Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:14:00.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Forces Responsible for Local Autonomy in the Philippines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

A. B. Villanueva
Get access

Extract

The Philippine political system is an amalgam of 52 provinces headed by elective Governors serving four-year terms of office, dozens of urban and semi-urban communities chartered into cities by the national legislature and governed by City Mayors some of whom were presidential appointees before the passage of an omnibus city law making all these offices elective, hundreds of municipalities run by popularly elected Municipal Mayors, and thousands of rural villages called barrios which are romanticized in Filipino political circles as the place of redemption for those who have lost their souls. On top of these layers of political units is an omnipotent central government headed by a President whose constitutional powers of general supervision over all these local entities are exercised in the form of appointing city department heads such as police chiefs and city attorneys and reviewing city and municipal budgets before they go into effect. Another form in which these powers are exercised are the naming of barrios and city streets and the changing of the names of these barrios and city streets the exercise of which is shared by a bicameral legislature of more than 100 Congressmen and 24 Senators. Thus the polity that is the Philippine national government today is virtually a prototype of its predecessors, the Spanish and American colonial bureaucracies in the island, which charted the course of Filipino political development in years gone by. The purpose of this article is to discuss the role social forces played in the improvement of central-local relationships and evaluate the significance of these improvements in the context of Filipino ideas of politics and in the framework of their government.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1968 , pp. 147 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Taruc, Luis, Born of the People, New York: International Publishers, 1953, p. 125.Google Scholar

2. Ibid., p. 127.

3. Ibid., p 122.

4. Gosnell, Harold F., “An Interpretation of the Philippine Election of 1953,” American Political Science Review, 48: 1128–1138 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a general discussion and analysis of the issues during this campaign, see Coquia, Jorge R., The Philippine Presidential Elections of 1953. Manila: Philippine Education Foundation, Inc., 1955.Google Scholar

5. Senate Congressional Record, 2:329, 08 2, 1955Google Scholar; 2:1031, May 9, 1955; 2:669, April 13, 1955.

6. For interpretations of the influence of the foreign experts in the articulation of Filipino concepts of autonomy, the writer relied very heavily upon the private files and records of fqrmer President Truman in the library named after him in Independence, Missouri. Most of his papers are too numerous to cite them all here.

7. Zimmerman, Virgil B., “Philippine Clues to the Future of Local Government in South-East Asia,” Journal of African Administration, 12:43 (1960).Google Scholar

8. Pascual, Ricardo, Social and Cultural Development of the Philippines. Philippine Paper No. 3, Philippine Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1950, pp. 36–37.Google Scholar

9. Villanueva, Buenaventura M., “To Govern or Not To Govern,” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 1:27 (1959).Google Scholar

10. Cf. Senate Bill 510, 3rd Cong., 4th Sess., and House Bill No. 5852, 3rd Cong., 4th Sess. See also Senate Congressional Record, 4:848, 04 26, 1957Google Scholar; 4:1212–1213, May 9, 1957.

11. Manila Times, 05 1, 1958, pp. 1, 9Google Scholar; May 7, 1958, pp. 1, 15.

12. Manila Times, 05 7, 1938, p. 15Google Scholar. The reaction of Manila politicians against Osmeña Jr. was in connection with the re-introduction of the local autonomy bill of 1956 under the sponsorship of the latter. In an attempt to remove features of this bill which were believed to be the major reasons why Coneress failed to act upon it in 1956, Osmeña, Jr. rewrote the measure and inserted “paternalistic clauses.”

13. Manila Times, 01 25, 1957, p. 4-A.Google Scholar

14. Lacson, Arsenio H., Inaugural Address, 01 1, 1960, p. 14 (mimeographed).Google Scholar

15. Sunday Times, 09 23, 1960, p. 2-A.Google Scholar

16. Ibid. See also Balmaceda, Cornelio, “Progress of Philippine Rural Reconstruction in 1959,” The Fookien Times Yearbook, 1959, 09 1959, p. 157Google Scholar; Abueva, et. passim., pp. 126–149.

17. Manila Bulletin, 05 2, 1960, p. 15Google Scholar; March 10, 1960, p. A; August 3, 1960, pp. A, B.: August 24, 1960, p. B.; Manila Times, 03 8, 1960, p. 2–AGoogle Scholar; May 1, 1960, p. 7-A; May 6, 1960, p. 15-A; May 11, 1960, p. 5-A; August 10, 1960, p. 5-A; August 12, 1960; p. 13-A; August 24, 1960, p. 5-A; September 2, 1960; p. 1B; Manila Chronicle, 03 8, 1960, p. 13.Google Scholar

18. Senate Congressional Record, 2:1334–1335, 05 14, 1955Google Scholar; Sunday Times, 01 19, 1958, p. 2–A.Google Scholar

19. Cf. Republic Act No. 1245, et. passim., and Balmaceda, , et. passim., pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

20. Senate Congressional Record, 2:457, 08 8, 1955.Google Scholar

21. Balmaceda, , et. passim., p. 7Google Scholar; Manila Bulletin, 05 2, 1960, p. 15Google Scholar; Manila Times, 01 9, 1960, p. 2–AGoogle Scholar; May 1, 1960, p. 7-A.

22. Abueva, , Op. Cit., pp. 99–124.Google Scholar

23. Dr. Yen, in a letter to Abueva, revealed that he was interested in helping Magsaysay mainly because he had “the power to do so much to help the barrio people,” and because the latter's programme of barrio development fitted into PRRM's objectives. See Abueva, , et. passim., p. 482.Google Scholar

24. Paredes, Amante F., “Speaking of Candidates,” This Week Magazine, 11 8, 1959, p. 17.Google Scholar

25. Villanueva, , “To Govern or Not To Govern,” et. passim., p. 36.Google Scholar

26. Manila Chronicle, 02 25, 1960, p. 4.Google Scholar

27. Ibid.

28. Editorial, Manila Times, 01 13, 1956, p. 4.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., January 16, 1957, p. 4.

30. Ibid., January 25, 1957, p. 4.

31. Ibid., May 2, 1958, p. 4.

32. Ibid., April 3, 1958, p. 4.

33. Ibid., February 21, 1959, p. 4-A; February 27, 1959, p. 4; March 2, 1959, p. 4-A; and May 8, 1959, p. 4-A.

34. Philippines Herald, 01 18, 1956.Google Scholar

35. Ibid.

36. See Volume 6 of Philippine News Digest published on 01 22, 1960Google Scholar; January 29, 1960; and February 5, 1960.

37. Hollinsteiner, Mary, Dynamics of Power in a Philippine Municipality. Quezon City: Community Development Research Council, 1960Google Scholar; Corpuz, O. D., “The Future of Filipino Politics,” The Sunday Times Magazine, 11 11, 1959, p. 11Google Scholar; Worfel, David, “Foreign Aid and Social Reform in Political Development: A Philippine Case Study,” American Political Science Review, 53:473 (1959)Google Scholar; Berreman, Gerald D., The Philippines: A Survey of Current Social, Economic, and Political Conditions. New York (Ithaca): Cornell University South-East Asia Program, 1956, p. 10Google Scholar; Henares, Larry M. Jr., “Bold New Industries,” Progress, 1959, p. 32Google Scholar; Manila Bulletin, 04 6, 1960, p. 2Google Scholar and April 22, 1960, p. A.

38. Sinco, Vicente, “The Authority of the President Over Local Officials” 30 Philippine Law Journal 368 (1955).Google Scholar

39. Among the significant cases decided in favour of local autonomy are Lacson V. Hoque, 49 O.G. 93 (1953); Jover V. Borra, 49 O.G. 2765 (1953); Santos V. Mallare, 48 O.G. 4820 (1953); and Mondano V. Silvosa, 51 O.G. 2482 (1955). For a review of Supreme Court decisions concerning nationallocal relationships, see the following articles: Edgardo J. Angara and Pablo B. Badong, “Law on Municipal Corporations, Public Officers, and Elections,” 22 Philippine Law Journal 143 (1958)Google Scholar and Marjano, Leonardo C., “The Supreme Court and Local Autonomy,” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 2:48–51 (1958)Google Scholar. For a criticism against these decisions, see Sinco, , suprs., pp. 353–369Google Scholar and Rivera, Juan F., “The Power of the President of the Philippines Over Local Government and Local Officials,” 30 Philippine Law Journal 751–768 (1955).Google Scholar