DECENTRALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIZATION

In the later part of the 20th Century there has been a dramatic shift in the manner

governments around the world managed their states. Instead of having a centralized form

of government, most nation nation-state now somehow adopts the idea of shifting some

of the national or central powers to the local government units. This shifting of powers is

called Decentralization. Decentralization is the transfer of planning, decision making, or

administrative authority from the central government to its field organizations, local

governments, and nongovernmental organizations as defined by Rondinellei and Cheema.

According to de Guzman and Padilla, decentralization is the dispersal of authority and

responsibility and the allocation of powers and functions from the center or top level of

government to regional bodies or special purpose authorities, or from the national to the

sub national levels of government.

Decentralization is a strategy used by the government towards democratizing the political

system and accelerating the attainment of sustainable development”1 for the reason that it

will promote or allow fuller participation of the citizens in government affairs and will

give the local governments and the communities a more active role in the economic,

social and political development 2. Government further assumes that through

decentralization “development would be more responsive to the needs of the people and

would create opportunities in the regions, promote employment and economic activities

and as well strengthen people’s participation in the affairs of the government”3.

Different forms of decentralization can be distinguished primarily in terms of the extent

of authority transferred and the amount of autonomy. Decentralization may take the form

of devolution and deconcentration. Deconcentration involves the “redistribution of

administrative responsibilities only within the central government”4. It is not a transfer of 1 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.2 Decentralization Towards Democratization ann Development in the Asian Pacific Region: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Organization (EROPA). edited; De Guzman, Raul. Reforma, Mila. Bookman Printing House, Manila, 1993. p 53 Decentralization Towards Democratization ann Development in the Asian Pacific Region: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Organization (EROPA). edited; De Guzman, Raul. Reforma, Mila. Bookman Printing House, Manila, 1993. p 3 4 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

1

power from the central government but merely to “delegate such powers and

responsibilities to the hierarchical levels, primarily to facilitate the administration of

national programs and services, and this approach is otherwise referred to as

administrative decentralization”5. Administrative decentralization can take effect without

the necessity of legislation but with the issuance of an executive or administrative order.

Although the local units now have responsibilities bestowed to them, they are still

supervised and controlled the central government; therefore all transactions cannot be

done unless approved by the central government. They are not to decide on their own.

Deconcentration is the assignment of functions to ad hoc bodies and special authorities

created in the region to render technical assistance on regional development. This could

be done in different ways: 1) the shifting of the workload from a central government

ministry or agency headquarters to its own field staff located in offices outside the

national capital. 2) The transfer of some decision-making discretion to field staffs but

with guidelines set by the central ministry. 3) Local administration, in which all

subordinate levels of government within a country are agents of central authority, usually

the executive branch6.

Another form of decentralization is delegation or the transfer of some functions to semi-

autonomous organization not directly under the control of the central government. Often

these organizations have semi-independent authority to perform their responsibilities and

may not even be located within the regular government structure7. This form is more

definitely extensive than administrative deconcentration. Examples are public

corporation, regional planning and development authorities, multi purpose and single

purpose functional authorities and special project implementation units.

Devolution, on the other hand, “seeks to create or strengthen independent levels or units

of government through giving them certain functions or create units of government that

5 Decentralization Towards Democratization ann Development in the Asian Pacific Region: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Organization (EROPA). edited; De Guzman, Raul. Reforma, Mila. Bookman Printing House, Manila, 1993. p 46 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.7 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

2

are outside its control8. It is also called as “political decentralization and involves the

transfer of power, responsibility and resources for the performance of certain functions

from the national to the local governments”9. Its fundamental characteristics are: a. Local

government units (LGU’s) are autonomous, independent and clearly perceived as a

separate level of government over which central authorities exercise little or no direct

control. b. LGU’s have clear and legally recognized geographical boundaries within

which they exercise authority and perform public functions. c. LGU’s have corporate

status and have the power to secure resources to perform the function. Lastly, d.

Devolution implies the needs to develop local governments as institutions. This is an

arrangement in which there is reciprocal relationship between central and local

governments. The LGU’s has the ability to interact reciprocally with other units in the

system of government of which it is part.

Lastly, Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO) and Community Organizations is used

to “decongest the government by mobilizing the NGOs and COs for planning,

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of government programs which will make

government actions more responsive to the needs and demands of those who truly

deserve government assistance and may minimize graft and corruption while injecting

cause-orientedness in the bureaucracy”10

There are mixed motives and causes of the shift to decentralization worldwide, primarily

politically driven. Some commonly sited reasons are democratization increases efficiency

and economic growth, improves supply and delivery of local services, vested interests of

national politicians, preservation of national political systems in the face of growing local

demands and general failure of centrist experiments.

8 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.9 Decentralization Towards Democratization ann Development in the Asian Pacific Region: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Organization (EROPA). edited; De Guzman, Raul. Reforma, Mila. Bookman Printing House, Manila, 1993. p 410 Decentralization Towards Democratization ann Development in the Asian Pacific Region: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Organization (EROPA). edited; De Guzman, Raul. Reforma, Mila. Bookman Printing House, Manila, 1993. p 4

3

In the case of the Philippines, of the four given forms of decentralization, devolution is

the prevalent form of decentralization used by the government.

Decentralization and democratization tend to reinforce each other; decentralization is a

factor in increasing democratization while successful decentralization can only take place

with democratic process. To a certain extent, that is what the devolution and the local

autonomy is all about: unleashing the creative powers and resources at the local level

towards the general objective of developing of self-reliance and lessen dependence upon

the central government which after all has been one reason for the state of

underdevelopment of local government unit in the Philippines. Indeed, local governments

in the Philippines are undergoing a fundamental structural and ideological transformation

as a result of the devolution in 1991. This transformation will be better appreciated within

the context of decentralization, democratization and local empowerment.

THE EVOLUTION OF PHILIPPINE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND

CENTRAL- LOCAL RELATIONS: FROM PRECOLONIAL BARANGAY TO

THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

4

Although it is commonly assumed that the decentralization process in the Philippines is a

complete break from the overly centralized past, evidences show that “the so-called

landmark LGC of 1991 is not an abrupt break from the past but a result of a long struggle

for decentralization and local autonomy.11” According to Hutchcroft, scholars viewed the

Philippine public administration as “over centralized because they tend to concentrate far

more attention to formal structures of authority than on informal networks of power”12.

But looking back in time, “before the arrival of Arab traders, scholars and the Spaniards

in the sixteenth century, everything was local.”

“The ancestors of the Filipinos established an indigenous and

autonomous political institution known as the barangay, which was

composed of some thirty to one hundred households. Some of these

small-scale political units were clustered together, but most of them

‘had not attained a level of political organization above and beyond

the kinship principle.”13

When the Spanish colonizers came, they introduced “a centralized system with the

Spanish governor-general as the supreme authority in all matters”14 with the “subnational

officials acting as his agents”15. The barangay (renamed as barrio) remained as basic

administrative units but other ties of local government were added: “the pueblos

(municipalities), cabildos (cities), and provincias (provinces).”16 Local discretion in the

governance of local affairs was allowed only towards the end of the Spanish regime.

“The Maura Law of 1893 sought reforms in the local government system by granting

greater local autonomy to towns and provinces in Luzon and Visayas and by allowing

local citizens to select some of their officials.”17 But because of the Philippine

11 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.12 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.13 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.14 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.15 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.16 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.17 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

5

Revolution which shortly followed in 1898, these reforms did not make much impact at

all.

According to Tapales, the Spanish period had impacts, however, on the development of

local governments in the Philippines.

“First, indigenous activities were supplanted by putting in place an

alien system of local government. Second, a high degree of

centralization in the capital of Manila in Luzon came to characterize

national-local relations for another century after the Spanish

colonization. Third, the divide-and-rule policy of Spanish colonizers,

their concentration of all political activities in Manila and the ensuing

neglect of the other regions outside Manila, and the curtailment of

many elements of internal trade strengthened regionalism and the other

regions’ contempt for the center, which remain strong until today.

Fourth, at the end of Spanish rule, there were still areas in the

Philippines that considered themselves not part of the emerging nation

at all which was because the Spaniards were unsuccessful in

consolidating all the islands under their control. And finally, the

Spanish period left local elite that would continue to play important

roles in the decades ahead. The datu in the Philippines were

incorporated into the Spanish colonial regime. They were dependent

upon Spanish patronage and support but they also exercised

considerable powers in the local areas.”18

In 1898, against the backdrop of the Philippine Revolution against Spain, the first but

short lived Philippine Republic under the Malolos Constitution was established. Officials

were elected on a popular basis and "decentralization" and "administrative autonomy"

were among the rallying cries of the period.19 The Malolos Constitution which served as

18 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.19 Alex B. Brillantes, Jr. , Decentralization, Devolution and Development in the Philippines, UMP-Asia Occasional Paper No. 44, 1999

6

the framework of the Philippine revolutionary government, provided for the creation of

municipal and provincial assemblies, autonomous local units, and popular and direct

elections.20

The American occupation of the Philippines (1902-1935) saw the promulgation of a

number of policies promoting local autonomy. These included the organization of

municipal and provincial councils based on general suffrage. Other pronouncements

indicative of the thrust towards local autonomy included the following: the Instructions of

President McKinley to the Taft Commission; the incorporation of the City of Manila (Act

183 of the Philippine Commission in 1902); the establishment of the Moro Province (act

787 in 1903); the organization of provincial governments (Act 1396 in 1905); and the

extension of popular control, like the elimination of appointive members from the

provincial board.21 The American colonial period began with an emphasis on local self-

government with the aim of building democracy from below. Municipal and then

provincial elections were first introduced before national elections. However, American

administrators discovered that Filipino elites who came to fill posts in municipal

governments “where regularly ‘mishandling public funds’ by voting all available revenue

to pay for their own salaries.”22 Concerned with inefficiency and corruption in local

governance, Americans tinkered with the liberal democratic system they introduced by

moving toward centralization to prevent the “evils” of unrestricted and “untutored”

Filipino rule. While the United States attempted to institute a new system, it ended up

preserving much of the informal power structure and in ruling through the ilustrado and

cacique classes. Like their Spanish predecessors and other colonial regimes in South East

Asia, American administrators allowed the cooperative elements of the Filipino elite an

increasingly larger role in government for expediency purposes. But in the process, they

turned a blind eye on the local elite who “enriched themselves at the expense of the

peasants and increased their traditional power within the local communities.23

20 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.21 For the extensive and detailed discussion of these various initiatives, see Laurel, op cit., pp.289-29322 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.23 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

7

In spite of the enactment of the above-mentioned policies purportedly supportive of local

autonomy, the Americans maintained a highly centralized politico-administrative

structure. Largely because of security considerations, local affairs had to be under the

control of the Americans.

The Commonwealth period (1935-1946) saw local government in the Philippines placed

under the general supervision of the President as provided for under Article VII Section II

of the 1945 Constitution. Additionally, the President, by statute, could alter the

jurisdictions of local governments and in effect, create or abolish them.24 Ocampo and

Panganiban note that the constitutional provision limiting the President's power to general

supervision was a compromise measure substituted for the stronger guarantee of local

autonomy proposed during the constitutional convention. President Quezon preferred to

appoint the chief officials of cities and would brook no "democratize nonsense".25

During the 1934 – 1935 Constitutional Convention, emerging Filipino leaders were group

into two camps: those who favor stronger local government, and those who consider state

control more important than local governments. The second group won. Thus, the 1935

Constitution had no separate article on local governments, in contrast with the two

succeeding constitution of the Philippines. In addition, the 1935 Constitution formally

created a very powerful Philippine president. Thus, the trend during the Commonwealth

period, the transitional government before the granting of independence, was

centralization. Aside from the state-control bias of the 1935 Constitution, some writers

also attribute the centralization trend to the strong leadership style of President Manuel

Quezon. Quezon believed that under a unitary system, the national chief executive should

control all local offices. The result was that central supervision rapidly increased and was

personally exercised by the president to a degree previously unheard of. However, as

Hutchcroft noted, Quezon was primarily concerned with centralizing control over

patronage resources. Thus, he achieved great success in establishing central-local

relations aimed at electoral objectives rather than promoting administrative effectiveness.

24 Ocampo and Panganiban, op. Cit., p. 5 25 Brillantes Cit.

8

Formal centralization continued during the brief Japanese occupation (1942 – 1945). As

in the case of the Spanish and American colonization of the Philippines and especially

since there was a world war going on, an even greater degree of central control was

imposed on local governments by the occupying power through a national government

where Filipinos collaborators, still from the local elites that cooperated with the

Americans, held positions.

Philippine political independence was granted by the Americans in 1946. The first local

autonomy act (RA 2264) was enacted in 1959, entitled, "An Act Amending the Laws

Governing Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy and Reorganizing

Provincial Governments". This act vested in city and municipal governments greater

fiscal, planning and regulatory powers. It broadened the taxing powers of the cities and

municipalities within the framework of national taxing laws.26

The year 1959 also saw the passage of landmark legislation as afar as local autonomy is

concerned. The Barrio Charter Act (RA 2370) sought to transform the barrios, the

smallest political unit of the local government system into quasi-municipal corporations

by vesting them some taxing powers. Barrios were to be governed by an elective barrio

council. Less than a decade later, the "Decentralization Act of 1967" (RA 5185) was

enacted. It further increased the financial resources of local government and broadened

their decision-making powers over administrative (mostly fiscal and personnel) matters.27

More specifically, the Decentralization Act provided that it will:

Grant local governments greater freedom and ampler means to respond to the

needs of their people and promote prosperity and happiness to effect a more

equitable and systematic distribution of governmental power and resources. To

this end, local governments henceforth shall be entrusted with the performance

of those functions that are more properly administered in the local level and

26 Brillantes Cit.27 Brillantes Cit.

9

shall be granted with as much autonomous powers and financial resources as are

required in the more effective discharge of their responsibilities.28

By any measure, the imposition of martial law in 1972, which abolished local

elections and vested in the dictator the powers to appoint officials who were

beholden to him, was a great setback for the local autonomy movement in the

Philippines. Notwithstanding the highly centralized dictatorial set-up, the 1973

Marcos Constitution rhetorically committed itself to a policy of local autonomy:

The State shall guarantee and promote autonomy of local government units, especially

the barrio, to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities.29

The document likewise constitutionalized the taxing powers of local government

units thus:

Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of

revenue and to levy taxes subject to limitations as may be provided by law.30

However, the President continued to exercise "supervision and control" over the

local governments. The authoritarian government promulgated the Local

Government Code of 1983 (Batas Pambansa Bilang 337) which reiterated the policy

of the State to guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units to

ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them

effective partners in the pursuit of national development.31

Obviously, genuine autonomy could not be realistically implemented under the

authoritarian regime.32

28 Ibid.29Brillantes cit. 30 Ibid.31 Ibid.32 Ibid.

10

From the granting of formal independence in 1946 until 1972, the general trend had been

toward the decentralization. Until 1950, national executive departments made all

administrative appointments at the provincial and municipal levels. However, they were

generally made in consultation with the local political elite. A number of laws passed by

Congress gave greater autonomy to local government through the grant of additional

powers or the lessening of national control on local affairs. Significant legislative

enactments include the Local Autonomy Act (Republic Act RA 2264), the Barrio Charter

(RA 2370, later amended by RA 3590), and the Decentralization Act of 1967 (RA 5185).

The Supreme Court also contributed to the cause of local autonomy by moving away t a

liberal to a narrower interpretation of constitutional power of the president to supervise

local governments. The decentralization trend culminated in the inclusion of a separate

article on local government in the draft of the new constitution and the draft Integrated

Reorganization Plan (IRP). The draft constitution contained provisions guaranteeing local

government autonomy, local power to create their own sources of revenue and to levy

taxes, greater citizens’ draft IRP, meanwhile, strengthened the regions. But under the

draft law, LGUs were still supervised through the office of the President and the various

departments.33

Furthermore, central-local relations in the Philippines before the declaration of martial

law in 1972 differed from other developing Asian countries that were characterized by

the widespread phenomenon of tight central control at the time. According to Friedman,

this difference sprang from the country’s colonial heritage and reflected formal,

structural, alternatives, albeit unaccompanied by new conceptions of government. Before

the 1970s the Philippines already had constitutionally differentiated provincial

governments and a variety of elected governing bodies and officials at the city,

municipal, and barrio levels. Friedman continued that while financial resources needed

for governing were always lacking, “a complicated and politically influenced system of

grants” made the Philippine local government system more autonomous than in other

Asian countries. While this type of system generated its own benefits as well as

33 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

11

problems, “the potential for continued development” that is not discernible everywhere in

Asia existed in the Philippines.

After the 1896 EDSA People Power Revolution toppled the Marcos dictatorship, the

Philippine government headed by Corazon Aquino renewed its commitment to greater

decentralization as a means of attaining its development goals and objectives. This was

expressed in the goals of the new administration’s development program (“the Policy

Agenda for People Oriented Development”). The program stated that the role and

structure of government would be guided by the key organizational principles of

decentralization, among others. The administration’s commitment to achieving greater

decentralization was further reinforced by the extensive provision on local autonomy in

the 1987 Constitution. Article 2 (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 25,

says: “The State shall insure the autonomy of local governments.” There is also a

separate State shall insure the autonomy of local government (Article 10) that is more

extensive than its counterpart in the 1973 Constitution. Article 10 has the following very

important provisions:

1. Creation of autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera.

2. Granting LGUs the power to create their own sources of revenue and to levy

taxes which shall be automatically released to them.

3. Providing local governments with a just share of the national taxes which shall

be automatically released to them.

4. Entitling local governments to an equitable shares in the proceeds of the

utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas.

5. Providing for regional development councils for other similar bodies

composed of local government officials, regional heads of departments and

other government offices, and representatives from NGOs within the region for

purposes of administrative decentralization to strengthen the autonomy of the

units thereon and to accelerate the economic and social growth and

development of the units in the region.34

34 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

12

The provision of the 1987 Constitution would serve as the legal precedent for the

enactment in 1989 of two laws creating autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the

Cordilleras. Then, in 1991, after almost five years of debate in Congress, the Local

Government Code or RA 7160 was enacted. This law is by far the most focused on

devolution and democratic decentralization in the country. It is also considered the most

important piece of legislation to emerge from the Aquino administration.

The 1991 LGC is a product of both external factors, although internal factors play a

stronger role in terms of the actual contents of the legal basis as well as the dynamics of

its implementation. Decentralization has been carried out not solely for the traditional

public administration arguments but, more important, in light of its democratic

dimensions and other political considerations. There are mixed motives and a conjuncture

of political factors in the decision to undertake decentralization. First, there are practical

and administrative reasons. For decades and peaking with Marcos’s dictatorship, a formal

centralized structure failed to deliver services. This failure is especially relevant in a

diverse archipelago of thousands of islands. In addition, overly centralized formal

mechanisms limited prospects for development in the countryside.

Second, The Philippines undertook decentralization after the overthrow of Marcos for

idealistic reasons. President Aquino, civil-society groups, various leagues of local

governments, and some national legislators genuinely felt that decentralization and local

autonomy were more than administrative innovations. They were tools toward achieving

democratization and vice versa. The Code was meant to be centerpiece of a government

that came into power by overthrowing a dictatorship.

Finally, political leaders also have personal reasons for undertaking decentralization.

Obviously, traditional local politician saw the new benefits they would reap from

devolution. More important, subject to the new constitution’s imposition of term limits,

members of the House of the Representatives were motivated by a desire to assume local

government positions in the failure in an environment where significant powers and

finances have been devolved to LGUs. In terms of timing of the Code’s approval, many

13

legislators were also motivated by a desire to get reelected or get elected to higher

positions in the coming elections.

Philippine politico-administrative history is replete with examples of tensions between a

highly centralized governmental structure and the demands for autonomy among the

various component local units: at one level, there is an imperative for a dominant and

assertive leadership necessary for the consolidation and even the very survival of a weak

state; at another level, there is demand among component local institutions for autonomy

from the central government in order to enable them to become more responsive to

situations obtaining locally and, paradoxically, strengthen a weak state.

35Earlier historical attempts to decentralize power and authority to local institutions

through various means are testimony to the fact that the problem of overcentralization is

one that has been recognized - but continued to persist - through the years. For instance,

the decentralization of administrative authority (but conspicuously unaccompanied by

political decentralization) was a hallmark of the Marcos dictatorship. A Local

Government Code was in fact enacted in 1983. But these attempts at decentralizing

government remained simple administrative formalisms. Power continued to be

concentrated in Manila with local units heavily dependent upon central government. In

fact, before the enactment of the Code, local governments were beginning not only to be

restive but also assertive, demanding that the umbilical cord that tied them to Manila be

severed because this was the root cause behind their stunted growth and

underdevelopment.

With Philippines' archipelagic nature, it is no wonder that the Philippine government had

made lots of experiments to find the most suitable way to govern the country. The

reinforcement of a centralized and decentralized government varied from the pre-colonial

barangay to the 1991 Local Government Code. A lot of factors triggered such trend

variation. Aside from the country's geographic nature, which hindered the successful

consolidation of all islands under the control of one government, the public officials were

3514 Brillantes, Cit.

14

not yet properly trained or educated on the implementation of government's policies and

procedures to prevent unethical acts such as corruption and red tape. Despite of this,

decentralizing the government has been the best option to effectively implement

government's programs and policies, wherein the provinces, cities, municipalities and

barangays of the nation enjoys local autonomy which are then generally supervised by a

central government.36And because of a greater degree of accountability, responsiveness

and participation, effective decentralization can make a big difference by making the

provision of local (social and economic) services more efficient, equitable, sustainable

and cost-effective. Through community participation in decision making, planning,

implementation and monitoring and backed by appropriate institutions and resources, it

can go a long way in improving the quality of life, particularly of the poorer and

marginalized sectors of the population, thereby alleviating poverty.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM AND CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT

THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

3615 <http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-115661-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html >

15

The passing of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code (LGC) contain five major

features which gave noteworthy supremacy to those local government units (LGUs). It

transfers the responsibility for the delivery of various aspects of basic services plus some

regulatory and licensing powers to the local governments. It also increases the financial

resources available to LGUs, lays down the policy framework for the direct involvement

of civil society, most especially non-government organizations and people’s

organizations in the process of local governance, and encourages LGUs to be more

entrepreneurial.37 These are as follows: 1.) the code devolves or transfers the

responsibility for the delivery of various aspects of basic services to the local

governments. Most significant devolved services include health, agriculture, environment

and natural resources, social services and public works funded by local funds. 2.) The

code transfers certain regulatory and licensing powers to local governments. These

include reclassification of agricultural lands, enforcement of environmental laws,

inspection of food products and quarantine, enforcement of National Building Code,

operation of tricycles, processing and approval of subdivision plans, and establishment of

cockpits and holding of cockfights. 3.) It increases the financial resources available to

LGUs by broadening their taxing powers, providing them with specific share from the

national wealth exploited in their area, and increasing their automatic share from national

taxes.4.)It lays down the policy framework for the direct involvement of civil society,

most specially NGOs and Pos, in the process of local governance – some degree of

debureaucretization. These openings for civil society are meant to promote not only

popular participation but also local accountability and transparency. Finally, 5.) The code

encourages the LGUs to be more entrepreneurial by providing them with opportunities to

enter into joint ventures with the private sector, engage in the BOT arrangements, float

bonds, and obtain loans from local private institution and the like. In a sense, the code

encourages them to be less reliant on the national government instead generate their own

resources but still the President has the authority to exercise general supervision over the

LGU delegated to the DILG – the successor of the pre – martial department of local

government and community development. More specifically, this could be done through

the following: First, sectoral representation in local legislative councils, particularly those

37 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

16

represents women, worker, and other sectors as determined by the specific Sanggunian.

( either sanggunian panlalawigan, panglungsod, sanggunian kabataan and the like);

second, through allocation of specific seats for NGO and PO representative in local

special bodies (like the local development council, the local health board, and the local

school board);third, participation in political exercises like plebiscite, referendum, and

recall.; and lastly, involvement in the planning and implementation of development

programs. Moreover, the present local government unit creates criteria according to the

1991 Local Government Code. The country has existing levels on the local government

which has an elected set of chief executive and members of a legislative body called

sanggunian as well as bureaucracy. The levels of the government include the provinces,

cities, municipalities, and the village-level barangay. 38 This shows that there exists an

established administration on the local sector. However, in the case of cities, higher-

income cities are autonomous and classified as highly urbanized or chartered cities, while

the rest are component cities that, like the municipalities, are under provincial

supervision.39 When a city is already considered as a highly-urbanized one, it becomes

independent to the provincial government. However, when it has not yet reached the level

of being a chartered city, then, it still remains under the authority of the provincial

government.

DEVOLUTION’S IMPACTS, ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

“Local government indeed plays a central role in any democratizing polity. For one,

being in the frontline, they are regarded by many citizens as the government. If local

38 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.39 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

17

governments fail and are unresponsive to the basic needs of the people then government

to those people is a failure, regardless of the grandiose plans and visions it has. The

increased role of governments in the democratizing polity may also be seen within the

context of global trends and development. The rapid breakdown of many centralized

institutions has led to the observation that the “center cannot hold”. While the

implementation of the code may not have been a smashing success, it may be rightfully

claimed that it has not been a failure either. A high point in the battle for devolution was

the presidential veto of the proposed bill to recentralize health services. If anything, this

maybe a major indicator of the current leadership’s political will to follow through the

devolution process. The support of the various concerned agencies to increase the LGU’s

absorptive capacities, through the preparation of guidelines and even developing various

capability programs with appropriate institution also augurs well for devolution.” The

most controversial issue in decentralization is implementation in the real world. It

presents problem which are as follows: first is that a significant number of LGUs “refuse

and hesitate to accept the devolved functions and services for reasons such as limited

financial resources to maintain and sustain the operations of the offices charged with the

functions and delivering the devolved services”40. For example the health practitioners,

they are now the responsibilities of the LGUs and be compensated with accordance of the

Magna Carta involving heath services41Next are the problems which have something to

do with personnel management, because some of them do not want to be directly under

the control and supervision of the local executives, especially those devolved personnel

from the national agencies. According to the Legaspi there are concerns on to what extent

the basic services and functions which includes financial allocations from the national

government and support facilities be transferred to the LGU’s because it is not clearly

defined. Indeed there are things to be settled until it can be said that the decentralization

in the country is successful.

“However, it is important that the devolution process not be romanticized and seen as the

end-all and panacea for all our problems. National government certainly still plays a 40 Decentralization, Autonomy and the Local Government Code: The Challenge of Implememtation . edited; Legaspi, Perla. Local Government Center ,College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines and Ford Foundation. Philippines, 1995. p 241 Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Edited: Morada, Noel. Tadem, Teresa.

18

critical role in the overall development process. The preparation and development of

standards, redistribution of resources and identification of projects and activities that

national government can finance given its unique capabilities and perspectives still are

areas where it has some comparative advantage and therefore demonstrate competence”42.

42 Democritization: Philippine Perspectives. Miranda, Felipe. University of the Philippines Press. Diliman, Quezon City, 1997, p. 98,99

19