Heightening the Subordinates’ Capacity: A Short Article Review on Alex Brillantes'

Decentralization in the Philippines: An Overview

Alex Bello Brillantes, Jr on his 1987 article entitled Decentralization in the Philippines:
An Overview, defined Decentralization simply as the distribution of power or authority from the
central government down to the local and regional level. He promptly affirmed on the initial
parts of the article that “there are several modes by which the process of decentralization can be
operationalized… devolution which essentially is the transfer of power for the performance of
certain functions from the national or central authorities to the lower levels of the governments,
e.g., local governments; and deconcentration which, essentially, is the process of delegating
functions from the central government to lower levels or field (or regional) units.” This
fundamentally implies that devolution is a political decentralization where power and authority is
dispersed, whereas deconcentration is an administrative decentralization where functions are
delegated to the regional level. Moreover, Brillantes acknowledged that the “Philippine
experience with political decentralization dates back all the way to the beginning of the century,
coinciding with the developments towards autonomy of the local governments… an emerging
trend towards the eventual recognition of the regional level as a distinct and separate level of
local government, and not simply a level for the operationalization of administrative
decentralization. On this account (1) the main arguments of the author, (2) two questions worth
pondering about the unaddressed subjects of the article, (3) main conclusion/s, and (4) the
contemporary developments in the Philippine government related to the decentralization will be
examined.
Primary assertion of Brillantes on this article incorporates the distinction among
Decentralization and Centralization which very well unfolds that Decentralization can be
understood as the state wherein the system of government undergoes diverse forms of dispersion
both in the realm of power and functions, whereas the Centralization can be understood as the
state wherein the governmental functions and power remains saturated within the Central or
National Government. There exist two major features of Decentralization: (1) the Political
Decentralization which is simply the devolution and transfer of power and authority in a form of
local autonomy from center to local government units by means of an area approach, and (2) the
Administrative Decentralization which is simply the deconcentration and delegation of functions
from center to regional units by means of a sectoral approach (e.g., Education, Health). The
history of Political Decentralization, as argued by Brillantes, started as early as the (1) 1st
Philippine Republic through the Malolos Constitution and the direct election of local officials,
(2) the American regimes which has been a trend towards centralization, (3) the Philippine
Commonwealth where the term “control” of the President over the Local Government was
altered into “supervision”, (4) the 2nd Philippine Republic through the Decentralization Act of
1967, (5) the Martial Law through the Local Government Code, and the (6) Aquino
Administration which was considered as a trend towards more authentic local autonomy. On the
other hand, the history of decentralization through sectors akin to health, education, and
agriculture among other has commenced through the International Reorganization Plan (IRP) last
1972.
Conversing across the subject that remains unaddressed by the article, it is vital to note
that there is already an emerging strong participation and practice of management authority
amongst the civil society organizations (CSOs), non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s
community-based organization (POs), and private enterprises on the ambit of fulfilling other
tasks and roles of the central government even ahead of the article’s publication, April 1987.
This mainly concerns the time frame when Alex Brillantes wrote the article as it was during the
outset of the 1986 People Power Revolution that the formation of the 1986 Philippine
Constitution and the shift from Development Administration (DA) to New Public Management
(NPM) takes place. This means that due to the intense participation of the private entities
(NGOs, CSOs, POs) during the ouster of the late Ferdinand Marcos last 1986, they were
recognized by means of adopting a form of public administration that affords greater customer
orientation and responsiveness, as well as increasing scope of roles played by the non-public
sector providers. So, this raises the question of “why political (devolution) and administrative
(deconcentration) decentralization remains the ultimate focus of the article, when in fact, the
year 1986-1987 is the time frame when the pursuit of the civil society and other private sectors
come into fruition? Debureaucratization needs to be acknowledged by the article as one of the
variations of decentralization. Additionally, it was asserted on various parts of the article that
“Philippine experience with political decentralization dates back all the way to the beginning of
the century.” This remains factual, nonetheless, the article flunks to acknowledge the existing

1
and persistent subtleties behind the decentralization in the Philippine national government. It is
highly significant to take into consideration the transfer of political power during the Spanish and
American Colonization as it lays down the very foundation of Filipino’s ideation concerning
such system. During the Spanish Colonization, the system of governance within the mainland
Spain was considered highly centralized. However, the system of governance within its colonies
were, in point of actuality, highly decentralized owing to the bestowal of power to different
personas akin to Friars due to the Spain’s dearth in personnel who will be in-charge of managing
several localities. This bestowal of political power includes the task of generally administering
and governing the localities and collecting taxes, among others. And truth to be told, the scheme
of governmental operation during that period has turned out to be filled with political pathologies
due to abuse of power and early forms of patronage politics. When the American annexation
takes place, the subjugators have erroneously perceived the structure of the Philippine
government as excessively centralized, so another extensive form of decentralization takes place
through the Taft administration which renders a swifter platform for the abusive leaders to enter
the realm of national politics; thus, further rendering a framework and authority to the early local
political elites (Dela Cruz, 2021). Across such context, a question of “Is it really accurate to
concede on the assertion that “with the arrival of the American colonialists, there emerged an
opposite trend, this time it was towards centralization” when in fact the already decentralized
system of local government within the Philippines during the Spanish colonization was just
furthered by the American Annexation?” needs to be addressed as this would provide a more
extensive perspective to the readers as to why the decentralization within the context of the
Philippines has come to be complicated throughout the years.
Across the major arguments asserted by Brillantes, there exist several key conclusions
worth remembering. Primarily, political decentralization as something that can be dated back in
the beginning of century has only gain its major ascendancy by virtue of the Local Government
Code passed during early February 1983 (1) to set forth the constitutional provisions about local
autonomy, (2) to make localities an efficient developmental partner of the national government,
(3) to establish the corporate identity of local government, (4) to define the association of local
government with the national ministries, and (5) to draw a clear range of powers for local
financial matters. Notwithstanding this early existence of the Local Government Code, its very
essence merely come into fulfillment the following years after regime of Ferdinand Marcos
which probably is its transformation as the 1991 Local Government Code containing significant
features as a revolutionary code for the LGU’s scheme of operations like the transfer of
responsibility for the purpose of delivering basic services, transfer of regulatory and licensing
powers, bestowal of higher financial resources and attainment of shares from national wealth
exploited on their area (e.g., mining), augmentation of taxing power, and the creation of policy
framework for the involvement of civil society. On the contrary, administrative decentralization
is a new phenomenon that often accords with the regionalization endeavors of the Philippine
government last 1950. Administrative decentralization came to its ultimate fulfillment by virtue
of the International Reorganization Plan of 1972 which very well include on its provision the
division of the Philippines into 11 to 12 regions with regional center. Apart from the concluding
ideas concerning the political and administrative decentralization, it is likewise worth recalling
that decentralization itself remains significant on the grounds that it seeks to decongest the
functions that are saturated within the national government, it provides services and political
education that is highly efficient, it enhances democracy, it promotes innovativeness, and it
balances the development of communities. And ultimately, the article sets the boundaries of
decentralization in the context of the Philippines as it possesses intricate dilemmas on its system
making it harder for the government to devise an authentic scheme of decentralization.
As the “intricate dilemmas” were already given attention, it is vital to note that in the
current moderately decentralized Philippine government, greater power was already granted on
the local and regional units; the problem remains on the difficulty in its application due to the
existing political dilemmas. Deconcentration allows the central government to transfer power to
lower-level administrative units by means of shifting administrative responsibilities from central
ministries and departments to regional and local administrative levels through establishing
diverse offices closer to the people. Devolution allows the central government to transfer
authority to lower political level or local government units including the power to impose taxes
and other significant regulatory power. An ample degree of Debureaucratization has also been
observed by virtue of the Local Government Code allowing the Local Government Units to lay
down policy frameworks for direct involvement of civil society like NGOs and POs on the
process of local governance. Yet the difficulty in attaining a greater form of decentralization and
more authentic local autonomy can be attributed to the complexities brought by the unwanted

2
systems within the government akin to the political dynasties, culture of clientelism, corruption,
elitist groundwork of democracy, and nepotism among others.
References
Brillantes, A. (1987). Decentralization in the Philippine: An Overview. Philippine Journal of
Public Administration, 31 (2): 131-148.

Dela Cruz, L. (2021). Beyond the Classics: Identifying Gaps and Setting Trajectory in
Understanding Political Dynamic in Philippine Local Politics. Scientia 10 (2), 94-109.