Secession

AFEW years ago, a group of California residents initiated an audacious move to secede from the United States. Observers dismissed the move as farfetched, foolhardy at best. There are no specific provisions in the US Constitution for an exit from the federal union. The proponents, however, found encouragement in a US Supreme Court decision which allows a state to secede from the Union with the “consent of the states.”

The California secession movement appears to have fizzled out. But it illustrates that the secessionist tendency under a federal form of government will not be deterred by Constitutional prohibitions.

At best, the organizers make an interesting argument. California is the sixth largest economy in the world, and can sustain its government and citizens especially if relieved of the burden of sharing its wealth with the federal government. They argue that with the election of Donald Trump, California’s values are now at odds with the national leadership and the rest of the nation. Staying in the union will only hold back California’s full potential.

If we are to apply the same thinking, there is nothing that will stop residents of Metro Manila from initiating moves to secede from the envisioned federal union, if and when such a shift occurs, owing to perceived differences in politics and values with the national leadership and the rest of the Philippines.

Metro Manila is best positioned to stand on its own. Economists have pointed out that if Metro Manila were a country, it would be almost at par with Malaysia in terms of income. If, as proposed in the draft federal constitution, Metro Manila will be able to keep its income and be entitled to a share of the national taxes, the region will pick up even greater economic momentum. The infrastructure is here, the center of finance is here, the workforce is here. In most regions, these factors are still in its germinal stage, if they do exist at all. How can one then validly claim that laggard regions will be able to catch up with Metro Manila under federalism?

But it appears that some regions in Mindanao are being pre-positioned to become economic centers in anticipation of the shift to federalism.

For the last three years, the administration has shifted its infrastructure priorities to the South. This shift in infrastructure and other public spending priorities should be expected, as this has been the practice in Philippine politics: the home province or region of the incumbent president gets a bigger slice of national spending priorities, particularly infrastructure.

Mindanao is now, in the words of the Department of Finance, “front and center” of the government’s Build, Build Build infrastructure program, with billions being allotted for roads, bridges, irrigation, and improvement projects funded by the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law.

Aside from government-funded projects, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) extended a $380-million loan to fund 11 big-ticket infrastructure projects in Mindanao to be implemented by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

The DPWH says the projects, to be implemented from 2018 up to 2023, will boost Mindanao’s position as a direct beneficiary of the Brunei DarussalamIndonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA).

Assuming that the administration hurdles bureaucratic delays and other factors such as inefficiency and sluggish decision making, key regions in the island could become economic powerhouses in a matter of decades.

Leaders of Mindanao have always claimed values and cultures distinct from Luzon and the rest of the country. They maintain that they have more in common with the values and cultures of the neighboring countries closest to Mindanao, such as Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia. This has a ring of truth. Informal trade with these countries has been existing for centuries, especially in the Muslim portions of Mindanao.

The claim of possessing unique values and cultures, coupled with the long-held grievance that the government in Manila has supposedly neglected Mindanao, have seeded the so-called “Mindanaoan” identity. It has manifested in homegrown secession groups like the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM) and the more extreme armed secessionist groups.

One can not help but raise these questions: Once the anticipated economic benefits from federalism become tangible, what is to stop a movement similar to MIM from gaining ground? What is there to prevent the regions in Mindanao from seceding? And if these regions pursue secession despite a constitutional injunction, will the federal government be prepared to go to war with economically strong regions who claim affinity – and presumably stronger relations – with neighboring countries?

Federalism fuels the fire of secessionism and weakens the nation and our sense of nationhood. It could lead to the dismemberment of our nation. That is my biggest fear.