local government units declared to be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power amounts to ‘self-immolation,’ since in that event, the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency.” [underline supplied]

 

As applied in the Mindanao problem, it seems that any and all forms of autonomy granted to the Moros from the Regional Autonomous Governments of Marcos down to the Expanded ARMM under President Arroyo are mere administrative decentralization since the Bangsamoro people were not the ones who freely charted their political destiny but the Philippine Congress, being the legal sovereign in the country.[14] The same thing is true for the proposed New Political Entity (NPE) envisioned in the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) under President Aquino III.[15]

 

E)    Federal System

From autonomy, following the next step in the ladder of power sharing is federal state. A federal system is one wherein governmental powers are divided into two spheres, one for the federal or central government and the other for the state or local government. They exist side by side within a sovereign state each possessing defined prerogatives. Within its prescribed powers, functions and authority, each organ is autonomous and independent and neither can interfere with the affairs of the other.

 

Under this federal setup, there are three modes of distributing the powers and functions of governments.[16] First is the Federal List which enumerates in the federal constitution all the reserved powers of the federal and central government, while those functions which are not included therein are deemed granted to the state or local government. In a unitary system, this arrangement is better known as the policy of exclusion. In such countries as Australia, Switzerland and the United States, the reserved powers of the federal government included the following, inter alia, viz: (1) national security and declaration of war, (2) foreign relations, (3) monetary system and currency, (4) external trade, (5) citizenship, (6) civil, political and human rights, (7) immigration, extradition inter-state quarantine, (8) suffrage, (9) federal civil service, (10) supreme court, court of appeals and constitutional tribunals, (11) national finance, (12) interstate trade and commerce, (13) postal and telecommunications, (14) national socio-economic planning, (15) grants-in-aid to the States, and (16) copyrights and intellectual property.[17]

 

State List is the second category of power distribution which lays down all the delegated powers to the states and all those excluded powers are left to the federal government. This corresponds to the policy of enumeration in a unitary structure. In countries adopting this type of power sharing, like Canada, their state governments have jurisdictions over the following: (1) state and local elections, (2) state civil service, (3) state judicial system which includes all local courts, (4) operation of public transportation, (5) licensing public utilities, (6) state socio-economic planning, (7) state finance, (8) state grants-in-aid to local government units, (9) development of agriculture and fisheries, (10) mining and industries, (11) waterworks and irrigation system, (12) basic education up to secondary, (13) state and local language development, (14) social security and social welfare development, (15) police matters, law-enforcement and public safety, (16) state and local infrastructure, and entertainment and amusement.[18]

 

The third and last mode of power distribution is Concurrent List which embodies in the federal constitution the reserved powers of the federal government as well as the exclusive powers of the state governments.

 

Meanwhile, in order to make the grouping of states feasibly workable, Abueva (2007) prescribed basic criteria in creating component states under a federal system. They include the following, viz: (1) “some common ethno-linguistic and cultural identity and history”; (2) “contiguous or adjacent territory or geographic location”; and, (3) “economic potential and viability as a region or state”.[19]

 

Following the above criteria, there are eleven (11) proposed states that may comprise the Philippines, should it shift to a federal structure, which may be constituted as follows: (1) Bangsamoro State with 5 provinces of ARMM; (2) Davao Region and Central Mindanao with  8 provinces of Region XI and XII; (3) Western and Northern Mindanao with 12 provinces of Regions IX, X and XIII; (4) Central and Eastern Visayas with 10 provinces of Regions VII and VIII; (5) Western Visayas and Palawan with 7 provinces from Regions VI and Palawan; (6) Bicol Region with 7 provinces of Regions V and Romblon; (7) Southern Luzon with 8 provinces of Regions VIII-A and B; (8) Metro Manila with 13 cities and 4 adjacent municipalities; (9) Central Luzon with 7 provinces of Region III; (10) Cordillera Administrative Region; and, (11) Northern Luzon with 9 provinces of Regions I and II.[20]

 

In like manner, the Primer on Local Governments in a Federal System (2005) identified several types of federal system according to distribution of powers and functions between the federal government and the state government.[21] First is Cooperative Federalism wherein both the two organs of government “share responsibilities in certain areas/services to ensure the operation of national programs throughout the country.” Ethiopia, Germany, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United States, Venezuela and Yugoslavia adopt this variant of federalism. Competitive Federalism is another type in which the “federal government has a reduced role in state/local government,” while the state government have an increased role in managing their own affairs. Countries belonging to this type are Pakistan, Belgium, Australia, Brazil, Micronesia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The third type is Coercive Federalism in which the “federal government continues to ‘direct’ both national and state policies. Laws of state/local governments may be preempted by the federal government.” Nigeria belongs to this variant with a federal military government. Permissive Federalism is the last type of a federal structure whose power distribution is almost like that of a unitary system. Political set-up like this entails that the federal government not only supervises but even controls the affairs of the local organs. Examples of countries belonging to this type are Australia, India, Malaysia, Mexico and the Russian Federation.

 

At any rate, in any variant of federalism, there are certain factors which may facilitate its workability. They include: (1) the units must have shared a sense of community; (2) there should be no sharp inequalities in size, population and resources; (3) equitable sharing of economic resources; (4) geographical contiguity; and, (5) democratic form of government and greater decentralization.[22] Of these factors, the issue of heterogeneity in terms of size, population, resources and cultural underpinnings is perceived to be the most dominant one. In emphasizing this point, Nazir pointed:

 

“Heterogeneity is one of the reasons that states opt for federalism. But the sharp inequalities in size, population and resources (and cultural differences) create strains in a federal polity. It helps, if there are no sharp disparities in a federation and no single unit is powerful to dominate others. If there are more than one powerful units, a struggle for ascendancy can develop in policy matters, thus making federalism difficult to function.”[23] [parenthetical enumeration supplied]

 

F)    Federacy

The above challenge in a federal setup can be remedied by a political arrangement known as federacy. This is “a form of government where one or several substate units enjoy considerably more independence than the majority of the substate units.” This political modality is closely related with asymmetric federalismas both presuppose that one of their component substates enjoy more independence than the others. Otherwise put, in asymmetric federalism, “different constituent states possess different powers – one or more of the states has considerably more autonomy than the other states, although they have the same constitutional status. The division of powers between substates is not symmetric.”[24] Countries practicing this administrative structure include inter alia as: Canada and Quebec, Antigua and Barbuda, Iraq and Kurdistan, Papua New Guinea and Bougainville, United States and Puerto Rico, and India.[25]  In the case of Canada and Quebec, the latter has been given higher political flexibility than other regions of the former to cater the peculiar needs for language and education.

 

In India, asymmetric federalism is observed in the very political structure of the Federal Government. As politically constituted, India consists of twenty-eight (28) States and seven (7) Union Territories. Except for Delhi and Pondicherry, all the seven Union Territories were governed directly by the Central, Union or Federal Government. Of the 28 States, they were classified into special category and non-special category States. The former are given a special status in dispensing plan assistance by the Union Government, while the latter were further divided into low income, middle-income and high-income States.[26]

 

Among the component states, the most special treatment is given to Jammu and Kashmir state. For example, the Indian Constitution provides special provision in its Article 370 which institutionalizes the Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir. This legal document was decreed in 1947 by the Prince of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharajah Hari Singh, acceding to the Dominion of India under the law granting its independence, i.e., Indian Independence Act of 1947.[27]

 

In relation to the Mindanao question, even if the Philippine government adopts a federal structure throughout the country, this problem may still perpetuate because the Bangsamoro people is a unique segment of the Philippine society whose historical heritage and cultural identity is very much different and distinguishable from the rest of the Filipinos. Thus, bearing this in mind, the MILF envisions the notion of asymmetry in its relation with the Government of the Philippines (GPH). This is its proposal in the most celebrated Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro inked on October 15, 2012. The term asymmetry is clarified by its Peace Panel as follows:

 

“In a layperson’s term, symmetry connotes uniformity, similarity, evenness and proportionality. A symmetrical relationship is what defines the relationship between the Philippine state and its local government units from barangay, municipality, city, province and up to the regional level. All of these political units have the same laws, systems, rules, procedures and guidelines from Aparri down to Sulu. It assumes that each unit or region is the same and similar with one another and therefore should be subjected to the same systems and procedures.

 

“The Bangsamoro struggle for right to self determination is basically the antithesis to this assumed symmetrical relationship. The Moros are claiming they are different from the majority Filipinos with respect to culture, religion, language, practices, way of life, history and political aspiration as a distinct nation. The Bangsamoro identity is an anathema of the symmetrical relationship of the unitary system in the Philippines. It simply says, ‘No, we are not the same with the majority Filipinos and therefore we should have a different, dissimilar, asymmetrical relationship within the Philippine state.”[28]

 

G)    Special Administrative Regions

In terms of intergovernmental relations, another closely associated with the notion of federacy or asymmetric federalism is the Special Administrative Regions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), consisting of Hong Kong and Macau. As stipulated in their respective Basic Laws, each of these two territories has its own supreme court, extradition policies, immigration and boarder control, currency, and customs policies. In their intergovernmental dealings, the PRC exercises only such functions relating to diplomatic affairs, national defense, and representations in international organizations.[29]

 

H)   Free Association

After a federal set-up, it can be said that the next higher in degree of power-sharing is free association(or associative relations or associated states). Under this political nomenclature, the associated state “is a fully self-governing state that is free to manage its internal and external affairs, except for defense”.[30] The associate and the principal established a durable link. Thus, the former became the minor partner of the latter in their formal, free relationship.

 

In associative relations, although the associates are not fully recognized as sovereign states,  they have the right to participate in international conferences and conventions as well as in regional organizations. Furthermore, they can also maintain diplomatic missions, can have their own flag, and can be members of such international bodies as the United Nations and the World Bank.[31]

 

In the case of Cook Islands and New Zealand, the latter can act only on behalf of the former in foreign affairs and defense matters upon the request of Cook Islands and only in pursuance to its advise and consent. In their relations with the United States of America, citizens of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Palau enjoyed only defense, US funding grants and social services. These government amenities granted by the US Federal Government were specifically contained in their Compacts of Free Association. Although the currency in these territories is dollar  they issue their own travel documents. They also independently conduct their own foreign affairs and were admitted members of the United Nations as individual international persons. For its parts, the United States provided them defense in case of external military attacks and can bar other countries from having access to these countries for military purposes.[32]

 

In the landmark case of The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on the Ancestral Domain, the Supreme Court of the Philippines made the following pronouncement relative to the notion of free association, viz:

 

“An association is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international status as a state. Free association represents a middle ground between integration and independence. In international practice, the ‘associated state’ arrangement has usually been used as a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence . . .”

 

In other words, in a free association, the principal state and its associate are not in equal footing because the former still plays a one-sided role as against the latter, that is, as protector of the associate against any form of the external threats.

 

I)      Real Union

As compared to associative relations, real union is a form of power sharing which postulated a more or less equal footing between and among the component units. This is a political formula in which “two or more states are merged under a central authority through which they act in the direction of their external affairs. The states forming this union do not lose their status as such but their respective international personalities are extinguished and blended in the new international person which, however, is not considered a state.”[33] In this administrative arrangement, states forming the union are equal in their relations with one another as neither of them can perform a function not available to the other units. As individual, they cannot assert their own rights nor can they perform their own international obligations since their respective international personalities are combined together to form one person (i.e., the Union) which is not a state in the real sense of the word. Thus, politically, all the component states are treated as one person in the eyes of international community. This political engagement existed between the Kalmar Union (1397-1524), Austria and Hungary (1867-1918), and Poland and Russia (1815-1832).[34]

 

J)      Personal Union

Another type of political union is personal union. This is formed “when two or more states are brought together under the same monarch, who nevertheless does not constitute one international person for the purpose of representing all of them . . . each member remains a state and an international person, although its external policies are dictated by the same monarch, who also directs the foreign affairs of the other members of the union.”[35] In short, two or more sovereign states are combined under the same monarch. This may result from coincidence, as when a princess of one kingdom got married to a king of another and their child inherits the throne of both countries; or virtual annexation, as when the union is used to prevent an impending uprising.[36]

 

In this set-up, there is no single international person to represent all the constituent states in the conduct of their foreign activities. The role of the common monarch comes only in matters of their external affairs being the single head of state of these member-entities. Therefore, in strict sense, personal union cannot be considered as a form of power-sharing as the member states are no longer under any single sovereign international political entity.

 

K)   Independence

The final and highest stage of power-sharing is independence. Under this power concession, a freed state (i.e., the newly-born state) is already sovereign in all its internal and external affairs from its mother state. As put by this writer, in independence, the newly-born state and the former mother state “shall become two (2) sovereign and independent political entities, both of them possessing their own respective internal and external freedom in the conduct of their affairs without any connection between them, except in their foreign relations, because neither one is beholden to the other.”[37]

 

Concluding Remarks

 

From the enumeration above, it can be deduced that deconcentration and delegation do not actually qualify as forms of power sharing since they only entail transfer of functions, services, responsibilities or personnel. Different phases of actual power-sharing take place, in an ascending manner, from devolution up to independence. In any of these stages, governmental powers are actually and increasingly dispersed or shared from the central (or mother) to the local (or new) government.

 

 

References

PRINTED

Bishop, William W. International Law, Cases and Materials, 1954, as cited in Isgani A Cruz, International Law Reviewer. Quezon City: Central Law Book Publishing Co., Inc., 1996.

De Leon, Hector S. Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2010.

Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro Between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), October 15, 2013.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): MILF PEACE PANEL DIALOGUE SERIES. Published by the Mindanao Peoples Caucus, 2011.

Indar, Cader P. and Margarita delos Reyes Cojunagco, The Organic Act for the Autonomous Region In Muslim Mindanao, Explained: An Instrument for Peace and Development. Caloocan City: CESTY Trading and Publishing, 2011.

Kulidtod, Zainal D., “Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro: Gains and Challenges,” Autonomy and Peace Review (Special Publication 2013). Cotabato City: Notre Dame University -Institute for Autonomy and Governance, 2012.

LET US BUILD THE STRONG FEDERAL STRUCTURE UNDER THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. Published by the Citizens’ Movement for Federal Philippines (CMFP). Marikina City: Kalayaan College, 2007.

Miraflor, James M., Policy Brief, “Bangsamoro, the Devolution Failure, and India-Style Federalism: A Case for Asymmetric Autonomy and Strategic Reapportionment,” Cotabato City: Institute for Autonomy and Governance, 2010.

Primer on Local Governments in Federal System, published by Local Government Development Foundation (LOGODEF), Manila, Philippines, and The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), Makati, Philippines, 2005.

Rondinelli, Dennis A. “Administrative Decentralization and Area Development Planning in East Africa: Implications for United States Aid Policy,” Occasional Paper, Regional Planning and Area Development Project, University of Wisconsin, as cited in United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Synthesis Report Series, No. 3, 1983.

Senturias, Alvario O. Jr. “A United Nations-Managed Referendum on Political Options in the Bagnsamoro Areas of Mindanao, Palawan and the Entire Island Provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi: Platform of Hope for Lasting Peace in Mindanao,” REFERENDUM ON POLITICAL OPTIONS FOR THE BANGSAMORO: Study Papers on the Legal and Historical Basis. Cotabato City: Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement, 2010.

United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Synthesis Report Series, No. 3, 1983.

ELECTRONIC SOURCES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_federalism. Accessed on July 5, 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federacy#mw-navigation. Accessed on July 5, 2013.

 http://sccie.ucsc.edu/., M. Govinda Rao and Nirvikar Singh, Asymmetric Federalism in India. Accessed on July 5, 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China. Accessed on July 5, 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_union#mw-navigation. Accessed on July 5, 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_union#mw-navigation. Accessed on July 5, 2013.

 http://bangsamoromnlf.blogspot.com/search/label/About%20the%20MNLF,About the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)” – Accessed on July 14, 2013.

 http://ph.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmgV3e1RiQcA5GCzRwx.?p=Federalism%20in%20Pakistan%20by%20Muntzra&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-711&rd=r1, Muntzra Nazir, “The Problems and Issues of Federalism in Pakistan,” Pakistan Vision Journal, Vol.9, No.1. Accessed on July 14, 2013.

CASES CITED

Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. vs. Hon. Alexander Aguirre in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Hon. EMILIA BONCODIN in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, G.R. No. 132988,  July 19, 2000.

Limbona vs. Mangelin, G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989; 170 SCRA 786.

The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on the Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008.

LAWS CITED

Republic Act Number 6734, or otherwise known as ‘An Act Providing for an Act for the Autonomous Region in Mindanao.’ Enacted on August 1, 1989.

Republic Act Number 7160, or otherwise known as “An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991.” Enacted on October 10, 1991.

Republic Act Number 9054, or otherwise known as “An Act to Strengthen and Expand the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 6734, Entitled ‘An Act Providing for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao,’ As Amended.” Promulgated on March 31, 2001.

1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Ratified on February 2, 1987.



[1] Used interchangeably as National, Federal, Central or Mother government.

[2]Used interchangeably as local, regional, state or associate unit or organ.

[3] Dennis A. Rondinelli, “Administrative Decentralization and Area Development Planning in East Africa: Implications for United States Aid Policy,” Occasional Paper, Regional Planning and Area Development Project, University of Wisconsin, as cited in United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Synthesis Report Series, No. 3, 1983, p. 11.

[4]Cader P. Indar and Margarita delos Reyes Cojunagco, The Organic Act for the Autonomous Region In Muslim Mindanao, Explained: An Instrument for Peace and Development. Caloocan City: CESTY Trading and Publishing, 2011, p. 52.

[5] Pimentel Jr. vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000.

[6]Rondinelli, 1983, Supra, p. 13.

[7]Section 3, Republic Act No. 7160, or otherwise known as “The Local Government Code of 1991.”

[8]United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Synthesis Report Series, No. 3, 1983, pp. 11-12.

[9]Cader P. Indar and Margarita delos Reyes Cojunagco, 2011, Supra.,p. 1.

[10] Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides: “There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.”

[11] See Article X, Section 20 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

[12]Cader P. Indar and Margarita delos Reyes Cojunagco, 2011, Supra.,p. 1.

[13] Unitary government is “one in which the control of national and local affairs is exercised by the central or national government.” [Hector S. De Leon, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2011, p.11.]

[14] In the RA 9054, its preamble provides: “The people of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao . . . do ordain and promulgate this Organic Act through the Congress of the Philippines.” [underline supplied]

[15] For the FAB, it stipulates in its Paragraph 7, Section VII that: “The draft Bangsamoro Basic Law submitted by the Transition Commission shall be certified as an urgent bill by the President.” Obviously, this provision of the Agreement affirms that ultimately the Philippine Congress has the final say on what should be the law in this country. It is needless to say that the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law to be drafted by the TC will not (and cannot) be implemented in totoas it is still subject to the scrutiny by the Congress.

[16]Primer on Local Governments in Federal System, published by Local Government Development Foundation (LOGODEF), Manila, Philippines, and The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), Makati, Philippines, 2005, p. 5.

[17]LET US BUILD THE STRONG FEDERAL STRUCTURE UNDER THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, published by the Citizens’ Movement for Federal Philippines (CMFP). Marikina City: Kalayaan College, 2007, p. 12.

[18] Ibid.

[19]Ibid., p. 18.

[20]Ibid., p. 19.

[21]Primer on Local Governments in Federal System, 2005, Supra., p. 4. 

[22] http://ph.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmgV3e1RiQcA5GCzRwx.?p=Federalism%20in%20Pakistan%20by%20Muntzra&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-711&rd=r1, MuntzraNazir, “The Problems and Issues of Federalism in Pakistan,” Pakistan Vision Journal, Vol.9, No.1., p. 112.

[23]Ibid., p. 113.

[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_federalism.

[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federacy#mw-navigation.

[26] http://sccie.ucsc.edu/., M. GovindaRao and Nirvikar Singh, Asymmetric Federalism in India, p. 10.

[27]James M. Miraflor, Policy Brief, “Bangsamoro, the Devolution Failure, and India-Style Federalism: A Case for Asymmetric Autonomy and Strategic Reapportionment,” Cotabato City: Institute for Autonomy and Governance, 2010, p. 6. [See also Rao and Singh, Supra].

[28]Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): MILF PEACE PANEL DIALOGUE SERIES. Published by the Mindanao Peoples Caucus, 2011, pp. 4-5.

[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China.

[30]Alvario O. Senturias, Jr. “A United Nations-Managed Referendum on Political Options in the Bagnsamoro Areas of Mindanao, Palawan and the Entire Island Provinces of Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi: Platform of Hope for Lasting Peace in Mindanao,” REFERENDUM ON POLITICAL OPTIONS FOR THE BANGSAMORO: Study Papers on the Legal and Historical Basis. Cotabato City: Mindanao Peoples’ Peace Movement, 2010, p. 16.

[31] Ibid.

[32]The Province of North Cotabato vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on the Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008.

[33] William W. Bishop. International Law, Cases and Materials, 1954, as cited in Isgani A Cruz, International Law Reviewer. Quezon City: Central LawBook Publishing Co., Inc., 1996, p.13.

[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_union#mw-navigation.

[35]Bishop, Supra.

[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_union#mw-navigation.

[37]Zainal D. Kulidtod, “Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro: Gains and Challenges,” Autonomy and Peace Review (Special Publication 2013). Cotabato City: Notre Dame University - Institute for Autonomy and Governance, pp. 117-118.