The Society of Honor by Joe America

By Karl Garcia

---

---

I. Executive Summary

The debate over relocating the Philippine capital is often framed as a simple choice between Manila, Clark, Aurora, or Quezon. However, capital relocation is not primarily an infrastructure issue. It is a question of statecraft, national identity, and institutional design.

The Philippines’ political reality—strong regional elites, competing visions of development, and persistent inequality—suggests that the most plausible outcome is not a single capital, but a tri-capital system. This model would distribute the national government across Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, serving as a compromise between centralization and federalism.

This position paper argues that tri-capital is not federalism, but federalism-lite: a politically realistic way to decentralize national presence without altering the unitary nature of the state.

---

II. The Strategic Rationale for Capital Relocation

Capital relocation is not merely a response to congestion or climate risk. It is a deliberate attempt to:

• rebalance national development
• reduce systemic risk
• reshape governance
• signal long-term national vision

Indonesia’s move to Nusantara demonstrates that capital relocation is statecraft, not construction. The Philippines must similarly articulate a compelling national rationale to avoid turning relocation into speculative development.

---

III. The Problem with Single-Capital Proposals

Single-capital relocation fails on several fronts:

A. Political Legitimacy

A capital in Luzon will be perceived as favoring Luzon. Visayas and Mindanao will see it as another example of Manila-centric policy.

B. Institutional Fragmentation

Government agencies resist relocation. Without legal anchoring and institutional reform, relocation becomes a partial move, with agencies remaining in Metro Manila.

C. Economic Sustainability

A capital cannot survive on government employment alone. It needs a diversified economic base, secure utilities, and strong social infrastructure.

---

IV. The Tri-Capital Model: A Realistic Compromise

A tri-capital system distributes national institutions across three regions:

• Luzon: administrative capital (executive functions)
• Visayas: legislative capital (Congress)
• Mindanao: judicial/constitutional capital (Supreme Court)

This model is attractive because it:

A. Addresses regional resentment

It prevents the perception that national power belongs only to Luzon.

B. Distributes development

It spreads infrastructure spending across regions, creating multiple growth centers.

C. Creates political feasibility

It is the most likely outcome given the Philippine political system, which rewards regional elites.

---

V. Tri-Capital Is Not Federalism

A tri-capital model is not federalism because it does not:

• create regional states
• redistribute legislative powers
• alter fiscal autonomy
• rewrite the constitution

Instead, it only redistributes national institutions, which is a limited and practical form of decentralization.

This is why it can be described as federalism-lite: it captures some benefits of federalism without its risks.

---

VI. Why I Am Not a Federalist

I remain opposed to federalism for the Philippines due to:

• risk of fragmentation
• political patronage and regional rent-seeking
• expensive and complex transition
• potential weakening of national unity

But I am not ideologically rigid. If evidence supports a better solution, I am willing to consider it.

Tri-capital is not a conversion to federalism. It is an acknowledgment that the country needs a new structure to balance national power.

---

VII. The Conditions for a Successful Tri-Capital System

Tri-capital will fail if it becomes symbolic. It will succeed only if anchored by:

A. Legal and constitutional clarity

National law must define the roles of each capital.

B. Strong institutional coordination

A permanent inter-capital council must coordinate budgets, security, and governance.

C. Unified digital government

A tri-capital system requires a strong e-government backbone to prevent fragmentation.

D. Phased implementation

A 15–20 year phased migration strategy is needed to avoid disruption.

---

VIII. The Most Plausible Philippine Outcome

Given the political realities, the most plausible outcome is a hybrid capital system, combining:

• Clark as a transitional or administrative capital
• Aurora or Quezon as the visionary capital
• Tri-capital functional division as a compromise

This does not represent failure. It represents a realistic compromise that balances regional equity with national stability.

---

IX. Conclusion

The capital debate is not about land. It is about power, identity, and governance.

The Philippines may not need a single capital.

It may need a tri-capital system—a compromise that offers regional inclusion, development balance, and political feasibility without becoming federalism.

This is not a shift in ideology. It is a commitment to pragmatic statecraft.

---