Metropolitan Governance Institutions for Urban Governance

SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE INSTITUTIONS FOR URBAN GOVERNANCE

PART I: ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

1. Introduction

Over the past decade, the notion of good governance has occupied a central role in the development and underdevelopment discourse. It has been argued that good governance was the “missing link” in the analysis of the failure of development strategies of many Third World countries. In other words, “development” and progress have been elusive not because of poor economic growth, but because of poor, or generally bad governance. Bad governance is manifested in poor service delivery, graft and corruption, excessive red tape, bureaucratic inefficiency, ineffective and unresponsive to the needs of the people, wasteful use of resources, and unable to improve the living conditions of the people, among others.

It is within this context that it is argued that the promotion of good governance – epitomized by transparency, accountability, participation, continuity, predictability, and the rule of law, among others, would help conquer the continuing malaise of underdevelopment manifested by, generally, poor quality of life. Good governance has been seen a tool to improve public service delivery and reduce poverty in developing countries like the Philippines.

The challenge for good urban governance is one that is one of the major issues confronting local governments today. This is especially true since by the year 2010, it is estimated that more than half of the world’s population will living in urban or rapidly urbanizing area, and accompanying these are the demands and stresses brought about by rapid urbanization: from congestion to population growth and management, to solid waste management, to lack of adequate housing, to traffic, pollution, flood control and the provision of basic health and human services. Local governments, as frontline institutions, cannot escape confronting these challenges. A well designed and implemented decentralized strategy – including metropolitan arrangements within the context of inter-local cooperation – can certainly enable local governments and local institutions to confront the challenges brought about by urbanization. This is at the

25 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance core of our advocacy for good urban governance.1

In 2000, Metro Manila, with 10.9 millions population, ranked 16th in the Global Picture of Mega Cities.2 By the year 2015, Metro Manila will rank as the 12th largest mega city in the world. Table 1 illustrates the rapid trend in urbanization worldwide. 3 Table 2 indicates the distribution of population among the cities and municipalities in Metro Manila. They encounter the challenges of rapid population growth brought about by among other things, migration to urban areas by people in search for jobs and what is hoped to be a brighter future. These have brought about a massive stress on the ecology of Metro Manila brought about by the increase of the so-called “rent free dwellers” and squatters, lack of housing, poor delivery of basic services especially clean water, health, peace and order, poor solid waste management programs, poor urban transportation, traffic, air pollution, etc. Some have referred to this phenomenon as “general urban blight.” The notion of urban poverty seems to sum it up.

This case study explores the continuing search for appropriate metropolitan governance arrangements in Metropolitan Manila in the Philippines. The area is managed by the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) 4 working in close collaboration with the seventeen local governments. 5 Figure 1 shows the map of Metropolitan Manila and its component cities and municipalities. Over the years, the pressing challenges brought about by rapid urbanization have necessitated closer collaboration between the MMDA and its component local governments. Issues such as the “proper” coordinative role of MMDA, and even its “authority” over certain aspects

1 See Brillantes, Ilago, Jamig and Esden, eds., Decentralization and Good Urban Governance. Papers and Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Decentralization, Center for Local and Regional Governance (Asian Resource Center for Decentralization), National College of Public Administration and Governance, 2004. 2 A megacity is defined by United Nations as a city that has more than 10 million inhabitants (UN CSB, 2002). 3 Drawn from a presentation of WHO Resident Representative Jean Marc Olive` during a conference on Healthy Cities held in March 2003 in Antipolo, Rizal. 4 Republic Act No. 7924 reaffirms the compositional definition of Metro Manila constituting it into a “special development and administrative region.” 5 Presently, Metro Manila is composed of 14 highly urbanized cities (HUCs) and 3 municipalities. These are the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasig, Marikina, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Kalookan, Malabon, Parañaque, Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, Pasay, Pateros, Navotas; and the municipalities of San Juan, Taguig, and Valenzuela. However, under the PD 824, Metropolitan Manila embraces only four cities and 13 municipalities. It should be noted that, over the years, many of the component municipalities claimed city status. They took advantage of the relevant provisions on processes and requirements for “cityhood” of the 1991 Local Government Code.

26 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance of service delivery in areas that cut across boundaries have risen. Concerns such as solid waste management and disposal, traffic management, pollution control, among other things, have necessitated clearer delineation of functions and authority between the MMDA and the component local governments, and even among the local governments themselves. This paper explores these areas and discusses possible options to strengthen the politico-administrative institutions with the overall objective of promoting responsive and good urban governance.

The following section provides a brief background and historical background of metro- political governance in Manila. This is followed by a discussion of the present structure of MMDA. A section on the major accomplishments of MMDA under the leadership of Chairman Bayani Fernando follows. This is then followed with a discussion of the major issues and concerns encountered by MMDA within the context of metropolitan governance. Finally, the last section discusses various options – at the policy, program, project and activity level – that may be considered to improve the institutions and structures for metropolitan governance for consideration of various stakeholders.

Table 1: Urbanization: The Global Picture Mega - cities (in millions)

1975 2000 2015 1. Tokyo (19.8) 1. Tokyo (26.4) 1. Tokyo (26.4) 2. New York (15.9) 2. Mexico City (18.1) 2. Bombay (26.1) 3. Shanghai (11.4) 3. Bombay (18.1) 3. Lagos (23.2) 4. Mexico City (11.2) 4. Sao Paulo (17.8) 4. Dhaka (21.1) 5. Sao Paulo (10.0) 5. New York (16.6) 5. Sao Paulo (20.4) 6. Lagos (13.4) 6. Karachi (19.2) 7. Los Angeles (13.1) 7. Mexico City (19.2) 8. Calcutta (12.9) 8. New York (17.4) 9. Shanghai (12.9) 9. Jakarta (17.3) 10. Buenos Aires (12.6) 10. Calcutta (17.3) 11. Dhaka (12.3) 11. Delhi (16.8) 12. Karachi (11.8) 12. Metro Manila (14.8) 13. Delhi (11.7) 13. Shanghai (14.6) 14. Jakarta (11.0) 14. Los Angeles (14.1) 15. Osaka (11.0) 15. Buenos Aires (14.1) 16. Metro Manila (10.9) 16. Cairo (13.8) 17. Beijing (10.8) 17. Istanbul (12.5) 18. Rio de Janeiro (10.6) 18. Beijing (12.3) 19. Cairo (10.6) 19. Rio de Janeiro (11.9) 20. Osaka (11.0) 21. Tianjin (10.7) 22. Hyderabad (10.5) 23. Bangkok (10.1)

27 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Table 2. Metro Manila LGUs and Corresponding Population 2003

(Source) Navarro, Rheah Abigail

28 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

(Source) http://www2.gol.com/users/dotjapan/ema.html

Figure 1. Map of Metro Manila

29 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

2. Background – Context of Metropolitan Governance

The decentralization and devolution of powers to local governments in the Philippines in 1992 ushered in a new era in the history of local governance in the Philippines. The Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC of 1991) provided for local governance autonomy and devolved key public services to the local government units. With the devolution of powers to them, their role as front liners in the long chain of institutions responsible for good governance has become more critical.

Over the years, the praxis of good local governance has been confronted with a number of issues, concerns and challenges. These range from the traditional problems of lack of resources – financial and otherwise – to cope with the increase responsibilities that have been devolved to them, to coping with the changes brought about by a rapidly globalizing environment and the imperatives to harness the potentials of information communication technologies towards good local governance.

The LGC of 1991 recognizes the merit of local governments grouping themselves, developing alliances and forming partnerships with civil society in the pursuit of local development. It also recognizes the potential of metropolitan arrangements among clusters of local government units (Mangahas, et al., 2005).

The challenge now is how urban local governments could cope with the problems brought about by rapid urbanization. Responding to these challenges, a number of initiatives have emerged advocating good urban governance within various frameworks. Thus, we have heard of initiatives for “safer cities,” “healthy cities,” “sustainable cities,” “bankable cities,” “child friendly cities,” “competitive cities,” “bankable cities,” etc. Individually, cities and municipalities in Metro Manila have exhibited successes and innovations in good governance.

These frameworks, however, fell short in making local governments efforts “converge” and pursue initiatives to address urbanization issues that have metro-wide impact and “externalities.” Disjointed policies and uncoordinated mechanisms oftentimes result in poor service delivery at the metropolitan scale. To a certain extent, cities/municipalities tend to compete with each other. In the short term, it may bring about good results to individual cities/municipalities. In the long term, competing cities/municipalities may end up diminishing their results and outcomes. For instance,

30 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance two cities installing similar economic industry would produce more supply over a period. However, the demand will no longer match the overproduction of supply in the long term. Eventually, the two industries would break down.

However, it is imperative for LGUs to be able to contribute in providing metro-wide service delivery and to the overall development of Metro Manila. Otherwise, the “externalities” or “spillover” effects of the problems that have Metro-wide implications could pull down good practices and bring them to waste.

3. Issues and Problems

In a study conducted by Manasan and Mercado, they identified Metro-wide problem brought about by urbanization, and externalities of development, among others, include: (a) transport and traffic management such as insufficient road system, accelerated increase in car ownerships, increased demand for quality public transport services, and need for institutional integration and coordination with a Metropolitan perspective; (b) Flood control has to be managed across component/contiguous LGUs boundaries; (c) solid waste management is an institutional and metro-wide problem and requires metro- wide solution such as waste collection and disposal; and (d) land use, housing and urban poverty requires a comprehensive land use plan, and institutional arrangements (for instance, the squatting problem is metro governance challenge). These issues are in fact the foremost problems and spillover effects of urbanization. These issues indeed require a coherent and integrated plans, programs, implementation and coordination in a Metro-wide perspective.

In view of the above reasons, the State realized that indeed a metropolitan government is necessary to orchestrate metro-wide services, policies, programs, development directions, and overall growth. This next section discusses the various Metropolitan governments that were set-up and how they responded to the urban governance challenges.

4. Evolution of Policy and Institutional Responses on Metropolitan Manila Governance – Some Developments

The policy framework enabling the politico-administrative system of the Metropolitan Manila Government has had three key legislations: The Presidential Decree 824,

31 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Executive Order 392, and Republic Act 7924. Recently, there are proposals to amend some provisions of Republic Act (RA) 6 No. 7924. Panganiban developed a matrix comparing the three policies in terms of: institutional form and mandate, organization and governing body, functions and services, chairmanship and other key official, financing, metro-local relations, and other features. In addition, this paper included the proposed amendments on RA 7924, as espoused by the leadership of MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando. Table 3 provides a matrix indicating the evolution of institutional responses to the metropolitan governance in Metro Manila.

Metropolitan Governance under Governor Imelda R. Marcos. During the regime of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos, the contiguous local governments of Manila were put under an umbrella metropolitan government called Metro Manila Commission (MMC). It was composed of a Governor, Vice-Governor, and three Commissioners (one each for Operations, Finance and Planning). The Governor and Vice Governor also assumed the General Management and Deputy General Manager, respectively. Then First Lady Imelda Marcos served as Governor of Metro Manila.

There were two perspectives in viewing the effectiveness of the MMC under the leadership of then Governor Marcos. One pertains to the strong leadership or perhaps the personality of Governor Marcos, which led to effective metropolitan governance. There was influence and power over the LGUs. Secondly, MMC was just used to pursue political interests of then President Marcos; hence, its true metro governance value was never attained.

Some observations say that LGU compliance in terms of LGUs remittances to the MMC was high. Also, the “squatter problem was better controlled; traffic and public transport were better managed; the environment was cleaner and greener.” (Manasan and Mercado)7

6 Republic Act is a type of law passed by Congress and approved by the President of the Philippines. During the presidency of Ferdinand E. Marcos, his Presidential Decrees (PDs) became part of the laws of the republic. 7 We have to consider, however, the changes that occurred over time from the time Mrs. Marcos was Governor and now. Indeed, urbanization has changed the socio-political and economic conditions at a large scale. For one, the political system during the Marcos was under one-man rule.

32 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Table 3. Evolution of Institutional Responses to the Metropolitan Governance in Metro Manila

Organization Institutional and Functions Chairman and Metro-Local Other Policy Form and Financing Governing and Services Other Key Officials Relations Features Mandate Body Presidential Metropolitan Legislative- 15 Governor, vice- Revenue- Local councils Considered Decree 824 Manila executive Functions governor, three raising abolished as central Commission authority Coordination commissioners( fo powers Mayors serve as government (MMC) vested in Service r planning, (transferred area manager Power and (1975-1989) single-tier delivery finance, from or Provincial concentratio governing body Developmen operations) share by governments in n in the During Martial t planning local Metro Manila Chairman Law government abolished Single tier s body 20% remittance from local government s National allotment and subsidies Executive Metropolitan Metropolitan Inter and Chairman of the No taxation Local councils Just an Order 392 Manila Authority Manila Council very limited Metro Council powers; restored interim body (MMA) composed of functions – elected from limited Mayors as Basically (1990-1995) all mayor and primarily among the service fees members of the weak legally selected service member Mayors IRA and Metro Council and President Corazon agencies coordination General manager subsidies operationally C. Aquino and partly and three deputy from Two-tier service general managers national council delivery (for planning, government

33 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Organization Institutional and Functions Chairman and Metro-Local Other Policy Form and Financing Governing and Services Other Key Officials Relations Features Mandate Body operations and 35% RPT finance) - all share appointed Local government contribution suspended Republic Act Metropolitan Metropolitan Planning, Chairmanship of National Local councils Metro Manila 7924 Manila Manila Monitoring, Metro Council as budgetary retained as special Development Council coordination Presidential appropriatio Elected mayors development Authority composed of Regulatory & appointee with n continue as and (1995 to the all mayors supervisory Cabinet rank Internal members of Metro administrativ Present) Selected authority General manager revenue Council e region agencies over delivery three assistant allotments Under President attend of metro- general manager Fines, fees Fidel V. Ramos council wide (finance and and charges meetings services administration, 5% (of total with no Direct operations, & revenue) voting delivery of planning); all contribution power, certain appointed by the from local namely: services President with the government DOTC, Council consent s DPWH, DOT, DBM, HUDCC, and PNP Proposed Metropolitan Metro Manila Perform Chairmanship of National Local councils Metro Manila amendments of Manila Council planning, Metro Council as budgetary retained as special RA 7924 Development serves as implementati Presidential appropriatio Elected mayors development Authority legislative on, and appointee with n continue as and and monitoring Cabinet rank Internal members of Metro administrativ

34 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Organization Institutional and Functions Chairman and Metro-Local Other Policy Form and Financing Governing and Services Other Key Officials Relations Features Mandate Body Under President governing functions Deputy Chairman, revenue Council e region Gloria Magapagal- body Exercise a General allotments Regulations, rules, Formulate, Arroyo Selected supervision manager, and Fines, fees and resolutions coordinate, agencies and three assistant and charges with Metro-wide monitor and expanded to regulatory general managers 5% (of total implications shall implement include authority (finance and revenue) be referred to policies, DENR, DILG, over the administration, contribution Sangguniang standards, NEDA, DTI, delivery of operations, & from local Panglungsod/Baya programs DOF, DSWD, metro-wide urban government n(City/Municipal and projects DOH services development s Council) of regarding Secretariat Direct planning); all Share in the member LGUs Metro-wide for delivery of appointed by the proceeds of social Regional certain President with the Road Users services Developmen services Council consent – Tax per RA MMC may t Planning Formulation all shall be 8794 enact, issue and appointed by the Other and implement- President with the sources of promulgate tation of rank of funds rules, urban Undersecretaries authorized regulations, landscape and assistant by the and and secretaries President resolutions development Grants, loan governing proceeds, the delivery and Bond of metro- Flotation wide services Acronyms: DOTC (Department of Transportation and Communication), DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highway), DOT (Department of Tourism), DBM (Department of Budget and Management), HUDCC (Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council), PNP (Philippine National Police), DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DILG (Department of the Interior and Local Government), NEDA (National Economic and Development Authority), DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), DOF (Department of Finance), DSWD (Department of

35 Source

SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Social Works and Development), DOH (Department of Health) : Panganiban, Elena in Metropolitanization Within a Decentralize . Draft Study on the Proposed Amendments of RA 7924.

d System: The Philippine Dilemma; and, MMDA

36 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

On the other hand, according to Padilla, MMC did function the way it was conceived. Presidential Decree 824, which provided for its establishment, was never adhered to and was misused to suit certain political interests during the Marcos administration. For instance, it provided that a commission would be formed to formulate and administer policies as a collegial body. This was not effected; no commissions were appointed. Hence, MMC was criticized as a one-lady-governor entity.

Further, Padilla noted that, during the MMC under Mrs. Marcos, the local councils of the component cities and municipalities lost their direct supervision and authority over their respective LGUs. They could not pass local legislations concerning the delivery of services that were purely local in nature. The MMC even had the administrative control and supervision of the fiscal operations of LGUs.

Metro Manila Authority (MMA). After the fall of Marcos, an interim Metro Manila Authority (MMA) was set-up, by then President Corazon C. Aquino, in response to the increasing problems of urbanization such as traffic management and garbage collection and disposal, etc. As such, MMA’s main function was to deliver basic urban services that require coordination. These included services such as land use, planning and zoning; traffic management; urban development and renewal; disaster management; and sanitation and waste management (Manasan and Mercado, 1999).

A Metro Manila Council (MMC), composed of the local chief executives of component LGUs, governed the MMA. It was responsible for the formulation of policies for metro- wide application. The MMC members would elect a Chairman from among them. The President of the Philippines would elect a General Manager responsible for the daily operations of the MMA. The Chairman would preside during the MMC meetings. The Secretaries of various national agencies would attend MMC meeting, but as non-voting members.8

This MMA’s institutional set up was seen as the weakest Metro government structure. Manasan and Mercado observed that the Metro Manila governance was put in an institutional limbo and ambiguous structure and leadership. The problem of ambiguity was further aggravated when the LGC of 1991 was enacted, whereby local

8 These agencies included Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

37 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance governments were given local autonomy to manage their own affairs. Moreover, the redistribution of income between the MMA and LGUs was changed, giving priority to the latter’s local jurisdiction needs.

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA). RA 7924, which created the MMDA, reaffirms the compositional definition of Metro Manila constituting it into a “special development and administrative region” subject to the supervision of the President. It further provides that the MMDA shall perform planning, monitoring, coordinative, regulatory, and supervisory authority over the delivery of metro-wide services within Metro Manila without diminution of the autonomy of LGUs concerning purely local matters.

Figure 2 shows the organizations structure of the MMDA. The Metro Manila Council (MMC) – composed of the mayors of the component cities and municipalities and the Presidents of the Metro Manila Vice Mayors League and Councilors Leagues – serves as the governing board and policymaking body of the MMDA. The Chairman heads the (MMC), holds the rank of a Cabinet member, has executive functions and performs his duties under the supervision of the President. A General Manager and three Assistant General Managers (AGMs) (one each for Planning, Operations, and Finance and Administration) assist the Chairman. The President of the Philippines appoints the Chairman, General Manager and the three Assistant General Managers.

38 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

(Source) MMDA

Figure 2: Metro Manila Development Authority

There have been significant improvements as regards to the Metropolitan Manila politico-administrative arrangements since the MMC and MMA. Manasan and Mercado observe, correctly, that:

“the relatively stable term of office of the Chairman of the MMDA enhances institutional focus and sharpens its vision. Although the scope of its mandate over metro-wide services has been expanded to include more services, it continues to perform a largely coordinative role because its revenue raising powers are still rather limited (Manasan and Mercado, 1999)

39 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Quite recently, there have been proposals to amend some of the provisions of RA 7924 to strengthen MMDA. See Table 3 for the initial proposed amendments.

The MMDA under Chairman Bayani Fernando. The strong leadership of MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando has made significant improvements in the Metropolitan Manila governance. He has made innovations in improving traffic management, solid waste management, infrastructures, flyovers, urinals, footbridges, etc. He implemented various traffic management schemes, e.g., U-turn slots, closed some intersections, etc. He installed urinals along highways for men motorists. All these have received various criticisms from LGUs officials as well as the motorists.

Over the years, it has been difficult for the metropolitan government to orchestrate the implementation of its various policies and programs over the component LGUs. For instance, the MMDA has had numerous resistance/rejections from the cities and municipalities in adopting its proposed measures to solve metro-wide problems such as transport and traffic, flood control, solid waste management, land use, housing and urban poverty, etc.

For instance, the MMDA suggested the barring of vehicles on certain days and time of the week has not been adopted by the cities of Makati and Pasay. Another is that Quezon City does not allow the installation of footbridges in some of its jurisdictional areas. Its officials contend that they have their own development plans, which should not be set aside by the MMDA.

Yet Chairman Fernando persists on implementing polices and programs with Metro- wide coverage, as long as he believes that the end goal would be achieved – that is, to attain public order, safety, sanitation, efficient flow of traffic, among others. On a lighter note, he would challenge the LCEs of local governments who oppose his authority and policies/programs to engage in talks him and to attend the Metro Manila Council meetings. It would be an opportunity for them to clarify and agree on coherent directions, policies and programs that have Metro-wide implications.

40 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Part II: SOLUTIONS, ANALYSIS, AND LESSONS

This paper recognizes the continuing need for a Metropolitan Manila government. There is a need to strengthen and institutionalize the Metropolitan Manila governance system by improving its politico-administrative structures, coordinative powers and mechanisms, uniformity, authority and control over the component LGUs. Apart from defining cooperative and collaborative relationships between and among the component LGUs, the authority and functional relationships with the umbrella authority, in this case the MMDA, should be defined and clarified.

At the policy level, there remains a need to properly delineate the authority and responsibilities of MMDA vis-à-vis the component local governments. It should strengthen its coordinative powers in effecting policies and programs that have metro- wide implications in a unified way.

In doing so, it is important to recognize the existing policy infrastructures, organizational structures, financing, metro-local cooperation, the peculiar characteristics of LGUs, as well as the Philippine political culture. It should be noted that one of the more important reasons why the Metro government has been confronted by resistance from among local chief executives is the threat that their political powers over their respective cities/municipalities may weaken. Moreover, they argue that as elected officials, they have the mandate of their constituencies; the MMDA has no business to interfere in their autonomous affairs.

The issue of political resistance would continue to weaken the institutional capacity of MMDA to perform its metro-wide functions. Its political authority and control over the components LGUs remain questionable to some local chief executives. They question the authority of the MMDA Chairman being an appointed Cabinet member of the President. They contend that as elected officials, they have the mandate of their constituency. They anchor their claim on the decentralized system and local autonomy espoused by the LGC of 1991.

On the one hand, metropolitan governance under a decentralized framework allows the local government units within the metropolis to respond directly to the priority needs of their respective constituents by seeking creative means to deliver urban services. On the other hand, governance of Metro Manila becomes more challenging as

41 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance cities and municipalities that compose it have political legitimacy and significant powers and authorities relative to the metropolitan organization. (Manasan and Mercado, 1999)

Figure 3 presents the continuum of coordination, which could be used to indicate the level of authority and control that can be provided to the MMDA. Using the continuum of coordination framework, what is the appropriate type/level of coordination and control should the MMD have: from exchange of information to control?

/------/ Exchange of Control Information

Source: Adapted. Figure 3: Continuum of Coordination Framework

If the extent to which coordination and control would be defined and supported by the component local governments, then a more rationale and workable politico– administrative metropolitan governance system could be pursued.

One the one hand, the weaknesses or deficiencies of the metropolitan governance system could be directed at its policy framework. Hence, policy adjustments may have to be undertaken to strengthen the authority and control of MMDA over its component LGUs.

On the other hand, as in any governance successes, leadership always accounts significantly. The personality of Mrs. Marcos and the strong leadership of Chairman Fernando have shown some degree of effectiveness in metro urban governance. To a certain extent, they were able to carry out uniform application of their policies to the component LGUs, especially during the term of Governor Marcos where she had direct influence over them. The case of Fernando is quite different than Mrs. Marcos, as his policies are being opposed by his political rivals. Indeed, political power, decisiveness, and leadership count in Metro urban governance. Hence, two questions could be asked pertaining to the appropriate design of the politico-administrative set-up for the

42 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Metropolitan Manila. Should the design follow administrative function over political authority? Or should the design follow political authority over administrative function?

The concern of metropolitan governance and the accompanying politico-administrative institutions is one that many mega cities have been struggling to address. From Toronto to Vancouver in Canada, from New York to Washington DC to Los Angeles in the US, from Tokyo to Kobe City in Japan, from Bangkok to Jakarta to Metro Manila in Southeast Asia. All have struggled to define and design the appropriate institutional and politico-administrative mechanisms that would address the ever increasing problems of urbanization. The case of Metro Manila is no exception. This case tried to illustrate such concerns, and highlighted, among other things, the key role of strong leadership as a factor to the success or failure of metro-governance, This may be unique in the case of metro manila, but is a key factor nonetheless. Other concerns such as inter-governmental cooperation and coordination, and relationship with the national government have been described as well. The areas of competence of various levels of governance – be they in solid waste management, pollution, traffic management, flood control etc. – have to be defined and refined as well if proper governance institutions and approaches are to be adopted.

The many challenges of good urban governance continues to be one that many highly urbanized and rapidly urbanizing areas have to face. The concern is how to design the appropriate and responsive politico-administrative mechanisms to operationalize good urban governance. Metro Manila is one such case.

43 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Topics for Discussion 1. What is the appropriate metro governance politico-administrative institutional set-up to address the issues of urbanization and externalities of development? 2. To what extent does the MMDA have authority and control over the component LGUs? 3. How can a metropolitan government influence coherent policies and programs among component LGUs? 4. Is it appropriate to provide the metropolitan government legislative powers? 5. To what extent should the Metro government be given power to enforce its authority over the LGUs? 6. How can the responsibilities and authorities between the Metro government and LGUs be properly/appropriately delineated? 7. Using the continuum of coordination, what is the appropriate type of coordination and control of the MMDA: from exchange of information to control?

References

Brillantes, Alex B. et al., eds. Decentralization and Good Urban Governance. Papers and Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Decentralization, 2004.

Brillantes, Jr. Alex B. Innovations and Excellence. Understanding Local Governments in the Philippines, 2003.

Cariño, Ledivina V. A Comparative Study of the Five Current and Emerging Metropolitan Areas. In Tapales, Prosepina Domingo et al. eds. Local Government in the Philippines: A Book of Readings. Volume II, Current Issues in Governance, 1998.

Laquain, Aprodicio A. Metropolitan Regiona Governance: The Global Search for an Area-Wide Solutions. Tapales, Prosepina Domingo et al. eds. Local Government in the Philippines.: A Book of Readings. Volume II, Current Issues in Governance, 1998.

Local Government Academy, DILG, Unpacking the Code.

Manasan, Rosario G. and Ruben G. Mercado. Governance and Urban Development: Case Study of Metro Manila. Discussion Paper Series No. 99 – 03. February 1999.

44 SUB MODULE III: Occurrence of and Solutions to Problems in a Major Urban Area, MODULE: Urban Governance

Navarro, Rhea Abigail. Systems Approach on Solid Waste Management in Metro Manila, Philippines . A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Lund University International Master’s Programme in Environmental Science Lund University, Sweden 26 November 2003

Padilla, Perfecto L. Restructuring the Administration of Metropolitan Manila. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. XXXII, Nos. 3 & 4 (July-October 1988).

Panganiban, Elena M. Metropolitanization within a Decentralized System: The Philippine Delimma. Tapales, Prosepina Domingo et al. eds. Local Government in the Philippines.: A Book of Readings. Volume II, Current Issues in Governance, 1998.

Philippines. Local Government Code of 1991.