Local leadership and federalism

TO SAY that federalism will just create feudal enclaves nationwide is to be naive, if not disingenuous. For federation is still a pipe dream and yet many local fiefdoms already exist. Political commentator Alex Lacson calls them “small dictatorships.” Fittingly, a Sydney Morning Herald piece in 2012 called some of the more “established” of these traditional political families as “dynasty on steroids.”

The more logical proposition is that local dynasties will actually undermine a federal structure of government because many government officials from their ranks have a myopic and parochial governance mindset. To be blunt about it, the evident lack of a long-term development perspective among local executives is anathema to federalism.

Let me put this in a context all Filipinos will surely get—the traffic in Metro Manila. There can be no doubt that the improvement of Metro Manila is a game-changer in a comprehensive national development plan. In fact, the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, specifically the part on social development, espouses a strategy on urban
development that includes:

“1. Formulate an action plan implementing the National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF) 2009-2016, to achieve urban competitiveness and sustainability, housing affordability, poverty alleviation, and effective and performance-oriented governance through a participatory process[.]”

One of the “strategic recommendations” in the NUDHF 2009-2016 on how to achieve urban competitiveness is: “Increase Metro Manila’s attractiveness as a global service center and visitors destination by improving basic functions, addressing traffic congestion, mobility, pollution, etc.—essentially taking steps to demonstrate that the city works.”

The first agency that comes to mind to account for these identified tasks is the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. The scope of the MMDA’s development planning mandate covers “transport and traffic management which includes the formulation, coordination and monitoring of policies, standards, programs and projects to rationalize the existing transport operations, infrastructure requirements, the use of thoroughfares, and promotions of safe and convenient movement of persons and goods: provision for the mass transport system and the institution of a system to regulate road users.”

Note that geographically, Metro Manila covers a massive land area. And vehicle traffic within it is so immense that the boundaries between constituent cities have become completely irrelevant. In some instances, motorists can barely distinguish whether they are in Manila, Makati, or Mandaluyong. It stands to reason that for purposes of traffic management and road network administration, with the convenience of all the road users (regardless of where they actually reside) in mind, Metro Manila ought to be treated as a single block of territory.

Unfortunately, this simple reasoning is lost to local officials in Metro Manila. Consequently, we are suffering from the absurd situation where different roads fall under different jurisdictions, and with different traffic enforcers exercising authority over them. Indeed, the unequivocal command to the MMDA to take charge of the public transport system in Metro Manila seems absolutely meaningless in light of the existing chaotic situation.

It thus begs the question: What has the MMDA done to remedy this massive problem? Considering the authority on this particular matter given by law to the MMDA, why is it that the best proposal it has come up with so far is the revival of the Pasig River Ferry?

The only plausible answer is this: Mayors make up the majority of the governing board and policymaking body of the MMDA, the Metro Manila Council. And they all fall under the category of “dynastic politicos.” Naturally, each one is concerned only with pleasing his own constituency. Taking his political ambitions into consideration, he does not actually need the approval of the residents of the other cities in Metro Manila.

On the other hand, a nondynastic mindset would readily uphold the primordial mandate of local governments which, according to former senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr., is Section 16 of the Local Government Code, or the General Welfare Clause that grants local governments “the power to exercise just about any act that will benefit their constituencies.”

The General Welfare Clause clearly empowers local governments to do what is necessary and appropriate to protect the interest and welfare of the community. Inescapably, the general welfare of Metro Manila residents is best served with the development of the entire region. There is really no logic for the constituent cities and municipalities to see themselves in isolation from the others. The boundaries dividing them practically serve no other purpose than political demarcations.

Therefore, making the MMDA completely responsible for traffic, road and public transport management in Metro Manila, as clearly provided in its charter, is not a diminution of local autonomy. It is actually an exercise of local autonomy under the General Welfare Clause.

Indeed, by allowing the MMDA to account for this task, the local governments in Metro Manila are simply doing what is “necessary and appropriate to protect the interest and the welfare” of their respective constituencies. But this view toward the common good is precisely what the dynastic incumbents are failing to see because they are preoccupied with promoting their own agendas and protecting their family’s interests.

The degradation of Metro Manila caused by the daily “carmageddon” is, as lawyers are wont to say, res ipsa loquitor as far as the quality of leadership in local governments is concerned. If there is still doubt in this regard, then consider the fact that the administration plans to apply for emergency powers to remove terminals, markets, ambulant vendors and illegally parked cars on major roads—essentially the job Metro Manila mayors have failed or refuse to do.

Sadly, any confidence in the capabilities of local leadership is directly challenged by the conclusion in “Federalism and Multiculturalism” that: “Amidst the great noise of charter change proponents, no one has actually explained to the local officials the ‘economics of federalism’ despite it being the most contentious issue.”
There is no escaping the truth. For Filipinos to realize the benefits of federalism, the governance mindset of local public officials must drastically improve.

Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a practicing lawyer, is the author of the book “Rethinking the Bangsamoro Perspective.”
He conducts research on current issues in state-building, decentralization and constitutionalism.