Decentralization in the Philippines

The end of the Second World War saw the Philippines’ foundation of a new era in the field of governance. For the first time, after four decades of foreign administration, the Filipinos had the chance to govern over themselves as a free nation.

However, like most of the newly established republics during that era, the Philippines had to deal with harsh political, economic and social transformation. And despite the clamor for a decentralized form of government, nation building and national recovery required a more centralized structure.

The calls for public sector efficiency, the democratization of political system, and the changing economic landscape, nevertheless, have triggered significant developments toward self governance within the last 50 years of the 20^th century. These include Local Autonomy Act of 1959, the passage of the Barrio Charter and the Decentralization Act of 1967 which are “incremental national legislations in response to the clamor for a self-rule concept” (UNESCAP 2003).

It also became apparent to many legislators and politicians that much of the country’s seemingly intractable problems stemmed in no small measure from the government’s highly centralized structure (Quizon et. al. 2003).

Hence, a significant development was the enshrinement in the Philippine Constitutions of 1972 and 1987 of the Government’s policy to create:

“a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative and referendum..”

Further, the Constitutions provide that the Congress shall:
 

“..allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities and resources and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment, removal, terms, salaries, powers, functions and duties of local officials and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units."

The 1987 Constitution further provided that local government units, as political and territorial subdivisions, “shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.”

In keeping with these legal mandates, the Philippine Congress passed the Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). The LGC was the country’s biggest attempt at decentralization primarily because of its four outstanding features. First, it puts the responsibility of basic service delivery on the shoulders of the local government units (LGUs). Second, it grants the LGUs considerable regulatory powers. Third, it increases the financial resources of the LGUs through increased internal revenue allotment (IRA). And fourth, the code recognizes and encourages the active participation of civil society in the process of governance (Brillantes 1997).

These features, however, make the LGC also seem ambitious. While the devolution of responsibilities and powers from the national government had started since the onset of the LGC, the LGUs had not much time to prepare. And while several provinces and municipalities seem to perform fairly well in areas like local administration and delivery of central government functions, much work is needed to prepare the rest for the devolved functions and responsibilities.

One specific area that many LGUs have yet to build capability for is LFPM. The fiscal decentralization afforded to LGUs by the LGC has made sound LFPM very important in Philippine local governments. Specifically, this function is crucial for all LGUs as the quality of their service delivery would heavily rely on their ability to generate and manage resources effectively. Especially for the poorer provinces and municipalities, LFPM is a daunting challenge. T

he solution, nevertheless, lies in the active participation of the civil society, which is an inherent feature of the LGC. This feature recognizes the important role of the civil society and provides a strong foundation for a vibrant participatory governance. Section 3 of the LGC specifically states that the “participation of the private sector in local governance, particularly in the delivery of basic services, shall be encouraged to ensure the viability of local autonomy as an alternative strategy for sustainable development.” This provision supports bottom-up, or community-based planning wherein both the local government and its constituents influence and share in the control over development initiatives, decisions, and resources that affect them.

Source: D. Medrana, et. al (unpublished)