Governance
is about how local government bodies ensure that they are doing the right
things, in the right way, for the right people, in a timely, open, inclusive,
honest and accountable manner (p.2). It comprises the systems, processes, and
cultures and values by which local government bodies are directed and
controlled, and through which they account to, engage with and, where
appropriate lead their communities (pp.2-3).
At
the heart of local governance is decentralization and local autonomy which is
mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution specifically under section 3
whereby the Congress is mandated “to enact a local government code that will
institutionalize decentralization.” Hence, came the Local Government Code of
1991 which basically provides under sec 2 Book I that LGUs “shall genuine and
meaningful autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as
self-reliant communities…”
Salient
Features of Decentralization
Decentralization
refers to the transfer of powers and functions from a higher or central level
of authority to a lower level government or field offices of central units.
There are basically two modes by which decentralization can be effected. These
are through devolution and deconcentration (Cabo:128).
Deconcentration
decentralizes functions from central government agencies to its field units.
The transfer of functions takes place within the same administrative machinery
of government, from the central office to its field units or offices.
Deconcentration is administrative in nature, hence, it is also called
administrative deconcentration (p.128).
Devolution
is political in character for it transfers powers and functions from the
national government to local government. In effect, devolution empowers local
governments by giving it wider scope of discretion and decisionmaking powers.
The passage of the 1991 Local Government Code is an act of devolution (Cabo,
p129). The Local Government Code devolved powers and functions including the
delivery of basic services: responsibility to enforce regulatory powers; powers
to increase financial resources by broadening their taxing powers, shares from
internal revenues, and the exploitation of national wealth; legitimization of
participation for civil society in local governance; and authority to engage in
entrepreneurial and development activities (Reyes: 359).
Privatization
involves the assumption by a business corporate of a service or function
performed by government (Cabo:129).
Relevance
to the Country
Decentralization has
been adopted to improve the delivery of public services, and the management of
public affairs among newly-independent nations (Reyes:167). Brillantes, Jr.
asserts that governments have adopted to decentralization because of the merits
of facilitating speedy “decisionmaking processes by decongesting central
government and reducing red tape” while at the same time increasing citizens’
participation and empowerment to engender a “more open and democratic
government” (Brillantes, 2003:324) (Reyes:167). Decentralization brought much
optimism to liberate local political units from extreme reliance and dependency
on the national government. It “strengthens and empowers the LGUs to be at the
helm of forging their futures, especially in the aspects of fighting poverty,
engendering development, self-reliance, consolidating good governance practices
and reinvigorating democracy (Reyes:176).”
How
Decentralization was Implemented
Decentralization was
implemented with the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991. As it is,
the LGC covers a vast and bulky enumeration of policies and mandate provided in
four books divided into 536 sections to transform local government units into
self-reliant communities. It is this a complex codified body of legislation
that captures the many facets and aspects of local governance that had been
neglected if not conveniently ignored through many attempts because of vested
interests in the legislature and in the national government, which has been
disinclined to share power and authority (Reyes: 172.)
According
to Reyes (2016), based on a rough and preliminary assessment, the following
could be identified as some of the recognized salutary gains of the LGC during
the last 25 years (Reyes:173-176):
1. - Grassroots
empowerment and greater citizens’ participation in the communities.
2. - Greater
involvement of civil society and people’s organizations and the private sector
in policy-making and in the management of public affairs.
3. - The
rise and strengthening of inter-local cooperation thru the establishment of
Leagues of Local Government Units and Elective Officials
4. - Consciousness
on the rights of Local Government Units and greater transparency
5. - Recognition
of Best Practices under the Galing Pook Awards (Excellent or Best Localities)
Program
6. - Anti-poverty
and development initiatives at the local levels
7. - Participation
in local elections by the citizenry remained strong, if not strengthened
8. - Women
leaders are on the rise
Reyes (2016) further said the LGC should not be
regarded as a nostrum or a cure-all, one-size-formula that will correct the
many multifarious problems that beset communities. In fact, he listed down the following
dysfunctions (Reyes:176-179):
1. The
problematic of the absorptive capacities of LGUs has not matched the demands of
responsibilities entrusted by the Code.
2. The
financial capacities of LGUs leave much to be desired
3. - Many
local governments continue to be dependent on their shares of the Internal
Revenue Allotment
4. - The
national government continues to hold and control the bulk of productive
sources of revenue even in the Post-Code Period (Llanto, 2013)
5. - There
is a wide disparity in the distribution of government personnel between the
national government and the LGUs.
6. - The
poverty incidence has not been contained.
7. - Political
dynasties remain well-entrenched in the various provinces, cities and towns of
the country.
Brillantes, Llanto, Alm, and
Sosmena (forthcoming 2009) conducted many consultations in major regions of the
country and have identified the following the key issues and challenges
pertaining to the implementation of the LGC drawn from the study (Reyes:371-373).
1. Local
Personnel Administration/Human Resource Development, Organization, and Staffing
The professionalization of the
local bureaucracy has been considered as one important issue. More
specifically, the study highlights the following issues that emerged: 1.) low
compensation of local officials, 2.) low compensation/pay of barangay officials
and staff, 3.) certain sector are not given priority at the local level, 4.)
need to clarify specific positions at the local level, and 5.) unclear career
path of local appointive officials.
2. National-Local
Relations
These are related to 1.) lack
of synchronization/harmony between national and local government development
planning and action, 2.) NGAs generally bypass local development plan
formulated by LGUs; and 3.) unclear conditions concerning the creation and conversion
of LGUs.
3. Local
Government Performance Measurement
The study found that there
continues to be: 1.) a lack of a well-crafted and functional performance
measurement system of LGUs, and 2.) the proliferation of performance indicators
and lack of awareness of such indicators by LGUs.
4. Capacity
Building
The main issues here are: 1.)
lack of awareness and appreciation of a comprehensive capacity building program
for local governments, and 3.) election of local officials who are not ready or
prepared to assume the position due to lack of technical skills.
5. People
Participation
Inasmuch as the LGC has
created an enabling framework for genuine people participation in local
governance, key issues remains including: 1.) unclear relations between
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operationalize their participation,
2.) inability of many LGUs to fill-up the 25% NGOs mandatory representation
requirement, and 3.) LCEs do not convene the local development council.
6. Political
Concern
The study validated that: 1.)
the current 3-year term of local officials does not allow authentic development
work, 2.) Sangguniang Kabataan seems to be highly politicized, and 3.) unclear
rules and procedures of Congress in the conduct of referendum.
7. Federalism
Finally, the study echoed the
high hopes and opportunities that federalism may bring as a possible
politico-administrative set-up to push decentralization in the Philippines (Brillantes,
Llanto, Alm, and Sosmena 2009:52-59).
Reflection
As for me, the struggle on giving
flesh and blood to good local governance thru decentralization is a long
marathon. All those issues mentioned above should be addressed to achieve the
goals of decentralization. Doing so requires the active participation and
engagement of the government, the private sector and the civil society. With
federalism being considered by the current leadership to empower local
government units, I agree with PA scholars that it should spin-off from the
gains and shortcomings of our experiences with the present mode of
decentralization as contemplated by the LGC.
In
the area of politics, it is very important to develop an educated and
responsible citizenry that will elect good leaders that will form a
well-performing and responsive bureaucracy. It is equally important for the
society to develop values and norms that complements with the demands for high
level of ethical standards in public service. Though the Wilsonian doctrine of
“administration-politics dichotomy” is the most ideal condition, there remains
the fact that the quality of bureaucracy we have depends on our political
choices basically on how we elect our leaders and how we participate in policy
deliberations.
Effective
decentralization means effective and efficient management of the bureaucracy.
Professionalization of government positions in the local level must give way to
the patronage and spoils tradition. The use of modern technology and
communications technology should be fully harnessed to keep up with the demands
of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to speed up service delivery and to improve
transparency, accountability and participation. Sustainability and continuity
of good programs of previous administrations and the private sector should be
ensured by the present administrators to keep development track on the right
direction.
References:
Cabo,
Wilhelmina L., P201 Theories and Practice of Public Administration, University
of the Philippine Open University, 1997.
Delivering Good Governance and in Local Government
Framework edited by Sarah Lloyd. CIPFA The Chartered Institute of Public
Finance and Accountancy, 2007, UK accessed at
httpsdemocracy.york.gov.ukdocumentss82198CIPFADeliveringGoodGovernanceinLocalGovernmentFramework1.pdf.pdf
Reyes, Danilo dela Rosa. Issues and Problems in
Decentralization and Local Autonomy in the Philippines: A Preliminary
Assessment of Impact and Challenges. Journal of Politics and Governance, Vol.
6, Special Issue, September – December, 2016 accessed thru httpcopag.msu.ac.thjournalfilesjournal6-Special%20Issue130120175022212.Danilo%20de%20la%20Rosa%20Reyes.pdf
accessed on 03-10-2020.
Reyes, Danilo, R. History and
Context of the Development of Public Administration in the Philippines, Public
Administration in Southeast Asia (Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hongkong,
and Macao) edited by Evan MM. Berman (CRC Press 2011) pp. 333-352 accessed at http://blancopeck.net/Public-Administration-in-Southeast-Asia.pdf
on 02-07-2020
The Local Government Code of 1991
The 1987 Philippine Constitution
.jpg)
