DECENTRALIZATION IN THE

PHILIPPINES
By: Hadja Nena L. Namla
(Reporter)

I- Previous Decentralization Movement

Decentralization and local autonomy have been a continuing issue in
central-local government relations in the Philippines for the last forty years,
Inspite constitutional provisions on the promotion or guarantee of local
autonomy, historical antecedents point only to central theme in
intergovernmental relations.
Significant legislative measures within the last forty years started in
the 1950s with the passage of Republic Act No. 2260 or the Local Autonomy
Act, the Barrio Charter followed by the Decentralization Act of 1967
devolving agricultural, engineering and health services to local authorities
after the Decentralization Law of 1967, the next major significant legal
development was the passage of the Local Government Code in 1983.
There were many programs and projects in the past , initiated to pilot
the notion of decentralization.
All this past efforts on decentralization have a commonality; they all
failed to achieve sustainability and/or institutionalization.
The causes of the failure were basic in any institutional program that
attempt to introduce new concepts which, in turn, requires behavioral,
organizational and political modifications. Some of these causes were:
1. Past efforts were disjointed and non-wholistic emphasizing on short
term impact projects but sacrificing long term policy reforms necessary as
the solid foundation of any effective decentralization scheme.
2. There was lack of a uniform interpretation of decentralization and a
comprehensive policy framework with adequate political clout for any of the
decentralization schemes to survive and as an aftermath consequently failed
to attain institutionalization.

1
3. Program strategies and technologies were not cost effective.
Mismatch between objectives and strategies were experienced.
4. The local government bureaucracies failed to understand their roles
and obligations within the context of decentralization and local autonomy.
There was no top to bottom participation of all concerned to encourage
understanding of decentralization and local government administration. A
participative program which would have empowered those who were to be
involved was not achieved.
Also in the past, academic researches and various institutional
researches and various institutional studies were significant historical
antecedents of decentralization. A 1987 decentralization proposal of the
Department of Interior and Local Government led to the initial organization of
a joint Legislative-Executive Committee under Administrative Order No. 71 of
the Office of the President dated April 25, 1988.
The committee was task to provide a definitive policy direction as to
how the central government may tackle the issue of decentralization and
local autonomy in the development of the country. The same committee
never performed its task and was overtaken by succeeding events that
likewise attempted on the notion of decentralization. Under Memorandum
Circular No. 111 dated March 16 1990 of the Office of the President, a new
Cabinet Decentralization Implementing Team was organized by the President.
One among other objectives was to accelerate government decentralization
implementation. The new committee initially exerted efforts to accomplish its
task but somewhere along the lost steam shortly before it can be felt by local
governments. No significant accomplishment along decentralization schemes
was achieved again overtaken by more substantive events that followed.
The Department of the Interior and local Government, like other
departments, which genuinely shares similar concern, attempted to evolve a
comprehensive and substantive program on decentralization. Except for its
effort of sheepherding the 1991 Local Government Code recently passed by
Congress, the personnel of the department can very well prepare the ground
for eventual decentralization by advocating the local government capability
be upgraded as a precondition to effective decentralization.

2
II. Concept and definition of Decentralization
Decentralization can be simplistically defined as the rational
downward transfer of power within and/or outside a formal organization. This
refers to a basic administrative concept and process of shifting and
delegating power and authority from a central point to subordinate levels
within administrative hierarchy, in order to promote independence,
responsibility, and quicker decision
making in adopting policies and
programs to the needs of these levels. It also means the systematic and
rational dispersal of power, authority and responsibility from the center to
the periphery or from the national government to local governments (de
Guzman 1987)
Substantially, decentralization has an administrative and political
dimensions which are by themselves distinct specificities, but at the same
time, are characteristically mutually reinforcing in the understanding of the
concept.
Decentralization
is
in
some
respect
similar
to
degovernmentalization. Reducing the role of government in influencing the
lives and fate of the citizenry is an intended objective. In that sense, it is a
cyclic process of an accepted political theory which posit that governmental
power emanates from the people and that in decentralization, such
governmental power and authority are, to a certain degree, returned to the
power source, the governed. It also means demystification of the public
bureaucracy as the center of power that in the end, it achieves participative
empowerment.
In public organization, administrative decentralization manifests itself
in the deconcentration of power or authority from the highest level of
the institutional hierarchy to the lower levels of the same organization. It
may mean ministries or departments establishing a system of regional or
local administration to facilitate decision making and more responsive
delivery of services and thereby possibly achieve cost effective in the long
run. The transfer of functions and powers under this concept can be
temporal and can be recalled by the authority that made the transfer.
Deconcentration can be achieved or implemented merely with administrative

and executive orders; the primary logic

functional efficiency and effectiveness

for

deconcentration

is

Political decentralization or devolution is most relevant and visible

in intergovernmental relations. The absolute transfer of power from the
central

3
Government to local authorities through legislation is the essence and spirit
devolution. Centralism and a high degree of bureaucratic orientation are the
Extreme of this particular concept in the decentralization continuum. The
notion of local autonomy or the concept of home rule as espoused by the
federalist, is most akin to devolution. This type of decentralization can be
most meaningful to local authorities if in their negotiations for the transfer
of certain governmental powers, it must perceived the triad of local
autonomy, which are administration, finance and function or service.
The argument for political decentralization is community empowerment,
where people are given the opportunity to govern themselves so that they
can have mastery and control of their own environment.
There are other types of decentralization schemes; one is the use of
the parastatal semi-autonomous bodies that perform specific
governmental functions. This is also called a real decentralization because it
involves geographic consideration in the process of the transfer of power,
Regional governance as an alternative to central control is a potential
justification of this type of decentralization. Regional development
authorities and industrial estates empowered to perform certain
governmental and corporate functions and powers are of this category.
Another scheme is delegation which refers to the transfer of government
functions to non-governmental organization. Syno nymous to delegation is
privatization. The dualistic consideration of widening access to
governmental services and at the same time, debureaucratize public
organization are the primary justification for delegation. Academicians and
practitioners of development evolved a middle ground scheme which is a
combination of deconcentration, devolution and delegation, which is called
simply as complementation. It derives its strength as a decentralization
strategy by absorbing many characteristics of all types of decentralization.
This will include as prototypes of decentralization schemes, small efforts of
local communities, which take initiatives with or without outside

help to get organized for their own development. The character and
success of such efforts are determined to a large extent by the framework of
the central, political and administrative systems prevailing in these
communities (Bhatt 1987)
It is important to remember in the analysis of decentralization, that
the concept itself allows diversity. An argument is made that decentralization
means dissimilarities. Logical or not, decentralization objectives and
strategies may vary under given circumstances. However, it is also equally
critical to consider that

4
Such diversities should not be a license to corrupt the notion of
decentralization, and thereby render useless its definition premises and
meaning.
To argue, for example, that local autonomy and decentralization means
absolute independence of local governments from the central government
in intergovernmental relations has no place in the definitions.
All these decentralization schemes theoretically can lead to two
ultimate objectives: efficiency and empowerment. To these two, others will
readily add democracy and development. However, the operationalization of
these notions requires certain precondition in order to attain effective
decentralization. Under a given environment, some of these bottom line
prerequisites are the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Internalization of public accountability

Developing competencies
Policy-information management
Behavior modification cum training, and
Institutional reforms.

The concept of public accountability which refers to the responsible

use of powers and the rational execution of duties and functions delegated to
those who are to exercise or administer them, is the first basic requirement
for effective decentralization. The notion of public accountability is a cardinal
precondition. Those who are to assume delegated functions and powers must
not only exercise them for the public interest but must be also ever be
vigilant of the ethical and moral implications of their acts. The exercise of

power and authority without being conscious of its concomitant

responsibilities thereby leading to abuse of such powers is not a hallmark of
accountability. Public accountability, therefore, is a virtue required of those
who are to wield power in an environment of decentralization. The
internalization of the concept among those who will wield delegated powers
is the first cardinal rule necessary in the transfer of power.
Next to public accountability, the presence of competence or
competencies comes next in importance. The power of analysis, resoluteness
and even common sense, which generally is not common, is some of these
competencies that are important in decentralizing functions and powers from
top to bottom. Administrative competencies necessary in managing public

5
Organizations, development capabilities for regional and local development
as well economic and social competencies are organizational requirements
necessary in sustaining a decentralization system. The need for policy
analysis
And policy reforms and the continuous flow of information for effective local
decision making are very much recognized imperative in any
decentralization effort. Without them, any degovernmentalization schemes
will hardly be effective nor will utilitarian decentralization prosper.
Among bureaucrats and advocates of decentralization, behavior
modification can be critical element indeed in the effectiveness of the
concept. Changing old or traditional norms that hinder or retard individual
performance, imbibing innovations and maintaining a questioning but
positive attitudes are the critical components of behavior modification. Those
who are in a position to devolve powers must understand that sharing power
is vital to the dynamics of democracy and development. In turn, those who
are to exercise delegated powers carry the burden of molding a cadre of
accountable public officers, Whichever is the case, actors on both sides of
the decentralization process must modify their administrative behaviors and
culture in support of decentralization implementation. This is where training
interventions may have to be undertaken primarily to orient all concerned
with the necessary preconditions for effective decentralization. Finally,
institutional reforms, i.e. local capability-building from below, may be
undertaken as a strategy to decentralization implementation. Certain

structural adjustments or administrative reforms are necessary in order to

facilitate the attainment of specific decentralization objectives. These five
preconditions
are the cornerstones
for effective or
successful
decentralization efforts.
However, it must be accepted that decentralization as strategy is not a
quick fix or a cure all that can solve the administrative, economic and
political problems related to national or rural development. Comparative
experience in the implementation of various decentralization programs
showed that its application did create more problems in the process before
positive results were realized (Sosmea 1987)
Experiences have shown that conflicting definitions and perceptions of

6
Decentralization does exist. However, these conflicts of interpretation can be
narrowed down if the following conceptual-objectively guidelines are kept in
mind:
1. To what extent does decentralization achieve broad political
objectives manifested in achieving political stability, mobilizing support and
cooperation of
Non-governmental organizations and local communities for specific national
Development policies?
2. To what extent does decentralization increase administrative
effectiveness, by promoting greater cooperation among units of the national
and local governments, including non-governmental organizations in the
attainment of a mutually acceptable development goal?
3. To what extent does decentralization promote economic and
managerial efficiency by allowing governments at both central and local
levels to achieve development goals in a most cost effective manner?

4. What extent does decentralization increase government

responsiveness to the needs and demands of various interest groups within
the society?
5. To what extent does decentralization contribute to greater selfdetermination and self-reliance?
The above guidelines also serve as standard criteria that can
effectively assess whether or not decentralization objectives are successfully
achieved.
III. Constitutional Provisions on Decentralization and Local Autonomy.
The more than 400 years of Philippine history since the colonization of
the country by Spain, produced five constitutions, Out of these five basic
laws of the land, only three in varying periods of Philippine history articulated
the Filipino concepts of local autonomy and self-rule. These are the Malolos
Constitutions of 1898, the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. The 1935
Constitution and the so-called Freedom Constitution (1986) are of no
consequence, as documentary expressions

7
of the notion of decentralized governance.
The Malolos Congress which approved the Malolos Constitution on
January 29,1989 passed measures ordering the reorganization of towns
under the authority of the new Filipino government (Ventura 1976) Provincial
and popular assemblies were organized based on the philosophy of local
autonomy and greater participation of the people in political governance,
including the principle of direct and popular elections (Article 82, Title XI)
During the same period. The Decree of June 20, 1898 provided instruction
from the revolutionary government in the administration through local
councils (Guevarra 1973)
When viewed in the context of the evolution of Philippine local
governments, this revolutionary period was a short transitional phase from
the Spanish system of local administration to the establishment of the
American administration in the early 1900. While the structures and
functions of local governments under Spain were retained by the

revolutionary government, the desire among Filipinos for local selfgovernment was more fully expressed during this period after centuries of
Spanish colonization.
Some of the decrees issued by President Emilio Aguinaldo during this
revolutionary time, including the concept of Apolinario Mabini on the Council
of Government, expressed the Early Filipino concepts of governance, justice
and liberty. These thoughts were the indicators of how the Filipinos conceived
of the First Philippine Republic, mirroring the lessons learned from the West
of the ideals of freedom, democracy and the art of governance.
The specific direction for local autonomy was articulated and made
more evident among the laws of the Malolos congress of the First Philippine
Republic. During the same period in Philippine History, the Philippines might
have been influenced by the American tradition of liberalism and self-rule
when American policies were then shaped by the established civil
administration in the islands (Sosmea 1980).
The 1935 Constitution merely incorporated the power of general supervision
by the President over bureaus and offices, including local government as
provided by law (Section 10, Article VII, 1935 Constitution). For decades, this
high

8
centralism manifested itself most vividly in intergovernmental relations.
What the Malolos Constitution contemplated was not given life and meaning
in the Commonwealth Constitution in the decade of the thirties. So, thirty six
years later and the 1971 Constitutional Convention, efforts were made to
draft a separate article on local governments and local autonomy. There was
fifty-three proposal made at the basis for the two articles on local
government and local autonomy, which all embodied the common theme for
greater autonomy.
It is of great significance to consider that running through almost all
the proposals is the common theme, which is this: the need for the
State to promote local autonomy and embody in the new constitution
appropriate

Provisions on local governments. The consensus along this direction is

so
strong to be ignored and has to be accordingly written in the new
Constitution. The delegates deplore the fact that despite the basic
importance of local administrative units in the social and the political
setup, there is scant mention of them in the present Constitution
(1935). This failing has to be remedied (Amante 1971).
In the words of constitutional delegate Felix Alfelor, Jr., the 1973
Constitution binds the central government for all time to assure the
permanence of local autonomy. Reference was made to Section 10 of Article
11 and the whole sections of Article XI. Another justification for the 1973
Constitution came from the Presidency with these words:

The New Constitution of 1973 was drafted in recognition of emerging

realities and problems which the framers of the 1935 has not foreseen.
The political experience of the Filipino people revealed crucial
provisions of the old charter to be hopelessly outmoded (Marcos 1978).
There were several provisions in the 1973 Constitution which
encourage the initiation of decentralization. These were specifically Section
10, Article II and Sections 1-5, Article XI. One constitutional provision which
was and still is really genuinely supportive to local autonomy is Section 4(2),
Article XI, which

9
encouraged local authorities to pool their resources in initiating projects and
activities which are mutually beneficial to them.
The 1971 constitutional delegates conscious of the realities of national
development and of the limiting powers of the constitution over constituent
organs of government, included a separate article on local government in the
1973 Constitution. They held the view that constitutional law is a superior and
a moral binding force, either because it is the will of the people of the product
of a supreme law making authority, such as a constituent assembly.
Therefore, once a constitution is accepted is accepted, it receives the support

in society of forces working against change as well as of those in favor of

existing institutions.
With the inclusion of Article XI and Section 10 of Article II of 1973
constitution , local governments in the Philippines were not only recognized
as vital constituencies, but they have also been given distinct political
existence.
After the Marcos government, i.e. more specifically on March 25, 1986,
Proclamation No. 3 or the Freedom Constitution was ordained by the
Revolutionary Government. Section 3, Article II of this constitution added the
power of control over local governments, in addition to the traditional power
of general supervision by the President over local authorities for justifiable
reasons under a revolutionary situation, the Freedom Constitution was the
most control-oriented of all the constitutions that Philippine history has
produced. However, this Constitution did not last long and the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 adopted on October 15, 1986, a new Constitution which
also abolished the Marcos Constitution of 1973.
As far as its provisions on decentralization and local autonomy are
concerned, no radical departure has been made in the constitution of 1987
compared to the 1973 constitution. Except for the fact that the Local
Government Article of the 1987 Constitution has more sections (twenty-one)
than the Local Government Article of the Constitution of 1973, the only other
significant provision was on the creation of the autonomous governments. It
can be gleaned from this short historical summary therefore, that except for
the Commonwealth Constitution of 1935 and the Freedom Constitution of
1986. All other Philippine constitutions advocated for local autonomy and for
decentralization government.

10
However, the biggest question at the present time is whether there will
be a sustained political support that will continue to initiate the enabling laws
that will give life and meaning to the constitutional mandate popular
government and decentralization.
IV- Legal Jurisprudence on Decentralization and Local Autonomy

The analytical value of reviewing the legal jurisprudence on local

autonomy as interpreted by the Supreme Court during a particular historical
period will indicate a pettern as to how decentralization and local autonomy
are perceived by the judicial courts. The views of the courts on the subject is
relevant to the review of decentralization, since the courts are the final
arbiter in interpreting the provisions of the constitution on the subject.
For the last forty years, the Supreme Court has decided on several
cases illustrating how judicial interpretation on local autonomy varied over
time. These erratic perception of what decentralization is, may perhaps be a
function of a specific historical time and influenced by government advocacy
of certain national policies necessary in a given period of history.
Nevertheless, the historical antecedents in this regard will provide the legal
judicial dimension of decentralization which will enrich the understanding of
the subject beyond its administrative, development, legislative and political
ramifications.
Consider, for example, decisions of the Supreme Court in the decade of
the forties that straddled between a centralist tendency and an advocacy on
local autonomy.
In the case of Icard vs. City of Baguio, it was held by the Supreme
Court that Baguio City , being a municipal corporation, has no inherent power
to tax (83 Phil. 870, May 31, 1949). In this case, the Supreme Court decided
that a statute must plainly show an intent to confer that power to a municipal
corporation. Otherwise, doubt and ambiguity arising from the term use in
granting that power must be resolved against the municipality. During the
same year and period, the highest court of the land, decided in the case of
Eastern Theatrical Co., Inc., et. al. vs. Alfonso, that the City of manila has the
power to collect taxes of business establishments because Commonwealth
Act No. 466 as amended by Republic Act

11
No. 39 did not withdraw the taxing powers from the City of Manila (83 Phil.
852, May 1949). Thus from these two decisions on the same subject, the
Supreme Court apparently had two different perceptions as to how the power
to tax may be exercised by local authorities.

The Supreme Court hold on to the same view in the case of the City of
Iloilo vs. Villanueva (105 Phil. 337, May 23, 1959), ten years after the Icard vs.
City of Baguio case.
In the 1950s and above the enactment of the Local Autonomy Law
(1959) or Republic Act 2264, the Supreme Court begun moving towards the
notion of local autonomy, in the case brought before it. In the case of Hebron
vs. Reyes, the Supreme Court maintained that the President has the power
of supervision but not control over local officials (104 Phil. 175, July 28,
1958). The Mondano vs. Selvosa case (97 Phil. 143, May 30,1955) also
expressed the same decentralist position on intergovernmental relations.
Almost the same period, the Supreme Court sustained the validity of an
ordinance of the City Council of Manila, which seeks to regulate hotels, motels
and the like, as a police measure (Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Associations vs. City of Manila, L-24693, July 31, 1967).
During the sisties, the Supreme Court nullified Executive Orders of the
President creating municipalities. (San Joaquin vs. Siva, L-19870,SCRA 559,
March 1967), Malabang vs. Benito, L-28113 (27 SCRA 533, March 28,1969)
and Pelaez vs, Auditor General, L-23826 (15 SCRA 569, December 24,1965)
are the leading cases that showed a decentralist position in central-local
government relations.
In the 1970s and onto the eighties, the Supreme Court clearly opted
for decentralization principles as articulated in its decision in various local
government cases.
Om January 30, 1979, for example, the Supreme Court decided that
municipal corporations were allowed much discretion in determining the rates
of imposing license fees, even in the case of purely police measures (Norther
Philippines Tobacco Corporation vs. Municipality of Agoo, La Union No. L26447, 31 SCRA 304). The trend whereby the Supreme Court decided that
municipal corporation or local governments can exercise more extensively
taxing powers continued throughout the decade of the seventies. Section 5,
Article XI of the

12
1973 Constitution was cited, to have empowered local governments to
create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such

limitations as may be provided by law. The Supreme Court made this citation
in support of Ordinance No. 604 of the City of Ozamis which levied taxes
against a shipping line operating in the city(William Lines, Inc. vs. City of
Osamiz, 56 SCRA 590 promulgated April 23,1974).
Again, the same year, the Supreme Court batted the local autonomy as
provided for in the 1973 constitution in Supreme Court Decision No. L-24916
dated February 28, 1974).
The same city was also sustained by the highest tribunal, when its
power to regulate city streets was questioned. The Supreme Court decided
that the City of Ozamis is expressly granted by its charter the power to
regulate the use of its streets, the ordinance in question insofar as the
Supreme Court is concerned, appeared to have been enacted in pursuance of
this grant. The parking fee imposed which was minimal in amount indicated
that its purpose was not for revenue but for regulating the use of city streets
(City of Ozamis vs. Lumapas, 65 SCRA 33 promulgated JULY 15, 1975).
In the decade of the eighties, the supreme Court decided on the case
of the proposed creation of the Province of Negros del Norte, that voters in
towns for inclusion in both the new province and those voters in the mother
province of Negros Occidental should vote in the plebiscite as required in the
creation, merger or abolition of local government units as provided for in the
local government code. The Supreme Court was of the belief that people
should be empowered to determine their local officials and their own destiny
(Tan vs. Commission on Election, 142 SCRA 727, promulgated JULY 11, 1986).
The recent decision of the Supreme Court as it pertains to the creation
of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera
Autonomous Region are by far the courts pioneering decisions with respect to
the creation of a new tier of local governments, which is the regional
government.
Based on the developments of Local government jurisprudence in the
Philippines for the last forty years, it appears that the Supreme Court was

13

Espousing the concept of local autonomy but was muddling through in the
early thirties and forties in its interpretation of decentralization as a concept
of public administration. Probably this was so because the notion of
decentralization was not fashionable during that time in Philippine history.
Forty years ago, the court appeared to have been significantly influenced or
guided in their perception of decentralization apparently by the following
considerations:
1. Constitutional changes. Apparently, the judicial courts with its
strong and traditional legal orientation immediately based its earlier
interpretation of local government cases purely and strictly on relevant
constitutional provision and other applicable laws at the time. The concept of
decentralization and local autonomy was possibly foreign in the common
language of the courts in the decade of the thirties and during that given
historical time. The courts may have generally based its decentralization
perception primarily on constitutional grounds. This point is important since it
must be borne in mind that 1935 constitution did not have any provision on
local autonomy until 1973 constitution. The resultant effect of this particular
orientation then a centralist position by the central government, negating the
promotion of the concept of the home rule which was earlier advocated in
the Malolos constitution (1898). The judicial interpretation on the subject did
vary accordingly as changes in the Philippine constitution were made over
time. The constitutional transition from 1898 to 1987 evolved for the country,
five different constitution in a period of eighty-nine years. Were if not for
these provisional changes on local autonomy concepts in the constitution
mentioned over a period of eighty-nine years, the courts would possibly have
very limited jurisprudence on local governments.
2. Government Advocacy of Specific national policies. It is an
impression that the judicial interpretation of local autonomy and
decentralization was also overshadowed by the function of the advocacy by
government of certain national policies that were necessary in a given historic
period of time. During the commonwealth, for example, the government was
more concerned with preparing the country for independence from the Unite
States of America and the spirit of the Malolos constitution insofar as its
provision on local governance is concerned was relegated to the background.
This was so because at that time the issue of local autonomy was superfluous
to the higher national consideration of the Filipinos for independence from the
United States. Filipinos were then asking the

14
Right to govern themselves instead of a colonial administration runned by
Americans. The insurgency problems in the forties and fifties saw a centralist
national government, an emergency condition that must have forced the
central government to seek the help the Supreme Court to support its
centralist position based primarily on the survival of the government itself.
From the seventies toward the nineties, in response to an increasingly
growing clamor for local autonomy and governmental decentralization, the
national government showed an increasing advocacy for local autonomy.
Correspondingly, the Supreme Court was perceived to have positioned itself
in support for such popular clamors, as shown by several of its contemporary
jurisprudence on the subject.
3. Legislative trend. Early court decisions on local government cases
heavily depended on citation from the spirit of the basic laws of the land, This
was more so in the 1940s and 1950s when legeslations on local autonomy
were scanty or scarce. At the same time , the courts presumably did not have
much choice except limit its interpretation based on legal antecedents, the
constitutions, including other legislative soundings. The period of forty years
under review also indicated the progressive trend in the legislative mill as
shown in the passage and approval of several decentralization measures. The
Local Autonomy Act of 1959, the Barrio Charter approved in 1960, and the
Decentralization Act of 1967 are some of those early decentralization laws.
The later years saw the enactment of other decentralization measures
particularly the Local Government Code in 1983 and other major pieces of
legislations in local fiscal administration and lately the approval of the Local
Government Code of 1991.
The three factors without doubt, strongly influenced the perception of
the judicial courts as to what is decentralization and local autonomy over a
period of four decades. Hindsightwise, it is interesting to ponder just how the
courts would have interpreted decentralization and its related concepts
outside the purview of constitutional and legislative provisions and with the
courts up in their cerebral pedestal then crossing into the pragmatic world of
public administration.

Accordingly, the judicial court established jurisprudence on local

governments under different times and environments changing its perception
on

15
intergovernmental relations. This phenomena apparently the view that
decentralization as a concept constantly undergo refinements, because the
notion of decentralization do change constantly in a given time and
environment.
Thus, as can be gleamed in a historical trend, incrementalism in the
promotion of the local autonomy concept, somehow allowed the courts a
gradual appreciation of decentralization and its increasing relevance in
Philippine polity.
V. Past Responses to the Clamor for Decentralization
There prevails to a certain degree, a conscious awareness on the part
of local governments of the various moves previously undertaken as
responses to the clamor for decentralization, These were programs which
were primarily governmental efforts, such as:
1. The 1983 Local Government Code
2. The creation of the Autonomous regions in the Cordilleras and
Southern Mindanao,
3. The creation of the Metropolitan Manila Authority in the governance
of the National Capital Region.
4. The Local Budget Decentralization Policy, and
5. The Local Government Salary Standardization
Despite all these efforts, however, responses to the clamor for
decentralization are still generally ineffective and fragmented. Pertinent to

this observation are the following analysis of the past decentralization

responses:
1. There was no commonality in the understanding of the concept of
decentralization as evidenced by conflicting decentralization objectives, the
net result of which made multi-sectoral advocacies of the decentralization
notion non-complementary.
2. Inadequate and
decentralization schemes.

nebulous

policy

frameworks

of

several

16
3. Deconcentration was primarily the approach, since devolution until
now is a highly controversial strategy, given the present political
environment.
4. Superfluous concern in promoting decentralization on the part of the
central government has led to the imposition of unilateral conditionalities in
piloting the decentralization schemes with local governments.
5. The absence of coordinating and linking mechanism necessary in
the interfacing of various efforts towards improving regional and local
government administration was a deficiency in all project experiments.
Moreover, an effective monitoring and evaluation standards were also
lacking, making difficult the evaluation of past decentralization efforts.
6. Decentralization projects were initiated by both government and
private sectors, However, the government Has taken the major role in
this respect as well as the steps that are more significant.
There were varying project objectives and directions which did not
promote cost effectiveness. Most present decentralization schemes were nonparticipative in their strategies and therefore, required correction to allow a
more democratic and participative character. To the end, very few among
local government officials involved in piloting decentralization schemes were
aware or involved of the projects itself nor were they are aware of the project
utility.
A summary of Projects/activities/studies in response to the clamor for
decentralization is summarized in this review of decentralization in the
Philippines.

VI. Issues and Problems on Decentralization

As analysis of the summary of major decentralization issues and
problems indicate, among others, an existing dualism at the levels where
decisions and action programs are made. This is so because while there are
positive steps taken by both the legislative and executive branches of
government to operationalize the notion of decentralization, there are
countervailing forces that negate positive results. At the time, the present
decentralization environment is symptomatic of the confusing interpretation
of the concept among various sectors of government and the polity as a
whole.

17
It can be said that the various efforts towards decentralization are
major parts of the changing government policies and strategies to promote
national development. Decentralization, it seem must be pursued not only
with more determination and vigor but with a more rational use of scarce
resources in piloting projects thereby achieving cost effectiveness and at the
same time, aim for more participative strategies.
Analysis of the issues and problems points out the following
conclusions as to why these problems exist:
1. Decentralization is a political decision that is at times, a function of
economic growth and political stability, given the present Philippine situation
and based on these two counts, a meaningful decision to decentralize
government optimally seemed at present to be farfetched.
2. Decentralization both a concept and a process is culture-bound. It
assumes both a public and non-governmental dimensions and at the same
time, wholistic in character. Because of such considerations, a complete
review of current efforts on the subject becomes very timely and relevant
given the fragmented and disjointed approaches in implementing the notion
of decentralization.

3. There is also a need for a constant review of the role of

recentralization in national development and its continuing priority in the
national government agenda.
4. A strategic policy option for decentralization is to pursue it without
threatening the stability of the central government. This could mean an
incremental strategy. This holds true in an environment where the political
will is inadequate to pursue the enabling legislations necessary to implement
fully the constitutional mandates of local autonomy and popular government.
5. Any form of decentralization scheme should constantly undergo
refinement because the concept of decentralization constantly changes in a
given time and environment. And finally, it is important to note that
formulating response decentralization models is a function of an
interdisciplinary perception of decentralization.

18
The issues and problems as discussed will only be resolved if the
identified issues and problems will be given serious thought thereby initiating
dramatic changes in local government governance, in particular and
intergovernmental relations, in general.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR DECENTRALIZATION ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

IN THE PHILIPPNES
From out of the review responses to the clamor for decentralization
and local autonomy, certain issues which continue to frustrate the attainment
of decentralization objectives have surfaced. These issues primarily highlight:
(a) the absence of commonality in the understanding of the definition of
decentralization and its application; (b) absence of evaluation standards
useful in the assessment of decentralization consequences and impacts on an
integrated manner; (c) perceived weaknesses of the political leadership to
initiate and sustain meaningful decentralization efforts; (d) absorptive
capacity of local governments to assume increasing responsibilities is placed
under questioned; and (e) non-mobilization of support systems in the polity as
a critical variable.

In matrix form are briefly described details of decentralization issues

identified, highlighting problem foci which are specific to each major issue,
including their manifestation and probable implications which, in turn, are
related to the relevant decentralization principles that may provide the
theoretical premises as bases for remedial measures

DECETRALIZATI
ON ISSUES

1. Conflicting
decentralization
perception

PROB
LEM FOCUS

MANIFESTATI
ONS

Questionable
theoretical and policy
frameworks of past
projects

Disjointed and
fragmented
compartmentalize
approaches in
competing schemes

Mismatch of
objectives vis--vis
Strategies.
No commonality in
the understanding of
decentralization
among and between
central and local
governments

2. Political will is
weak to effect
meaningful
decentralization

Inability and
hesitation of past
congress to support
fully
decentralization
advocacy
Perceived
Indifference of the
Cabinet to view
decentralization as
an effective
mechanism for
national
development

Non-functional
linkages between
and among projects,
researches and other

Non-approval of
genuine Local
Government Code
that will truly
operationalize the
constitutional
mandate of :home
rule
Apparent reluctance
of Cabinet Members
to share power with
their subordinates or
field units of their
respective
departments

IMPLICATIO
NS

Not cost effective

moves resulting in
dysfunctions in
intergovernmental
relations and service
delivery
Non-use or
underutilization of
previous and other
decentralization

Highly centralized
management of
government
continues
Local authorities
continue to raise the
issue of local
autonomy, others
have proposed
radical alternative by
opting for federalism

Nebulous
understanding of the
decentralization
issues involved
among various sector
of society exist that a
genuine interest on
the subject is not
widespread

3. Decentralization

Absence of

Monitoring reports

Project progress

RELEVANT
DECENTRALIZATI
ON PRINCIPLE
Effective
decentralization
schemes
attainable
only
through
integrated
wholistic
and
mutually
reinforcing strategies
that is interdisciplinary
in character.

Since decentralization
is primarily a political
decision, it requires
therefore a purposive
and
governmental
action and initiative
Given
the
existing
socio-cultural
and
political setting in the
Philippines,
the
concept
of
decentralization may
only
have
to
be
indigenized but should
be
formulated
or
packaged in a manner
that it will not be
threatening
to
the
central government

Effective

schemes previously
implemented did not
have an acceptable
standards of
measurement to the
determine the
attainment of
decentralization
objectives

evaluation standards
and measuring
instruments as
project
implementation were
being monitored

did not indicate

project success or
failure

tracking difficult
Analysis of
decentralization
project
success/failure
difficult
Monitoring and
evaluation results not
adequate to support
policy and program
review

decentralization
schemes should be
evaluated whether or
not the following are
achieved:
1.) Promotion of broad
political objectives
2.) Enhancement of
the notion of Public
Accountability
3.) Improvement of
administrative
and
other
competencies,
and
4.) Attainment of selfdetermination
and
self-reliance
(people
empowerment)

4. Central
government
perception of local
government
capabilities to
assume greater
responsibilities is low
or minimal

Central government
reluctance to
decentralize power
Structural
deficiencies of local
authorities that stifle
effective
decentralization of
services will have to
be evaluated and
periodically reexamined

Over centralization
Manila complex
dependency
syndrome continues
Access to
government and
public services is
limited and
bureaucratically
unresponsive

The hesitancy of the

central government
to allow local
authorities to commit
mistakes stifle
development of selfreliance and selfdetermination on the
part of local
government

Continuous
articulation of issues
that local authorities
not performing will
prevalent

The preconditions to
effective
decentralization
resolve around the
concept
of
accountability,
competencies and the
ability to formulate
policies and to use
information effectively
for
management.
Unless the lower levels
of the government or
those who are to
exercise
decentralization
powers are allowed to
make mistakes, local
capability-building
may not be attained
as
fast
as
contemplated

5. Involvement of
the local government
bureaucracy in the
piloting or
implementation of
decentralization
schemes

Local participation is
limited to sectoral
agencies directly
involved in
decentralized
projects.

The majority of the

members of the local
bureaucracy are not
participants in the
project process,
leading to
compartmentalizatio
n.

Majority of the
members of the local
bureaucracy are
primarily
decentralization
Watchers with no
involvement
whatsoever in project
implementation

Decentralization
schemes require not
only
a
wholistic
perception which is
interdisciplinary
in
character
but
also
participative
involvement of those
who are to delegate
powers and functions
as well as those who
are to exercise them in
a
decentralized
manner

6. The required
network support
system in the polity

Limited participation
is observed in the
deliberation of issues

Only national
officials,
academicians and

Unless the general

public will support
decentralization

Decentralization
advocacy requires an
integrated
support

is not mobilized

in the society as a
whole

local government
officials are primarily
visible in their
involvement in the
issue

advocacy, its
attainment will be
difficult.

system in a policy that

is
pluralistic
and
where the dynamics of
interest groups play
an important role in
the public decision
making process.

VII- Options to accelerate Decentralization Movement

Given the Philippine socio-political environment, four options may be
explored to accelerate decentralization schemes in the country. These options
will be systematic in approach starting in legislative policy reforms as
priorities in the national policy agenda. Pilot programs that will experiment on
various decentralization schemes can likewise be initiated in various regions
to get an empirical feel of the dynamics of decentralization. While this may be
currently done, a review of its decentralization implementation strategy is
necessary. The exploration of public-private sector cooperation or working
arrangements whereby certain public services may be degovernmentalized
can be attempted. Any combination of the various types of decentralization
can be experimented and produce a mix that leads to the
complementation model approach in implementing decentralization
schemes. These options are the following:
1. Devolution. This dimension involves legislative tracking of major
decentralization bills now pending in Congress. This can be the most rational
primary step in pursuing decentralization objectives through devolution.
21
Prioritizing legislative proposals which are urgent and supportive to
decentralization and local autonomy can be made and subsequently
analyzed. Making across-reference of legislative proposals with existing laws
on the subject will allow congress to move effectively. What is critical in this
regard is for the executive branch to work closely with congress in jointly
tracking urgent legislations. Equally imperative is for an agency in the
executive branch, which has enough political clout or credibility, to
orchestrate decentralization moves as well as monitor its continuing
development. This move now becomes more urgent as the implementation of
the 1991 Local Government Code begins in 1992.

Efforts in devolution are premised on the assumption that the central

government has enough political will to implement the constitutional
mandate of local autonomy to a much greater degree.
2. Deconcentration. Several decentralization programs are possible
under this specific scheme. One involves reforms in the local bureaucracies in
general. This can mean improving their overall and total capabilities as a precondition to effective decentralization.
Another is the introduction of structural reforms. This concerns a
review of the organizational capabilities of local authorities to meet the
challenge of complexities in local government administration. The focus of
review in this regard is modernizing structures of local governments and the
systems and procedures of local government administration. There is also the
need to review obsolete local policies, ordinances, as well as rules and
regulations which are not anymore responsive to the present environment
and providing solutions to the problems of local government administration.
In order to upgrade the performance of the local bureaucracies, a series of
training interventions can be undertaken to improve existing administrative
and management systems. These are efforts which are as important as
devolution processes itself. These represent the substance of the concept of
administrative decentralization.
3. Delegation. It is an accepted fact that the public sector is not in a
position to fully respond to the service demands of its constituencies. The gap
between service demands and providing access to public services is
increasingly widening. What is logical, therefore, is the possible privatization
of some public services primarily for the purpose of expanding government
access for the citizenry.

22
The delegation aspect in this regard, refers to privatizing certain
government services such as health, education, or even the administration of
justice.
Many private hospitals have been commissioned by local authorities to
provide health services to its citizenry. Several public markets are contracted
to private management just as education has a long tradition of public-private
effort. There is an emerging number of non-governmental organizations that

provide arbitration and mediation services, both an old function of the judicial
courts in the administration of justice.
In this regard, a review of relevant and viable government
organization may not only be useful but the utility of such non-governmental
bodies be recognized and accordingly optimized.
4. Part of the systematic approach is to pursue with the highest
priority, decentralization efforts, i.e., effective implementation of the 1991
Local Government code, work for its amendments geared towards a higher
power orientation favorable to local governments. Fiscal reforms should be
undertaken to correct lopsidedness in intergovernmental fiscal relations.
Activation of metropolitan and regional governments should be given serious
considerations to relieve the central government of public responsibilities
which are better decentralized
Completed interdisciplinary studies related to decentralization, like the
political and administrative soundness of decentralization, economic benefits
of decentralization schemes and other research results should be synthesized
and made as inputs to decentralization policy formulation.
Another important program direction to pursue in the advocacy of
decentralization is the need to establish a network of support system in the
policy. It is the observation that only restricted sectors of Philippine society
are involved in articulating issues in decentralization. This sort of direction is
important because in the long run, it empowers people to speak for
themselves.
Unless the central government will be able to mobilize the political will
that will genuinely implement the constitutional mandate of decentralization
and

23
Local autonomy, no radical and more meaningful development in this area is
predicted. Moreover, if the socio-economic and political forces in the future
environment will force the central government to maintain its centralist
tendencies in intergovernmental relations, then the prediction in this case, is
that the long history of centralism will repeat itself. Full decentralization as a

goal will just have to wait until new forces will permit change. The opposite
outcome of this perception and prediction would be a most welcome
development indeed.

24

N OTES

1 These evaluation guidelines were primarily lifted from the decentralization

writings of Dennis A. Rondinelli, a World Bank consultant and who is very
much involved in formulating evaluation strategies for decentralization
schemes.
2 The provision in the Philippine Constitution of 1973 and 1987 with respect
to pooling their resources to initiate the mutually beneficial projects of
cooperating local units have not been very well operationalized in the
Philippines, Continuous efforts of promoting this provision as the legal basis
for inter-local government operations is continuously being advocated by the
central government.
3 The Supreme Court decision referred to herein is embodied in the case of
Datu Abbas, et. al. vs. Commissioner on elections and Department of Budget
and Management Secretary Guillermo Carague, G.R. No. 89651 and 89965
promulgated on November 9. 1989.
4 The listings of decentralization efforts in the Philippines cover only the
period, 1985 to 1991 and only those that are of significant importance to the
issue of decentralization in the country.
5 What is being encourage by the Department of the Interior and Local
Government and other central government agencies is to pioneer in the
research of what is the necessary support system at the community level in
the effective implementation of the Local Government Code. The Philippine
literature on this subject is nil and very scanty.