Decentralization and Local Governance in the Philippines 371
18.4Local Governance Reforms, Capacity Building, and Research Agenda
This chapter argues that one thing is certain: decentralization is “here to stay.” It is therefore imperative to “build upon the hard earned gains” and “learn from the lessons” of decentralization in the Philippines.12 It is “on course in terms of consolidation, but perhaps needs deepening” (Ilago 2007). There is a need to recognize the imperfect processes of change and align with the perspective of pursuing “incremental” policy change.
The implementation of decentralization saw issues and problems as “implementation lags,” which can be addressed by capacity building programs. But others are policy design issues that may require policy change, and institutional and structural readjustments. They have to be recognized as imperatives to improve the existing decentralization program.
The Department (Ministry) of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) is mandated to monitor the implementation of decentralization in the Philippines; thus, it continues to craft and design a sustainable strategy that will deepen devolution in the Philippines and develop and strengthen the capacities of local governments. In response to the need for harmonizing and managing for development results, the government of the Philippines (GOP), together with the international development organizations, academe, and civil society groups, has organized the Philippine Development Forum (PDF) to shepherd governance reforms, programming and utilization of official development assistance (ODA).
DILG (as lead convenor) and the World Bank (as co-convenor) organized a working group on Decentralization and Local Government, which identified four themes and corresponding goals to work on. These are: (i) capacity building: formulate the framework and mechanisms for improving coordination and harmonization of capacity building interventions; (ii) performance benchmarking: institutionalize performance benchmarking systems; (iii) local government financing: improve the environment for local government financing; and (iv) policy reforms: clarify the roles of LGUs and NGAs in the delivery of basic social services, e.g., health, social welfare, agriculture and environment, and natural resources (Panadero 2006).
Panadero (2006: 44) noted that such forum has led to “better coordination of initiatives/ reform areas on decentralization and local government; more aligned and harmonized donor assistance to LGUs; improved information-sharing on LGU matters.” A Coordinating Committee on Decentralization (CCD) was also set up to pursue policy concerns of decentralization. One of its tasks is to look into policy issues that require deepening through policy issuances by the executive branch and its instrumentalities, e.g., executive order, department order/circular, joint memorandum, etc., without the need for legislative action by Congress. Likewise, a Consortium on Good Local Governance (CGLG) with representatives from the leagues, the Senate, the House, and members of the Oversight Committee has been organized as a venue and perhaps a lobby group for local governance reforms in the country.
Brillantes, Llanto, Alm and Sosmena (forthcoming 2009) conducted many consultations in major regions of the country and reviewed policy proposals elevated to Congress. The study identified 10 reform areas to strengthen and deepen decentralization in the Philippines. These were:
(1) financial resource and reforming the IRA, (2) inter-local cooperation and inter-LGU alliances,
(3) clarifying government powers and functions, (4) local personnel administration, (5) nationallocal relations, (6) local government performance measurement, (7) capacity building, (8) people
12Brillantes (2003) outlines 10 important lessons and topical points of devolution in the Philippines. In a more recent work, he added that “leadership” matters in good local governance.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
372 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
participation, (9) political concerns, and (10) federalism. The following section discusses the key issues and challenges pertaining to the implementation of the LGC drawn from the study.
18.4.1Financial Resources and Reforming the Internal Revenue Allotment
These two issues continue to stand-out, be articulated and re-articulated by local government officials and stakeholders. They felt that the resources transferred to LGUs are inadequate to cover the cost of devolution. They also raised the issue on the continuing transfer of responsibilities by NGAs without the appropriate financial resources.
18.4.2Inter-Local Cooperation and Inter-Local Government Unit Alliances
This is one area where better results and outcomes can be expected from LGUs not only in adjacent areas, but also between well-performing LGUs and those LGUs with high institutional resources and geographic constraints, e.g., financial resources, service delivery capacity, and area management, etc.
The issues here include (i) lack of appreciation among LGUs of the potentials of inter-LGU cooperation in addressing cross-border concerns, e.g., environment, health, ODA access, social services, etc.; (ii) some conflicting policies issuance of NGAs including those with oversight functions; (iii) need for a binding document to build alliances; restriction on the use of the 20% DF for fees and contributions, including alliances; (iv) legal identity issue of LGUs once they form and join alliances; and (v) need for supplemental details on alliances in the LGC’s Implementing Rules and Regulation.
18.4.3 Government Functions and Powers
The study was once again reminded by the many stakeholders of the need to clarify further certain powers and functions devolved to LGUs.
18.4.4Local Personnel Administration/Human Resource Development, Organization, and Staffing
The professionalization of the local bureaucracy has been considered as one important issue that has remained on the back burner. More specifically, the study highlights the following issues that emerged: (i) low compensation of local officials, (ii) low compensation/pay of barangays officials and staff, (iii) certain sectors are not given attention/priority at the local level, (iv) need to clarify specific positions at the local level, and (v) unclear career path of local appointive officials.
18.4.5 National-Local Relations
The study highlighted planning for development and the conditions concerning the creation and/or conversion of LGUs as two areas that require more attention in this area. More specifically, these are related to: (i) lack of synchronization/harmony between national and local government development planning and action; (ii) NGAs generally bypass local development plans formulated by LGUs; and
(iii)unclear conditions concerning the creation and conversion of LGUs.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Decentralization and Local Governance in the Philippines 373
18.4.6 Local Government Performance Measurement
It is instructive to reiterate that the measurement of local government performance would significantly improve the Philippine decentralization policy. It would provide inputs for the adoption of better policy frameworks for regulation, planning and development, intergovernmental fiscal transfers and the IRA, access to ODA, etc. The study found that there continues to be: (i) a lack of a well-crafted and functional performance measurement system of LGUs, and (ii) the proliferation of performance indicators and lack of awareness of such indicators by LGUs.
18.4.7 Capacity Building
The study re-emphasized that capacity building is a continuing process. It would bring about significant results for good local governance. The main issues here are: (i) lack of awareness and appreciation of a comprehensive capacity building program for local governments, and (ii) election of local officials who are not ready or prepared to assume the position due to lack of technical skills.
18.4.8 People Participation
Inasmuch as the LGC has created an enabling framework for genuine people participation in local governance, there are key issues that require attention to improve the policy framework. These are: (i) unclear relations between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to operationalize their participation, (ii) inability of many LGUs to fill-up the 25% NGOs mandatory representation requirement, and (iii) LCEs do not convene the local development council.
18.4.9 Political Concerns
The study validated that: (i) the current 3-year term of local officials does not allow authentic development work, (ii) Sangguniang Katabataan seems to be highly politicized, and (iii) unclear rules and procedures of Congress in the conduct of referendum.
18.4.10 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 further. However, one constraint here is “the lack of understanding and information about federalism” (Brillantes, Llanto, Alm and Sosmena 2009: 52–59).
The study has generated substantial information and validated proposals for amending the LGC of 1991 and the issuance of policy instruments by the executive branch and oversight agencies; many of which have also been articulated by the various leagues of local governments, the House of Representatives and the Senate through a number of pending billings in Congress. These are areas where the CCD, PDF, and CGLG shall take cognizance of and prioritize the proposals to amend the LGC.
Moreover, the study also identified inadequate local finance, weak local-national capacity, and unclear and inadequate corporate and taxing powers of local governments as among the hindering factors of decentralization and local governance. Hence, there is need to strengthen local finance and improve local-national capacities.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC