expected from the central government especially if finally, we are to see a re- gional government that is clearly working.
TRANSITIONING TO GOOD LOCAL GOVERNANCE
one set-up to another requiring time and resources to ensure successful ad- justment, i.e. adaptation to a new administrative, procedural and even political and economic environment. These requisites logically can only be provided by the national government because of the following:
1. Fundamental decision-making authority relative to system or adminis- trative-structural changes is the inherent domain of the national gov- ernment;
2. In terms of resources, it is the national government that can share or even transfer what is necessary to the LGUs for the latter to adequately perform the new duties and responsibilities that are transferred;
3. National government remains the level of government that enjoys a broad perspective that is crucial in ensuring coordination among dif- ferent government agencies at different levels. Key policy directions should then be provided by the national government while the LGUs subscribe and adopt specific measures to carry out these policies and therefore formulate the best means to implement it.
The moment decentralization is introduced in an existing system, the role of the national government is most crucial. This role remains until de- centralization is institutionalized; that the different levels of government have reached the condition where each perform complementary function without necessarily one depending significantly from what the other does. Until such time where this condition is met, governance would remain dependent on leaders and on the uncertain and or unstable political and economic environ- ment. What we mean essentially is that there has to be a complete transition from what was essentially a centralized administration to one that is decen- tralized. And particularly in the case of the Bangsamoro Region, a transition from a central government that still literally controls the regional government, to one that supports autonomous regional governance. The right technical as- sistance as well as the needed funding should accompany the assignment and re-assignment of functions. As much as possible, it should also include peri- odic assessments so that further improvements can be made that we are able to maximize the opportunities LGUs enjoy under the regional government.
Considering all these, assessments should look at whether the national gov- ernment has set sufficient policies and programs toward this end. This means that apart from the law that creates the regional government, the Code and other relevant laws, there are programs that are designed and provided so that the regional government is able to absorb and perform its functions well along
with the LGUs. So immediately, the question is if the national government, not only through fundamental policies implementing decentralization, but also in- cluding concrete programs designed to assist or capacitate the regional gov- ernment and LGUs are present from the start and all these are constantly re- viewed and modified to suit the needs of the whole region. Assistance should be more in the form of technical assistance matching the necessary funding that comes with decentralization. Constant review of policies and programs are needed on the other hand, primarily to determine how the LGUs have been responding and or adapting to the new system of decentralized administra- tion.
There are two basic reasons why the national government is impor- tant to the success of autonomy and decentralization. One, when government decentralizes, it ultimately means that the national government is giving or transferring substantial authority and therefore more responsibilities to the regional and local governments. This transfer entails capacity to perform more than just assumption of new functions. Transferring authority there- fore should include a significant transition where the regional government and the LGUs are prepared to handle these new responsibilities. Since we expect regional government and the LGUs to perform, especially with the degree of autonomy afforded to them under the law, the national government should not give them any reason why they cannot deliver. The national government should be able to provide the right technical assistance to the region and the LGUs and help make sure that the right capacity is developed.
Regardless whether the local government or any agency for that matter is mandated by law to perform particular functions, the question will always be how prepared one is to handle these new responsibilities. Preparedness should not only be seen in terms of individual competencies of leaders and personnel, as has been experienced in many local governments since the en- actment of the Code. This is largely because there was no transition that ac- tually took place but a mere re-assignment of responsibilities that ended up being largely unfunded and unimplementable because of lack of competent personnel. Equally important is the availability of resources, which includes the institutional capacity to make resources available, and these purports to a good system of local public administration that should be in place. Regardless how prepared the personnel are, their effectiveness will depend significantly on the resources at their disposal and the organization in place to put these to good use especially in critical junctures. In this sense, much emphasis is given to raising revenues without noting that this is dependent on the degree of eco- nomic activity in the local community, which is significantly influenced by the work of the LGU. Efficiency in collecting local taxes and fees is one thing, but
providing a good social and economic environment that will provide the peo- ple livelihood and therefore ability to pay these taxes is another. LGU capacity is thus comprehensive where the performance of one function is dependent on another.
Second importance is directly significant to the given diverse condi- tions of LGUs all over the country. As has been clarified early on, the primary purpose why countries decentralize is to enable governments to adequately meet the demands of the time and in the end become effective instruments of development. Now this is possible only if LGUs would have at the very least relatively equal opportunity. At least in terms of options available for local leaders, the code outlines what LGU powers are, setting a level playing field.
This consideration is remarkably not present in Mindanao, particularly in the ARMM and or the proposed Bangsamoro region. This explains why the region, along with the Cordillera was especially mentioned. Not only is the region unique because of the people’s cultural and religious background, but also be- cause in terms of development, also shown largely in terms of poverty inci- dence, it is obvious that it is the one lagging behind most. Either due to sheer size or natural endowments, LGUs across the country will always have differ- ent levels of development and capacities. The case of Mindanao will always be special on the other hand not only because of reasons already mentioned but also because of its distance from the center. Thus while each perform the same responsibilities and wield the same powers or authority at different levels or classifications, others would naturally perform better than the others. The only thing that is common to all is the national government, the role it plays and the resources that it wields. This development disparity can directly af- fect the success or failure of any government program and thus could easily be used as reason against autonomy and decentralization. The national gov- ernment plays the important function of equalizer, so that various programs can be adequately implemented regardless of the inherent weaknesses of any LGU. The point simply is that decentralization allows and recognizes disparity among different LGUs. On the other hand, this should not amount to detach- ment or independence of any LGU as the national government serves as the unifying agency.
If we set the foregoing as the premise, we can determine not only the reason why there has been a mix of successes and failures of LGUs despite decentralization. The reason for these varied records of performance is also the solution or at least where we can start to make full use of decentralization and thus result to what we have been aiming for all these years that is good governance. This is most imperative in Mindanao that the need for good gov- ernance is more severe and what is at stake is remarkably more considerable.
The transition is key, that the role of the national government in ushering a new era of autonomy in the region is fundamental. After 2 decades, we should have been able to make necessary adjustments as we assess the work of LGUs, the relative NGAs and even CSOs considering the new environment that de- centralization has brought about. This could have been brought to bear on the way to move forward in the Bangsamoro. Interestingly however, it seems that the results of decentralization have bottomed down on just the achievements of individual leaders, something that cannot possibly be replicated. It remains a long way to go if we talk about institutionalization, and sadly, mainly because of this, even at this juncture, we can only hope that there will be enough sup- port for real autonomy in the Bangsamoro. Until such time that our political leaders actually understand the essence of autonomy and decentralization, of the national government being able to work and collaborate with LGUs, and for LGUs to step up and work effectively with the national government, we migh continue to just talk about what’s best and not be able to proceed accor- dingly.
REFERENCES
Asuncion-Lande, Nobleza. "Multilingualism, politics, and Filipinism." Asian Survey, Vol. 11, No. 7, 1971: 677-692.
Brillantes, Alex B., Jr. "The Philippines in 1991: Disasters and decisions." Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1992: 140-145.
Brillantes, Alex B., Jr. "The Philippines in 1992: Ready for Take off?" Asian Survey, Vol.
33, No. 2, 1993: 224-230.
Coronel, Shiela. "Dateline Philippines: The lost revolution." Foreign Policy, Vol. 84, 1991: 166-185.
Coronel, Shiela. "The Philippines in 2006: Democracy and its Discontents." Asian Sur- vey, Vol. 47, No. 1, 175-182: 2007.
Diamond, Paul. "The Philippines: Fragile Democracy or Strong Republic." Asian Af- fairs, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2006: 210-219.
Eaton, Kent. "Political Obstacles to Decentralization: Evidence from Argentina and the Philippines." Development and Change, Vol. 32, 2001: 101-127.