A discussion on Pressure

Groups a.k.a. Interest

Groups prevalent in
American democratic
society

Divided we stand
United we fall…
I. Definition of an Interest Group
In order to make sense of the nature of interest
groups, it is important to consider two isms
that are inherent in American society: one is
factionalism and the other is pluralism. It is
important to note that factionalism and
pluralism reinforce each other. Both are
embedded in the first amendment to the United
States constitution, which grants the “freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The constitution therefore implicitly allows the
proliferation of interests as well as the groups
that represent or manifest those interests. An
interest is “that which benefits an individual or
a group; interests (unlike wants or preferences)
are usually understood to be objective or real”
(Heywood, 2002, p. ). From this definition of
interest, we derive the basic definition of an
interest group as a group of people organized
to pursue common interests or benefits.
A. Interest group as a group of people
organized to pursue common interests
• The case of factionalism

The most important concept that is related to the

definition of interest group as a group of
people organized to pursue a common interest
is factionalism. In fact, it can be considered as
the act or principle of forming an interest
group.
The Local Government System
of the Philippines
The president supervises the whole country and its
political subdivisions—79 provinces, 115 cities,
1,495 municipalities, and 41,943 barangays.

These political subdivisions enjoy autonomy but, as

mentioned previously, are under the supervision of
the president through the secretary of the Department
of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
Local governments act as agencies of the
national Government in tax collection, law
enforcement, and other government functions
that may be delegated by the national
Government to local units in which people had
a part in bringing about.
Political Units in the Philippines’ Local
Administrative System:

1. Provinces
2. Municipalities or Towns
3. Cities
4. Barangays
The Province
• the largest political unit in the Philippines. The country
has 79 provinces. They are classified according to their
average income for 5 consecutive years
• The local government executives and officials are
elected while all other provincial officials are
appointed by the appropriate departments of the
national Government
• Under the 1991 Local Government Code, the officials
are under the administrative control of the provincial
governor. The provincial board is the lawmaking body,
and the provincial governor sits as the presiding officer
• Each province is composed of municipalities or towns
Municipality or Town
• Municipalities are public corporations created by
Congress and are governed by the Municipality
Law. They are 1,495 all in all
• Municipalities are also classified according to
their average annual income every 4 fiscal years
and are autonomous units with elected and
appointed officials
• Municipal boards are the lawmaking bodies of
towns and are chaired by mayors and composed
of vice mayors and councilors.
City Classification:
Highly Urbanized Cities - Cities with a minimum
population of two hundred thousand (200,000)
inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office,
and with the latest annual income of at least Fifty Million
Pesos (P50,000,000.00) based on 1991 constant prices,
as certified by the city treasurer.
Chartered Cities - Cities that have been created by an Act
of Congress and are run as an independent government
with the Mayor as its Chief Executive, a Vice-Mayor, City
Council, one Congressional District and Representative
per every 250,000 population count, a Police force, a
common seal, and the power to take, purchase, receive,
hold, lease, convey, and disposes of real and personal
property for the general interests of the City, condemn
private property for public use (eminent domain),
contract and be contracted with, sue and exercise all the
powers conferred to it by Congress.
According to the ADB Study, the chartered city is
especially created by law. The Philippines has
67 of it. The charter is the constitution of the city,
and it defines its boundaries, provides its system
of government, and defines the powers and
duties of its officials. The city’s elected officials
are the mayor, vice-mayor, and members of the
board of councilors; they are assisted by the
appointed heads of various departments. The
vice-mayor presides over the board while the
city courts exercise judicial functions. The
council is the lawmaking body of the city.
• Independent Component Cities - Cities whose charters
prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective
officials. Independent component cities shall be
independent of the province.

• Component Cities - Cities which do not meet the above

requirements shall be considered component cities of
the province in which they are geographically located. If
a component city is located within the boundaries of two
(2) or more provinces, such city shall be considered a
component of the province of which it used to be a
municipality.

Definitions taken from National Statistical Coordination

Board.
Barangay
• the smallest local government unit
• headed by the barangay captain (the
enforcer of all the laws and ordinances
applicable to his or her constituency) who
is elected along with the barangay
councilors
• a public corporation and therefore can sue
and be sued in court, enter into contracts,
acquire and hold all kinds of property, and
exercise such powers or perform such
acts as provided by law
Historical Context
• Pre-Hispanic Period
• Spanish Colonization
• American Occupation and the Commonwealth
Period
• Japanese Interlude (not included)
• American Occupation (again…)
• Philippine Political Independence and Pre-Martial
Law Years
• The Martial Law Period
• Demarcosification and Democratic
Transition
Pre-Hispanic Period
The Philippines has had a long tradition of centralized
government.
Ever since the arrival of the Spanish in 1521, the
Philippine Islands have been ruled from the national
capital, Manila.
Then Sen. Jose P. Laurel (1926) traces the roots of
autonomy among local units and institutions as
existent even before the arrival of the Spaniards. He
identified the barangays as autonomous territorial and
political units headed by monarchical chieftains
called datu, panginoo or pangolo (Ortiz 1996).
Spanish Colonization
With the arrival of the Spanish, the barangays and
tribal organizations were adopted by the colonial
authorities to become administrative units, each
headed by a cabeza de barangay (head of the
barangay) whose main responsibility was
collecting taxes. As they expanded and grew,
some barangays evolved into pueblos (towns).
Poblaciones (town centers), barrios (rural
settlements), and visitas (municipal districts)
were parts of pueblos (Ocampo and Panganiban
1985).
In 1893, the Maura Law was enacted by the
Spanish colonizers. The Maura Law included the
establishment of tribunales municipals [sic]
(municipal tribunals) and juntas provinciales
(provincial juntas). However, despite the law, a
centralized regime still prevailed with the
"retention of rights and prerogatives by the
principalia class, the straight laced centralization
of powers, the continued intervention of the
church in state affairs, the limited franchise
granted, the inadequate election method
devised and enforced, and the defected [sic]
financial system instituted."
In 1898, the first (but short lived) Philippine
Republic, under the Malolos Constitution,
was established. Officials were elected on
a popular basis and decentralization and
administrative autonomy were among the
rallying cries of the period. Local
lawmaking bodies, namely the municipal
and provincial assemblies, were instituted.
American Occupation and the
Commonwealth Period(1902–1935)
The American occupation of the Philippines marked the
promulgation of policies promoting local autonomy. These
included the organization of municipal and provincial
councils based on general suffrage.
Other pronouncements indicative of the thrust toward local
autonomy included the following:
• the instructions of President McKinley to the Taft
Commission
• Act 183 of the Philippine Commission in 1902 - the
incorporation of the City of Manila
• Act 787 in 1903 - the establishment of the Moro Province
• Act 1396 in 1905 - the organization of provincial
governments
• the extension of popular control, including the elimination
of appointed members from provincial boards
The Americans maintained a highly
centralized politico-administrative structure
despite the enactment of these policies,
purportedly supportive of local autonomy.
Largely because of security
considerations, local affairs had to be
under the control of the Americans
(Ocampo and Panganiban 1985).
The commonwealth period saw local governments
in the Philippines placed under the general
supervision of the president, as provided for
under Article VII, Section II, of the 1945
Constitution.
Additionally, the president, by statute, could alter
the jurisdictions of local governments and in
effect create or abolish them (Laurel 1926).
Ocampo and Panganiban (1985) note that the
constitutional provision limiting the president's
power to general supervision was a compromise
measure substituted for the stronger guarantee
of local autonomy proposed during the
constitutional convention. President Quezon
preferred to appoint the chief officials of cities
and would brook no "democratic nonsense."
Philippine Political Independence and
Pre-Martial Law Years
Philippine political independence was granted by the Americans
in 1946. It followed the passage and implementation of
certain acts. These acts are the following:
• RA 2264: The first local autonomy act. It was implemented
in 1959 and entitled An Act Amending the Laws Governing
Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy and
Reorganizing Provincial Governments. This act vested in
city and municipal governments greater fiscal, planning, and
regulatory powers. It broadened the taxing powers of the
cities and municipalities within the framework of national
taxing laws.
• RA 2370: The Barrio Charter Act. Passed in 1959,
this act is another landmark piece of legislation as
far as local autonomy is concerned. It sought to
transform the barrios, then the smallest political unit
of the local government system, into quasi-
municipal corporations by vesting in them some
taxing powers. Barrios were to be governed by
elective barrio councils.
• RA 5185: Decentralization Act of 1967. It was
implemented less than a decade after the Barrio
Charter Act was passed. It further increased the
financial resources of local governments and
broadened their decision-making powers over
administrative (mostly fiscal and personnel) matters
The Martial Law Period
The imposition of Martial Law in 1972, which
abolished local elections and vested in President
Marcos the powers to appoint local officials who
were beholden to him, was a great setback for
the local autonomy movement in the Philippines.
Notwithstanding the highly centralized dictatorial
setup, the 1973 Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines rhetorically committed itself to a
policy of local autonomy when it stated that “The
State shall guarantee and promote autonomy of
LGUs, especially the barrio, to ensure their
fullest development as self-reliant communities.”
the President continued to exercise supervision
and control over local governments. The
authoritarian government promulgated the Local
Government Code of 1983 (also known as Batas
Pambansa Bilang 337), which reiterated the
policy of the State to “guarantee and promote
the autonomy of local government units to
ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them effective partners
in the pursuit of national development.” Genuine
autonomy, however, could not be realistically
implemented under the authoritarian regime.
Demarcosification and
Democratic Transition
The overthrow of Marcos in 1986 and the installation of
President Corazon Aquino saw the creation of the freedom
Constitution. It provided that "the President shall have control
and exercise general supervision over all local governments."
It was this provision that enabled President Aquino, through
the minister of local government, to remove local officials
throughout the country whose loyalties were questionable and
replace them with officers-in-charge. Seen as an isolated act,
the appointment of officers-in-charge may be seen as a setback
to the cause of local autonomy, but viewed in its proper
historical and political context, it may be appreciated as a
necessary measure in stabilizing the immediate post-
dictatorship transition government.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines was promulgated. It included
specific provisions guaranteeing autonomy
to local governments. Among the major
state policies articulated was the policy
that "The State shall ensure the autonomy
of local governments."
There is an imperative for a dominant and assertive
leadership necessary for the consolidation and even the
very survival of a weak state that is replete with
examples of tensions between a highly centralized
governmental structure and the demands for autonomy
among various component local units. Hence, the
demand among component local institutions for
autonomy from the central Government must be
considered.

Overcentralization is seen as a problem that has been

recognized through the years, even though it persisted.
Attempts to decentralize the administrative authority
provided some solutions to this problem yet remained
simple administrative formalisms. Political
decentralization, a thorough thrust for local governments
to attain genuine autonomy, is yet to emerge.
The Local Government Code of
1991
The promulgation of the code was in accordance with a
1987 constitutional provision that declared, "the state
shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.“ It
was toward making this policy operational that the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
mandated Congress to legislate a local government
code that would devolve substantial political and
administrative authorities to LGUs long held in check
by central government authorities.
The following are the major features
of the code:

• It devolves to LGUs responsibility for the delivery of

various aspects of basic services that earlier were the
responsibility of the national Government.
• It devolves to LGUs the responsibility of enforcing certain
regulatory powers.
• It also provides the legal and institutional infrastructure
for expanded participation of civil society in local
governance.
• It increases the financial resources available to LGUs
• It laid the foundation for the development and evolution
of more entrepreneurial LGUs.
Local autonomy would mean less reliance upon the national
Government, including national government allotments,
and increased reliance upon resources either internally
generated or with other institutions, be they other LGUs,
private institutions, etc. It is within this context that the 1992
code encourages LGUs to be more aggressive and
entrepreneurial. Going into business with the private sector
and, where appropriate, adopting private sector strategies,
techniques, and technologies to generate resources and
thereby enable them to deliver much-needed basic
services to the people are encouraged by the 1992 code.
Had there been no comprehensive law on devolution, the
emergence of best and good practices at the local level
would not have been possible. To a certain extent, many
such practices illustrate that the process of local autonomy
and devolution to LGUs has somehow contributed to efforts
at reducing poverty at the local level.
Issues and Challenges
Decentralization was seen as a major mechanism
that would hasten the process of
democratization and development.
Ex-President Ramos referred to the five Ds of
decentralization as deregulation, devolution,
decentralization, democratization, and
development.
Decentralization has direct contribution to good
governance by providing the context for citizen
participation in governance and bringing the
Government closer to the people, making
institutions more accountable and transparent.
Major decentralization issues and concerns:
• Lack of financial decentralization.
Many LGUs could not afford the “cost of
devolution” because of limited financial
resources.
• Skills and capability building and training for
local officials.
Competence must be the name of the game
in local governance.
• Leagues and Umbrella Organizations.
Such organizations help LGUs emerge as
advocates of local autonomy and governance.
• Partnerships and collaboration among LGUs, civil
society, private sector, and NGOs.
These efforts led to the redefinition of
governance at the local level.
• International Institutions and Local Governance.
Local autonomy and governance as major
areas of assistance need some support from
“outside” to attain full development.
• Awards as incentives for good practices.
Local administrators and members of the
private sector deserve some kind of motivation
and inspiring them to grab such awards
encourages a friendly competition.
• Urbanization.
Effecting development through urbanization
and addressing its externalities are great forms
of exercise for local leaders and administrators.
• Globalization issues and concerns.
The roles of LGUs in the global environment,
market and “web” needs some direction.
• Performance indicators and benchmarks for
good governance.
Proper formulation and implementation of
performance indicators for LGUs must be looked
into.
Strategic Directions
These are all directed at building upon the hard-
earned gains of the past decade, with the overall
objective of further strengthening the capacities
and capabilities of LGUs.
They include conducting a comprehensive review
of the 1992 code and designing and crafting
innovative and creative mechanisms to enable
LGUs to generate more financial resources at
the local level and mobilize resources to
strengthen local capacities.
The following are also included:
• Reexamining the Internal Revenue Allotments to LGUs.
• Developing an Integrated Master Plan for Capacity
Building and Training for LGUs at Various Levels.
• Professionalizing and Strengthening the Secretariats of
the Various Leagues of LGUs, including that of the Union
of Local Authorities of the Philippines.
• Encouraging LGUs to Enter into Interlocal Cooperation
and Collaboration for Good Governance.
• Encouraging LGUs to Enter into Partnerships with the
Private Sector, Civil Society, and Nongovernment
Organizations.
• Recognizing the Implications and Impacts of Increased
Urbanization on Local Governance.
• Developing, Evolving, and Improving Performance
Indicators for Local Governance.
Conclusion
LGUs serve as frontline units in the battle for good
governance.
Devolution and autonomy, as processes, need certain
considerations and strategies to effect change. Efforts at
maintaining the long term positive effects of such
processes must provide a flashback of past successes
as well as failures of administrative reform initiatives.
Finally, looking at the areas for local development from a
national perspective, we must see the feasibility and
importance of allowing power to flow from an open circuit
that lets through the current of international change. The
national government therefore is not the only source of
generating the “power” towards good governance and
sustainable development. A top-down closed circuit
approach to local governance and of enabling local
governments seems outmoded to new political
“scientists”…weh =)