Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
Although the framers of the Philippine constitutional convention of 1934–35 were careful not to establish an imperium in imperio (kingdom within a kingdom), the local government system which developed was not under absolute national control either. For in spite of the efforts made by several delegates to include in the national fundamental law a provision that would have guaranteed ‘a more autonomous framework of government for the provinces and municipalities,’ and the efforts of other delegates to leave the future of local governments to the national legislature, a unitary government was agreed upon in which local governments were subject to presidential supervision. In the course of time, presidential supervision evolved to mean two things: 1) the power of the Chief Executive to appoint local officials and to review local budgets and 2) the power of congress to create local units and to grant local powers. Thus, these two political branches of the national government were to play major roles in the re-emergence of the issue of local autonomy in the fifties and the issue of decentralization in the sixties. In more specific terms, the two political branches had different views of central-local relations, especially the approach to, and extent of, decentralization. Before we proceed to discuss executivelegislative controversy on the problems of decentralization, the concept of decentralization must be understood.
This research was supported by a faculty grant during Fiscal 1975 from the University Research Council, Western Illinois University, to which grateful acknowledgement is made.
1 Laurel, Sotero H. (ed.), Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional Convention (Manila: Lyceum Press, Inc., 1966), Vol. III, p. 49.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., p. 767.
3 Mawhood, Philip, ‘Decentralization For Development—A Lost Cause?’ Bruhns, F. C., et al. , Local Politics, Development and Participation: A Cross-National Study of Interrelationship (Pittsburgh: University Center For International Studies, 1974), p. 231.Google Scholar
4 Yin, Robert K., et al. , ‘Administrative Decentralization of Municipal Services: Assessing the New York City Experience,’ Policy Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1974), p. 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Young, Dennis R., ‘Institutional Change and the Delivery of Urban Public Services, Policy Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1971), p. 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Fantini, Mario and Gittell, Marilyn, Decentralization: Achieving Reform (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 8.Google Scholar
7 Herbert, Adam W., ‘Does Decentralization Mean a Change in Managerial Philosophy?’ in Grosenick, Leigh E. (ed.), The Administration of the New Federalism (Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1973), p. 8.Google Scholar
8 Report on the Decentralization and Distribution of Central Government Powers and Resources (Manila, 1964), p. 42.Google Scholar
9 Sunday Times, 19 March 1967, p. 11–A.Google Scholar
10 Romani, John, ‘What is the Balance between Centralization and Decentralization in Administration?’ Current Problems in Philippine Public Administration (Manila: IPAUP, 1954), Lecture No. 9.Google Scholar
11 House Congressional Record, 4(II): 1851, 25 April 1961.Google Scholar
12 Manila Times, 17 May 1967, p. 10A.Google Scholar
13 Ocampo, Romeo B., ‘The Formal Structure and Functions of Philippine Local Governments,’ Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 19(2–3): 134 (04–07 1966).Google Scholar
14 House Congressonial Record, 2(1): 80, 12 04 1967.Google Scholar
15 Severino, Rodolfo, ‘Dependents of the National Government’, in Abueva, José Veloso and Raul P., De Guzman (eds), Foundations and Dynamics of Filipino Government and Politics (Manila: Bookmark, 1969), p. 452.Google Scholar
16 House Congressional Record, 4:18, 5 04 1965.Google Scholar
17 Cruz, J. V., ‘Here and There: Decentralization Bill Veto Needs Good Excuse’, Manila Times, 24 03 1967, p. 5–A.Google Scholar
18 Manila Times, 10 06 1967, p. 22–A.Google Scholar
19 Manila Times, 14 March 1964, p. 12–A.Google Scholar
20 Manila Times, 25 March 1967, p. 2–A.Google Scholar
21 Manila Times, 30 March 1967, p. 6–A.Google Scholar
22 Manila Times, 27 March 1967, p. 2–A.Google Scholar
23 Agpalo, Remigio E., The Political Elite and the People: A Study of Politics in Occidental Mindoro (Manila: Regal Printing Press, 1972), pp. 333–4.Google Scholar
24 Ibid., p. 334.
25 Abueva, José Veloso and De Guzman, Raul P., Handbook of Philippine Public Administration (Manila: College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines, 1967), p. 387.Google Scholar
26 Abueva, José V.Ramon Magsaysay:A Political Biography (Manila: La Solidaridad Publishing House, 1971), p. 439.Google Scholar
27 House Congressional Record, 2(4):41, 18 April 1967.Google Scholar
28 Senate Congressional Record, 4 February 1965, in Manglapus, Raul S., Land of Bondage, Land of Freedom: Social Revolution in the Philippines (Manila: La Solidaridad Publishing House, 1967), p. 116.Google Scholar
29 Senate Congressional Record, 29 January 1965, in Ibid., p. 120.
30 Ibid.
31 Senate Congressional Record, 2(6): 179, 8 06 1967.Google Scholar
32 House Congressional Record, 2:20, 17 April 1967.Google Scholar
33 House Congressional Record, 2: 12, 18 April 1967.Google Scholar
34 Senate Congressional Record, 4 February 1965, in Manglapus, , Land of Bondage, Land of Freedom, p. 116.Google ScholarSee also House Congressional Record, 2:41, 18 04 1967.Google Scholar
35 De Guzman, Raul P. and Tapales, Proserpina, Philippine Local Government: Issues, Problems, and Prospects (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1973), p. 150.Google Scholar
36 Pelaez, Emmanuel, Government by the People (Quezon City, 1964), p. 95.Google Scholar
37 PHILCONSA Draft for a New Philippine Constitution, (no date), pp. 148–9.Google Scholar
38 Macapagal, Diosdado, A New Constitution for the Philippines (Quezon City: Mac Publishing House, 1970), p. 93.Google Scholar
39 Senate Congressional Record, 2(46): 1229, 13 04 1967.Google Scholar
40 Abueva, , Ramon Magsaysay: A Political Biography, p. 439.Google Scholar
41 Manila Times, 19 April 1967, p. 20–A.Google Scholar
42 Querol, M. N., ‘The Other Side: Decentralization Still the Answer’, Manila Times, 4 02 1967, p. 6–A.Google Scholar
43 Querol, M. N., ‘The Other Side’, Manila Times, 15 04 1967, p. 23–A.Google Scholar
44 House Congressional Record, 2:41, 18 04 1967.Google Scholar
45 House Congressional Record, 2:15, 5 04 1965.Google Scholar
46 Senate Congressional Record, 2(46): 1227, 13 04 1967.Google Scholar
47 Macapagal, , A New Constitution for the Philippines, p. 8.Google Scholar
48 Senate Congressional Record, 2 February 1965, in Manglapus, Land of Bondage Land of Freedom, p. 147.Google Scholar
49 Ibid., p. 144.
50 House Congressional Record, 4: 19, 5 04 1965.Google Scholar
51 Senate Congressional Record, 5 February 1965, in Manglapus, Land of Bondage, Land of Freedom, p. 148.Google Scholar
52 Ibid., p. 159.
53 Senate Congressional Record, 2(22):537, 1 04 1967.Google ScholarSee also Vidallon, Lodivina C., ‘Systems Theory in Research: Pork Barrel Cases’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 9:258 (10, 1965).Google Scholar
54 Vidallon, , ‘Systems Theory in Research’, p. 260,Google Scholar and Guthrie, George M., The Psychology of Modernization in the Philippines (Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 1971), p 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 House Congressional Record, 2: 17, 17 04 1967.Google Scholar
56 Macapagal, Diosdado, A Stone for the Edifice: Memoirs of a President (Quezon City: Mac Publishing House, 1968), p. 398.Google Scholar
57 Severino, Rodolfo Jr., ‘Dependents of the National Government’, in Abueva, José Veloso and De Guzman, Raul P. (eds), Foundations and Dynamics of Filipino Government and Politics (Manila: Bookmark, 1969), p. 448.Google Scholar
58 Rama, Mapoleon G., ‘Turncoatism, Circa 1967: Are Political Parties on Their Way Out?’ Philippine Free Press, 2 03 1967, p. 15.Google Scholar
59 Senate Congressional Record, 2(46): 1223, 13 04 1967.Google Scholar
60 Ibid., p. 1218.
61 Ibid.
62 House Congressional Record, 2: 17, 17 04 1967.Google Scholar See also Senate Congressional Record, 2:185, 8 06 1967.Google Scholar
63 House Congressional Record, 2:77, 18 05 1967.Google Scholar
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid.
66 Manila Times, 6 01 1968, p. 2–B.Google Scholar
67 Mariano, Leonardo C., ‘Local Government Finance’, in Abueva, and De, Guzman, Foundations and Dynamics of Filipino Government and Politics, p. 453.Google Scholar
68 Carr, Robert K., Bernstein, Marver H., Murphy, Walter and Danielson, Michael N., Essentials of American Democracy (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), p. 276.Google Scholar
69 Abueva, , Ramon Magsaysay: A Political Biography, p. 379.Google Scholar
70 Wolfinger, Raymond E., Shapiro, Martin, and Greenstein, Fred I., Dynamics of American Politics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 6.Google Scholar
