Intergovernmental Relations: The Concept of IGR as Interdependence,

Complexity and Bargaining

Mariam Arceo
2004-71261

One of the essential features and approaches in studying the Philippine Public Administration is the
concept of Intergovernmental Relations. When we speak of intergovernmental relations, we speak of
relationships between and/or among government units; that is, how numerous administrative bodies
interact with each other with the purpose of either widening or limiting each others’ influence and bidding
each others’ support in relation with issues affecting conflicting interests. Questions such as “What is the
relationship of local governments to the national government?, What about the relationship among local
government units?, How do they interact and what type of reconciliatory schemes take place?, and How
does this relationship affect the way they govern or direct administrative activities?” are responded or
answered by this kind of methodology. Now one may ask “What is the importance or relevance of this
particular kind of study?” Set aside those who study and analyze governmental structures and their
environments, most people are locked into a single narrow paradigm of conceiving a main political figure
or institution as someone or something of a central source of power and leadership. This kind of
discernment is somewhat misleading as it presupposes something that is not without first investigating
the relationship among competing political institutions. The main importance of intergovernmental
relations is to provide us with the right knowledge of which among the contending political units wield
greater authority, power, and influence and those that exercise little or no control at all, that is, there is a
dispersion of power among political structures and institutions; and that the flow of power is dynamic and
not static, that is, power is never permanent in the hands of one or more political entities. Although the
formal structure, that is, the constitution, grants constant authority by specifying fixed roles and
responsibilities, the practice or application of power is way different in reality as you have your informal
structure, that is, structure of interests that vie for political representation. This is due to the fact that the
informal structure is what alters the course of political authority of a particular institution by means of,
given for an instance, bribing and bargaining. To take for example, the US Constitution mandates that
state governments be made independent from the federal government, but in practice these political units
are interdependent as their specific administrative activities largely affect one another.

Now this type of inquiry, that is, intergovernmental relations is not quite realized in authoritarian forms of
government that best prefer none other than that of a centralized power and authority, for instance, in the
case of Cuba; whereas it is best appreciated by countries that embrace democratic governments of which
completely favor and/or tolerate the need for a competitive and dynamic environment necessary for
further advancement, for instance, in the case of the United States wherein power is divided between the
federal government and the state governments and other constituent political units, that is, the concept of
Federalism. In the case of the Philippines, we have our national government and local governments
wherein power and responsibility are both transferred by the former to the latter in delivering basic
services to the people, that is, the concept of Unitarianism. But unlike unitary governments in other
countries that strongly keep their autonomous power intact, our unitary system is different in the sense
that there have been a struggle for decentralization efforts in our country for the past fifty years of which
aim to provide our local governments power and autonomy as a more efficient and practical way of
serving our countrymen, most especially in our geographic case where we are separated by thousands of
islands. Heavily depending on our central government to do the job would most probably be problematic
as there is not a single unified direct communication and delivery link between the national government
and the people scattered from all over places, other than the problem of overloading of work of which the
more hampered the flow of most administrative activities and delivery of basic services, leaving them
almost idle. Tracing our Philippine history, the problems of overcentralization on the part of our national
government in administering activities can be traced back during the leadership of the late President
Ferdinand Marcos wherein, through his declaration of martial law, he took full control of local government
units and other offices in ensuring a noncompetitive environment, leaving them almost totally powerless
and in turn served as mere instruments of expediency. The dictatorial management of administrative
activities was so great, most especially in Manila, to the extent that the latter was even dubbed “Imperial
Manila”. Marcos successfully abolished the decentralization of power by denying local governments
taxing and regulatory powers, by eliminating local elections so as to cause him to appoint his own
minions, and by concentrating all powers in his hands despite the proclamation of Presidential Decree
No. 1 establishing the Department of Local Government and Community Development and the granting of
local autonomy by the state to the local government units as stated in the 1973 Constitution: “The State
shall guarantee and promote autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio, to ensure their
fullest development as self-reliant communities”. In effect, decentralization acts became mere formalisms
under the leadership of Marcos rather than put into effect in treating local governments as independent
bodies facilitating the delivery of basic goods and services. Local governments and other constituent
political units became greatly dependent upon the national government of which contributed more to the
concentration of power by the latter of which almost 90% of administrative activities were rendered by the
central government. With the unbearable devastating consequences of the dictator in consolidating the
administration of governmental activities, with the growing unrest among citizens and local officials,
people continued to strengthen their protest for greater local autonomy as they did before since the
downfall of a centralized Spanish regime. Fortunately, decentralization movements successfully
materialized upon the rise of President Corazon Aquino into power and replaced Marcos, thus, putting an
end at last to the overcentralization of administrative activities. Corazon then sought to address the
problems of overcentralization left by Marcos by attempting to decentralize the delivery of government
services but was immediately met by Congress resistance as such act would no longer grant them certain
privileges. But such decentralization efforts by the President were not put into vain when the instigation of
political unrest in some parts of Mindanao and Northern Luzon brought by rebellious movements of the
Muslim and the Cordillera people, that were caused by land disputes among Christians and Muslims and
dam-building schemes by Marcos that destroyed the habitat of the tribes in Cordillera, triggered the dire
need for local autonomy. Such move is indispensable considering the fact that these people do not
consider themselves as Filipinos which implies that the laws of the national government may not be
binding upon them. As such, the devolution of powers to the local governments is therefore essential if
one wants to take into consideration ethnic minorities and reconcile cultural differences. Thus, Section 3
and Section 18 of Article X of the 1987 states that “The Congress shall enact a local government code
which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure…” and that “The
Congress shall enact an organic act for each autonomous region…”. As such, tracing back from our first
decentralization movements, the Republic Act of 2264 or most commonly known as the Local Autonomy
Act of 1959 entitled “An Act Amending the Laws Governing Local Governments by Increasing their
Autonomy and Reorganizing Provincial Governments”, RA 2370 or the Barrio Charter Act, RA 5185 or the
Decentralization Act of 1967 were passed, together with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and the
passage of the Local Government Code of 1991 or most commonly known as the Local Autonomy Act, all
of which intend to transfer some of the powers of the national government to the local government units
for an efficient, economical, and effective way of delivering basic services to the people. Among the
decentralization acts passed by the Congress, the Local Government Code of 1991 is proven to be the
most drastic reform undertaken as it revolutionized the roles played by the national government and local
government units and transformed the way these political bodies deal with each other. Under the Local
Government Code of 1991, the national government devolved some of its powers to the local
governments such as greater taxing and decision-making powers in addition to endowing them with
greater revenue shares and transferred some of its basic services such as education and housing
projects. In other words, what were initially the sole responsibility of the national government is at present
the responsibility of the local governments. Also, included in the said code is the establishment of clear
lines of authority and responsibility; the national government shall be responsible for overseeing the
activities of the local government units according to Section 5 of Article 1 of Chapter 3. The local
government unit is further subdivided into provinces, municipalities, and barangays. The provinces, of
which is the largest government unit, shall supervise the activities of the municipalities, and that the latter
in turn shall administer the activities of the barangays, of which is the smallest government unit, to
“ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions” according to Section
29 and 32 of Article 3 of Chapter 3. Those highly urbanized cities and independent component cities that
do not participate in the election of local officials shall be independent and not be part of any province. At
present, there are about 79 provinces, 117 cities, 1,501 municipalities, and 41,980 barangays as of
December 31, 2005. Autonomous regions, on the other hand, namely the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM) and the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) shall also be independent from the
political subdivisions of local government units.

But despite the passage of decentralization acts, local government units are not that fully independent
from the national government. This is because our local governments remained subordinate and under
the general supervision of our national government as stated under the Local Government Code of 1991
and the 1987 Constitution, unlike the state governments of the United States wherein they, together with
the federal government, are subordinate to the nation. Another fundamental point is that there have been
conflicting provisions within the 1987 Constitution regarding the relationship between the national
government and the local government units. Given for an instance, Section 25 of Article II states that “The
State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.” Conversely, Section 4 of Article 10 states that
“The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local government.” The
constitution asserts that local governments be provided with autonomy and yet they are subjected under
the supervision of the executive office. This controversy is somewhat settled in preference of a central
authority.

In conclusion, the study of intergovernmental relations allows us to depict the kind of relationship that
exists between and among our governmental units. Our local government units are subordinate to our
national government as attributed to the fact that given our unitary structure, it is the latter that assign
certain powers and functions to the former and had every right to revoke it upon the failure of local
government units in delivering basic services to the people. The local government units, therefore, are
held liable for their actions to the national government. The same thing also goes for barangays to their
municipal governments and the latter to their provincial governments. In addition, this kind of relationship
is characterized by interdependence as the national government heavily relies upon local government
units in delivering basic services to the people, and that the latter also largely depend upon the former for
delegation of certain powers and functions, all for the purpose of delivering basic services in the fastest,
efficient, economical, and effective way.

posted by pinoypahenyo @ 6:23 PM 39 comments

Intergovernmental Relations: The Concept of IGR as Interdependence,
Complexity and Bargaining
Raymund Erwin M. Pizarro

Intergovernmental relations is the subject of how our different governments deal with each other and what
their relative roles, responsibilities, and levels of influence are and should be. In the context of the
Philippines, when we talk of intergovernmental relations, these pertain unto how and to what extent the
national government influence our local governments. Under our Constitution, on the Local Government
Code, it states the basic policy of local autonomy, which is, “the President shall exercise general
supervision over local government units to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed
powers and functions. The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly
urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component
cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to Barangays”. “Supervision”
in this context should be differentiated from the term “control”. Supervision means management by
overseeing the performance or operation of the local government, while “control” means to exercise
authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. This would mean that the local government has the right
to do anything within its influence; the national government can only suggest viable programs that the
local government may adhere to. In the Local Government Code, under section 25, it states that “National
agencies and offices with project implementation functions shall coordinate with one another and with the
local government units concerned in the discharge of these functions. They shall ensure the participation
of local government units both in the planning and implementation of said national projects.” Another
provision on the Constitution states that, “The President may, upon request of the local government unit
concerned, direct the appropriate national agency to provide financial, technical, or other forms of
assistance to the local government unit. Such assistance shall be extended at no extra cost to the local
government unit concerned.” This means that the two governments although there is autonomy in their
functions, when it comes to the fiscal aspect of the government, the national government somehow has
the upper hand when it comes to fiscal appropriations, since it depends on the president if he would allow
such a fund to be released. Another intergovernmental fiscal relation between the national and the local
governments is stated at the Constitution, Article X, “Sec. 6 Local government units shall have a just
share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to
them” and “Sec. 7 Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the
utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by
law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.” This would mean that
although there is a clear influence of the president over some of the funds for local governments, the
Constitution still guarantees that not everything would be under the president.

A clear way to see how intergovernmental relations works in our country, is to look at the times of
calamity and disasters. One example would be during the oil spill incident in Guimaras just a few months
ago. In this case, we can see the coordination of the national and the local government in finding a
solution for the oil spill. The local government of Guimaras used indigenous products to clean the oil spill
while the national government even used brought imported technologies to clean up the mess.
Coordination among the local and national government however, is not always the case. Because in most
instances, it can be thought the President not only has supervision on the local governments but also has
control and influence over them. This is what I have come up from observing what is happening on the
politics of our country. Since the president has control over the different departments in the country, he
uses for example the projects Department of Public Works and Highways to somewhat bribe local officials
into following his wishes. If a certain locality refuses to “cooperate” with the president, he may just order
the DPWH to allocate the program to another, more “cooperative” locality. I also observed a not-so-good
form of relationship between the national and local government when an election is coming soon.
Development funds begin to be distributed to provinces and localities that are allied to the incumbent
party. Those that are not allies are not given funds and sometimes even funds that must be given are not
released immediately and delayed. These are just some of the reasons why I see more of a negative
picture when I view how intergovernmental relations works in the country.

posted by pinoypahenyo @ 6:11 PM