From the Pre-colonial Barangay to the 1991 Local Government Code

An overly centralized past perspective is simplistic because it loses sight of the country's

localized past and the deep tensions between central and local relations since formal central

institutions were established. There are two problems in characterizing the Philippines prior to the

1991 LGC solely as overcentralized.

Public Finance Adviser: Prof. Ragrciel Grafil Manalo FOR READING PURPOSES ONLY

First, localism is a well-known characteristic of Philippine politics. The center relies on

local political strongmen who may in turn disregard administrative guidelines coming from the

center. Second, there have been numerous shifts during Philippine history in the relative emphasis

given to decentralization or centralization. In addition, the "over centralized" view of scholars of

Philippine public administration was criticized because they tend to concentrate far more attention

to formal structures of authority than on informal networks of power." Indeed, looking at the

history of central-local relations of the country, it can be seen that decentralization and the

accompanying notion of local autonomy are not a new phenomenon. In fact, before the coming of

the Spaniards in the sixteenth century, almost everything was localized. Of course, the formal

centralized system introduced by the Spaniards afterward would have a lasting impact on the

evolution of local governments in the Philippines. But despite the centralizing trends,

decentralization has always come in the debates both within and outside the structures of power.

It must also be pointed out that there are contradictions within historical periods that are usually

characterized as formally centralized in character. This is hardly surprising for a country of

thousands of islands.

Thus, the so-called landmark Local Government Code of 1991, while indeed trailblazing

in a number of respects, is not an abrupt break from the past but a result of a long struggle for

decentralization and local autonomy.

Before the coming of Arab traders, scholars, and missionaries in the south in the early part

of the fourteenth century and the arrival of the Spaniards in the second half of the sixteenth century,

everything was local. The ancestors of the Filipinos established an indigenous and autonomous

political institution known as the barangay, which was composed of some thirty to one hundred

households.
Some of these small-scale political units were clustered together, but most of them had not

attained a level of political organization above and beyond the kinship principle. But in some areas

of the archipelago, the barangay later established confederations, such as the Islamic sultanates in

Sulu and Maguindanao, which possessed more complex political organizations and more

sophisticated economies.

The Spanish colonizers then introduced a centralized system with the Spanish governorgeneral as
supreme authority in all local matters. They retained the indigenous barangay, renamed

as barrio, as basic administrative units but added other tiers of local governments: the pueblos or

municipalities, cabildos or cities, and provincials also known as provinces. The Spanish governorgeneral
was the supreme authority in all local matters, with the subnational officials acting as his

agents and appointed by central authorities. Only toward the end of the Spanish regime was there

any attempt to allow local discretion in the governance of local affairs. The Maura Law of 1893

sought reforms in the local government system by granting greater local autonomy to towns and

provinces in Luzon and Visayas and by allowing local citizens to select some of their officials.

However, these reforms did not have time to make much impact because the Philippine Revolution

shortly followed in 1898.

According to Tapales, the Spanish period had impacts on the development of local

governments in the Philippines. First, indigenous activities were supplanted by putting in place an

alien system of local government. Second, a high degree of centralization in the capital of Manila

in Luzon came to characterize national-local relations for another century after the end of Spanish

colonization. Third, the divide-and-rule policy of Spanish colonizers, their concentration of all

Public Finance Adviser: Prof. Ragrciel Grafil Manalo FOR READING PURPOSES ONLY

political activities in Manila and the ensuing neglect of the other regions outside Manila, and the

curtailment of many elements of internal trade strengthened regionalism and the other regions'

contempt for the center, which remain strong until today. Fourth, at the end of Spanish rule, there

were still areas in the Philippines that considered themselves not part of the emerging nation at all.

This was because the Spaniards were unsuccessful in consolidating all the islands under their

control. And finally, the Spanish period left a local elite that would continue to play important

roles in the decades ahead.

In 1991, after almost five years of debate in Congress, the Local Government Code or

Republic Act No. 7160 was enacted. This law is by far the most focused on devolution and

democratic decentralization in the country. It is also considered the most important piece of

legislation to emerge from the Aquino administration.

The 1991 Local Government Code is a product of both external and internal factors,

although internal factors play a stronger role in terms of the actual contents of the legal basis as

well as the dynamics of its implementation. Decentralization has been carried out not solely for

the traditional public administration arguments but, more important, in light of its democratic

dimensions and other political considerations