National supervision and local autonomy
It was recently reported that the Supreme Court (SC) declared as constitutional the various directives of the late former Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo that local government units (LGUs) should disclose fully their budget, expenditures, contracts, loans and procurement plans. It ruled that the required publication did not infringe on the local and fiscal autonomy of LGUs.
The Supreme Court states: “The posting requirements are mere transparency measures which do not at all hurt the manner by which local government units decide the utilization and allocation of their funds.” Robredo’s directives were “implementation of this avowed policy of the State to make public officials accountable to the people. They are amalgamations of existing laws, rules and regulation designed to give teeth to the constitutional mandate of transparency and accountability.”
The former Camarines Sur governor Luis Raymond Villafuerte Jr. questioned certain memorandum issuances as beyond Robredo’s supervisory powers. He claimed that they constituted an infringement on the constitutional principles of local and fiscal autonomy.
Does the grant of local autonomy to LGUs mean full abdication of the powers of the national government to exercise supervision over LGUs and to make sure that their acts are in accordance with laws and national policies? The answer is emphatic: No.
The power of supervision by the President through the DILG, and local autonomy are not at all inconsistent.
As explained by the Supreme Court in the 2000 case of Pimentel versus Aguirre, “the Constitution vests the President with the power of supervision, not control, over LGUs. Such power enables him to see to it that LGUs and their officials execute their tasks in accordance with law. While he may issue advisories and seek their cooperation in solving economic difficulties, he cannot prevent them from performing their tasks and using available resources to achieve their goals.”
Local and fiscal autonomy are indeed guaranteed by the Constitution and the Local Government Code. The decentralization path paved the way for the grant of broader powers for LGUs to receive regular internal revenue allocation from national government, to generate their own sources of revenues, a share on the utilization of natural resources and to enter into contracts, among other powers.
Decentralization is meant “to make governance more directly responsive and effective at the local levels. In turn, economic, political and social development at the smaller political units are expected to propel social and economic growth and development. But to enable the country to develop as a whole, the programs and policies effected locally must be integrated and coordinated towards a common national goal. Thus, policy-setting for the entire country still lies in the President and Congress.” (Pimental case)
Likewise, with the grant of fiscal autonomy, LGUs are expected to be able to fund the delivery of services to constituents including the devolved services such as environmental protection and enforcement of anti-pollution and fishery laws in municipal waters. This is an area where a focused supervision from DILG and supervising cities and provinces as well as technical assistance from DENR and BFAR is essential.
To put teeth to the implementation of the environmental laws, accountability mechanisms for holding negligent public officers should in fact be already in place.
With a precarious food security issue looming as 10 out of 13 fishing grounds are considered overfished, fisherfolk losing not just their income but their traditional fishing grounds upon which their livelihood depend to coastal developments, and marine ecosystems that are subjected to pressures and impacts of climate change, it is high time for DILG, DA/BFAR and DENR, and supervising LGUs to ensure strict implementation of our environmental and fisheries laws.
Transparency is a first step for implementation, such as posting a list of LGUs which allow illegal fishing in their municipal waters and violation of environmental laws. Citizens can help a lot by sharing pictures of violations in the social networks and doing the extra step, by writing the supervising officials and agencies concerned. The next step should already be holding public officials accountable for gross dereliction of duty and violation of laws.
The recent Supreme Court ruling augurs well for the much-needed political will from both citizens and authorities to effect good governance in each barangay, municipality, city and province.
By ensuring that much-need information is posted in the website and publicly accessible, there’s no reason why citizens cannot become active participants in decision-making, a right which is guaranteed by no less than the highest law of the land, our Constitution.
Try this as a small but giant step towards engagement. Have you noticed the “Transparency Seal” that is embedded on websites of some government agencies? It is meant to “enhance transparency and enforce accountability” where all national government agencies are required to maintain a transparency seal on their official websites. Information such as mandates, budgets and plans are required to be uploaded.
You might like to do just that and check if the agency has complied with the requirements and is qualified to put the Transparency Seal in the website. If not, call their attention. By doing so, you have contributed greatly to our national goal of transparent, accountable, participatory and effective governance.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
