LGPF: Welcome Remarks

The IRA Cut: Threat to Local Governance and Democracy
Atty. Vincent Edward R. Festin and Atty. Marlon J. Manuel

Rightful Share, Not Assistance

As earlier stated, Section 3, Article X of the 1987 Constitution mandates the enactment of a Local Government Code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization. Following this constitutional mandate, the Local Government Code of 1991 was passed. This law explains the policy of decentralization as a system whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources.

As a strategy of decentralization, the law adopts the policy of devolution. As defined by the Local Government Code, "devolution" refers to the act by which the National Government confers power and authority upon the various local government units to perform specific functions and responsibilities. The law mandates the devolution of certain basic services and facilities from the national government to the local government units. The law also authorizes local governments to exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities enumerated in the Local Government Code.

National agencies or offices concerned were given six (6) months from the effectivity of the law within which to devolve the responsibility for the provision of basic services and facilities enumerated in the law. The Local Government Code further provides that regional offices of national agencies or offices whose functions are devolved to local government units shall be phased out within one (1) year from the approval of the Local Government Code. Such national agencies may establish field units but only for the purpose of monitoring and providing technical assistance to local government units. The devolution of basic services mandated by the law includes the transfer to local government units of the records, equipment, and other assets and personnel of national agencies and offices corresponding to the devolved powers, functions, and responsibilities.

The devolution of the responsibility for the provision of basic services and facilities from the national government to the local government units meant the abdication of such responsibility by the national government. Hence, the law states that the national government may provide or augment the basic services and facilities assigned to the local government units only when such services or facilities are not made available or, if made available, are inadequate to meet the requirements of its inhabitants. To enable the local government units to discharge their powers and effectively carry out their functions, the Local Government Code grants the local government units the necessary resources for these added responsibilities. Declaring this as one of the operative principles of local autonomy and decentralization, the law provides:

Sec. 3 (d) The vesting of duty, responsibility, and accountability in local government units shall be accompanied with provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge their powers and effectively carry out their functions; hence, they shall have the power to create and broaden their own sources of revenue and the right to a just share in the national taxes and an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas;

More specifically, the Local Government Code declares that the basic services and facilities the provision of which were devolved to local government units shall be funded from the share of the local government units in the proceeds of national taxes and other local revenues and funding support from the national government.

As discussed above, the provisions of the Local Government Code clearly show the direct link between the devolved powers and responsibilities (especially with respect to the provision of basic services and facilities), and the local governments' share in the proceeds of national taxes. The grant of the local government units' just share in the proceeds of national taxes is an essential part of devolution, which is, in turn, an essential part of decentralization.

Succinctly, local governments have the right to the IRA, their share in the national taxes, because they share the burden of serving the public. With the enactment of the Local Government Code, local governments are lodged with more powers and responsibilities. It is only equitable that local governments share in the resources that are available for governance because they share the burden of governance. Contrary to the apparent misconception of some national government officials, the IRA is not "assistance" from the national government. It is that part of the public funds that the people, through the Constitution and the law, specifically allocated to finance the effective discharge of the powers and responsibilities that are assigned to the local governments.

Dependence on the Rise

More serious than its deleterious effect on the system of decentralization and devolution, the current IRA problem shakes the foundations of local autonomy which is at the heart of our local governance system.

Section 25, Article II of the 1987 Constitution (the Declaration of Principles) clearly provides:

Sec. 25. The state shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

A similar statement is contained in Section 2, Article X (Local Government, General Provisions):

Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.

For its part, the Local Government Code declares that local governments 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.

The Supreme Court had an occasion to discuss the concept of autonomy and its relation to decentralization, thus:

There is decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to make local governments "more responsive and accountable," and "ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress." At the same time, it relieves the central government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national affairs.

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in favor of local government units declared to be autonomous. In that case the autonomous government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from central government authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power amounts to "self-immolation," since in that event, the autonomous government becomes accountable not to the central authorities but to its constituency.

Faithful to the mandate of the Constitution, the Local Government Code contains provisions that are meant to respect and preserve the autonomy of local governments. Thus, it provides that the President shall exercise "general supervision" only, not control, over local government units. This general supervision is meant to ensure that the acts of local government units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. It does not authorize the President to unduly meddle in local affairs. National agencies and offices, on the other hand, are tasked to coordinate with the concerned local government units in the discharge of their project implementation functions. Moreover, these agencies and offices are mandated to ensure the participation of local government units both in the planning and implementation of national projects. In fact, the Local Government Code even goes to the extent of declaring that no project or program shall be implemented by government authorities without prior consultations with the local government units, non-governmental organizations, and other concerned sectors, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned.

All these provisions in the Local Government Code are meant to ensure the autonomy of local governments, following the express mandate of the Constitution. Local autonomy, as stated in the law, is envisioned to enable local governments to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. This principle of autonomy is premised on the recognition that local problems and concerns are best understood and resolved by the local governments and that local government units can effectively address these problems and concerns if they are equipped for the purpose as self-reliant communities.

While autonomy of local governments does not mean absolute independence from the central or national government, it is incompatible with the concept of subservient dependence. As aptly stated by the Supreme Court, autonomous local governments must be free to chart their own destiny and shape their own future with "minimum intervention" from the national government. In fact, the Code calls the local governments "partners" in national development. Simply put, local governments should have enough elbow room to effectively discharge their powers and responsibilities free from the dictates and control of the national government authorities, and subject only to the prescribed limitations of their powers.

It is in this regard that the IRA problem strikes down at the very heart of autonomy, and consequently, of effective local governance. The recent debate over the IRA seems to put local governments at the mercy of the national government authorities in the Executive and Legislative branches. At the constant threat of losing a big chunk of their budget, local governments are susceptible to succumb to the whims and caprices of national government officials.

As shown by the incidents that happened before the end of 1999, local government officials will be tempted to offer something to national government officials in exchange for the IRA. It may be Concord today, and another thing tomorrow. If not corrected, the bad precedent that was started on this year's budget will perpetuate a system of dependence where local governments always look up to the national government for help. This is clearly anathema to the "self-reliant communities" envisioned in the law. Worse, this culture of dependence has an uglier side. Local governments' dependence on the national government will inevitably lead to their subservience. They will no longer be free to chart their own destiny and shape their own future. They will forever be towed, and willingly, by the national government.

Emasculation of local autonomy is a sure formula for the collapse of governance at the local level. More importantly, it has a direct effect on the democratization of local governance. The same IRA problem that chips away at local autonomy takes a higher toll on democracy.