Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:28:22.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Congressional Legitimation of Municipal Reform in the Philippines, 1954–1960

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

A. B. Villanueva
A. B. Villanueva
Affiliation:
Western Illinois University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Filipino political leaders have been addressing themselves to the issue of municipal reform since the dawn of the twentieth century, but discussion of the issue never reached a high intensity until the then Institute of Public Administration of the University of the Philippines (established in 1954 under the aegis of American technical assistance) defined the issues more clearly. The thrust of this renewed enthusiasm in local government reform included greater local powers, lesser national supervision over local administrative activities, and lesser legislative meddling in municipal affairs. Being a highly centralized political system under which local and national officials (both elected and appointed) have created a civic culture consisting of national review of some local administrative decisions and local dependence upon congressional pork barrels for the financing of municipal projects, any advocacy of local autonomy had to come from the top of the Philippine political totem pole and any legitimation of municipal reform policy must take place in Congress.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1976 , pp. 285 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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 The Manila Times, 08 15, 1960, p. 3–A.Google Scholar

2 Senate Bill No. 28, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, in Senate Congressional Record, 2:372, 03 2, 1955.Google Scholar

3 The Manila Times, 08 8, 1960, p. 1–A; August 17, 1960, p. 5–A;Google ScholarValencia, Teodoro, ‘Over a Cup of Coffee,’ The Manila Times, 08 5, 1960, p. 4–A.Google Scholar

4 The Manila Times, 08 2, 1960, p. 1–A.Google Scholar

5 Philippines Free Press, 08 2, 1960, p. 1–A;Google ScholarValencia, Teodoro, ‘Over a Cup of Coffee,’ The Manila Times, 04 8, 1960, p. 4–A.Google Scholar

6 Senate Congressional Record, 2:380, March 2, 1955.

7 Ibid., p. 377.

8 Ibid. It should be recognized that Laurel's view was shared by one Liberal member of the Senate, Senator Peralta, Jr, who opposed the Cuenco Bill which provided for executive action in the creation of local political subdivisions.

9 The Local Autonomy Act, Secs. 4, 5.

10 Baja, Lauro L. Jr., ‘Comments on the Local Autonomy Act,’ 34 Philippine Law Journal 547 (1959). A similar justification of congressional action on this form of provincial reorganization has been made by the Vice-Governor of the Province of La Union.Google Scholar

11 The Local Autonomy Act, Sec. 4.

12 Peralta, Pedro G., ‘A New Provincial Office: The Vice-Governorship,’ Philippines Free Press, 01 2, 1960, p. 31.Google Scholar

13 Ibid.

14 Editorial, The Manila Times, 02 27, 1959, p. 4–A.Google Scholar

15 Ibid.

16 Remarks of Mr Antonio Maceda, Transcript of the Public Hearing on House Bill No. 5180, 03 14, 1954, p. 25.

17 Senate Bill No. 444, 4th Cong. 3rd Sess.

18 Senate Bill No. 444, Art. II. Sec. 8 and Art. III, Sec. 13.

19 Ibid., Art. XVIII, Sec. 86.

20 House Bill No. 31, 3rd Cong., 1st Sess. Also House Congressional Record, 1:2223, 05 4, 1954.

21 House Congressional Record, 1:2223, May 4,1954.

22 Senate Congressional Record, 3: 1134, April 26, 1956.

23 Senate Congressional Record, 3:981,982, April 23, 1956.

24 Senate Congressional Record, 3:1135, April 26, 1956.

25 Ibid., p. 1134. Congress evidently considered Alonto's ideas favorably, since Republic Act No. 1515, otherwise known as the Municipal District Autonomy Act of 1956, substantially embodied the former.

26 Among the ad-hoc bodies then operating in the barrios were the PTAs, Puroks (neighborhood associations), rural health councils, agricultural councils, social welfare councils, cooperative marketing association, and P.R.R.M. projects. See Buenaventura Villanueva, The Barrio People and Barrio Governments, pp. 9–11, and his A Study of the Competence of Barrio Citizens to Conduct Barrio Government, pp. 83–4, both of which were published by the Institute of Public Administration in Manila and the Community Development Research Council of the University of the Philippines in 1959.

27 Republic Act No. 1245, Sec. 1, approved 06 1955.

28 Senate Bill No. 100, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., and Senate Congressional Record, 1:796, 04 15, 1958.Google Scholar

29 Diario De Senado, May 19, 1959.

30 The Barrio Charter, Art. I, Sec. 2.

31 Diario De Senado, May 21, 1959, also, The Barrio Charter, Secs, 4, 6.

32 Senate Congressional Record, 1: 388, February 26, 1954.

33 Senate Congressional Record, 3:783, April 10, 1956.

34 Ibid., 2:670, April 13, 1955.

35 But they are ‘captive cities’ too, i.e. politically under the control of the powers that be. They were converted into cities without taking into consideration such factors as area, population, and ‘taxable wealth,’ since the major purpose is political control. The bigger the city, observed a geographer, ‘the greater the political power to be achieved.’ To facilitate this form of control the President (not the city voters) select the men who will run the city government and mobilize them into a platoon of political speakers in electoral campaigns. Spencer, J. E., ‘The Cities of the Philippines,’ Journal of Geography, 57:291 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also the following: Concepcion, Roberto, ‘The Constitution of the Philippines and the Proposed Amendments thereto,’ 33 Philippine Law Journal 604 (1958);Google ScholarPolotan, Kerima, ‘The Capital City; Dream and Reality,’ Progress, 1959, pp. 151–8;Google ScholarTrinidad, Doris, ‘Manila,’ Progress, 1959, pp. 140–50;Google ScholarOsmena, Sergio Sr, ‘How Baguio Was Born,’ Philippines Free Press, 08 29, 1959, p. 17;Google Scholarand Merritt, Jesus V., ‘What Became of Quezon's Dream City?’ Philippines Free Press, 02 14, 1959, pp. 18, 20.Google Scholar

36 Senate Congressional Record, 2:454, 03 11, 1955.

37 Senate Congressional Record, 2:669, April 13, 1955.

38 The plan of making Quezon City as a ‘commission City’ was the idea of the late President Manuel Quezon after whom the city is named. It was also the idea of the late Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr, former President of the Philippine Senate and undisputed political boss in this city.Senate Congressional Record, 2:329, August 2, 1955; 2:1031, May 9, 1955.

39 House Congressional Record, 1:2266–2267, May 4, 1954.

40 Owsley, Roy H. and Associates, Philippine Chartered Cities (Manila: Institute of Public Administration, 1956), p. 30.Google Scholar

41 Ibid.

42 Senate Congressional Record, 1:336, February 26, 1954.

43 The Manila Times, 04 3, 1958, p. 4.Google Scholar

44 Ibid.

45 Republic Act No. 2259, Approved June 1959, Sec. 8.

46 In 1956, there were six cities which had ex-officio members of their city councils. See Owsley and Associates, Philippine Chartered Cities, p. 13.

47 Senate Congressional Record, 1:460, March 18, 1954.

48 Senate Congressional Record, 1:333, February 26, 1954.

49 Ibid., pp. 333, 334.

50 Senate Congressional Record, 1:469, March 18, 1954.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Senate Congressional Record, 2:451, March 11,1955.

54 Senate Congressional Record, 3:968, April 3, 1955.

55 Senate Congressional Record, 2:456, March 11, 1955.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Senate Congressional Record, 2:456, March 11, 1955.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.