Policy Issues and Challenges

in Local Governance

JESSE M. ROBREDO
Mayor, Naga City

ANGOC-JICA 3rd Country Training Program

August 29, 2006 SEAMEO-INNOTECH, Quezon City, Philippines
 Outline
□ Local governments in the Philippines
□ The operating environment
□ Challenges in local governance: The
case of Naga City
□ Policy issues in local governance
□ The innovations paradox
□ Institutional performance in support of
of decentralization
□ What needs to be done
 Subdivision of the Philippines

□ 17 administrative
regions
□ 80 provinces
□ 117 cities With mandatory
LSBs
□ 1,501
municipalities
□ 41,939 barangays
Barangay LSBs/School
governance councils
 Types of local governments
□ Barangay - the smallest political subdivision of
the country
□ City and municipality consists of a group of
barangays, usually covering a contiguous area
□ Main difference lies in the level of urbanization.
Indicated by the minimum requirements for
conversion into a city:
□ Average annual income of at least P100 million for last
two consecutive years based on 2000 constant prices
□ Population of at least 150,000, and
□ Territory of at least 100 sq. kms.
□ Province - the biggest political subdivision
comprises of a cluster of municipalities and
component cities
 Operating environment
Three forces interact with local government:
□ NGO sector. By and large, an active non-
government sector in the Philippines
□ Especially true in Naga, where NGO accreditation has
been in place since 1993. Close to 100 accredited NGOs
and POs of various ideological persuasions. Most belong
to Naga City People’s Council (NCPC).
□ Media. Philippine media reputed to be Asia’s
freest. True both at the national and local levels
□ In Naga, three local TV stations, around 7 radio stations
and 7 local newsweeklies
□ National government. A political factor,
especially if chief executive belongs to the
opposition. Very little resources from the top
□ Naga City largely depends on its own, operating as if the
national government does not exist
 Problem setting

Naga a typical Philippine city: □ landlocked,

□ medium-sized, not big not a port city
□ has no shipping
□ 137,000 population (2000 industry
census)
□ Daytime population of around □ peripheral,
250,000 not central
□ 500 kms away
from Metro
Manila, Metro
Cebu
 Why change „
CORPORATE
Demoralized workforce
was needed „
„ “15-30” employees
Widespread patronage system
„ Low pay
POLITICAL „ Culture of mediocrity
„ Old politics—disdains change „ ”for compliance” mentality
and seeks to maintain status
quo
„ Patronage was the rule. City
SOCIETAL
„ Naga's eroded distinction as Bicol's
Hall teemed with political
premier city
appointees.
„ Public market in shambles; soon hit by a
„ A minority mayor (winning only
fire that ate up 1/3 of available space
24% of the vote). Winning
„ Congested central business district
margin of less than 1,000.
„ Sluggish local economy
„ Owed political debt to former
„ Scarce employment opportunities
mayor
„ Proliferation of smut films and lewd
„ Had to work with an
shows
opposition-controlled city
„ Rampant illegal gambling
council (7 of 12)
„ Growing urban poor population
 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Modified Krüger model

□ On hindsight, Naga
is a case study in i p Re
change r sh sis
so Present ta
n nc
management o State e
Sp
□ Can be explained Transition
by a modified Phase
Krüger Model of the t Tr
Fi
change process re Desired
an
sit
u
□ Made iterative Cult State io
n
through a
participative,
dynamic visioning The Change Process
process
 PARTICIPATIVE VISIONING

Evolution of city vision

□ Built around the concept of
creating a niche for Naga
□ Rallying people on need to
restore local pride
□ Institutionalized participative
visioning process facilitates
community ownership

“A City for the People” “Uswag Naga 1998” “An Maogmang Lugar”
(1988-95) (1995-98) (1998 onwards)
Confidence building Emphasis on economic Redefinition of shared
phase which laid down growth; period of rapid vision towards becoming
groundwork for reforms economic expansion an inclusive city and
within City Hall and in model of participative
the community urban governance
 “SELLING THE VISION”

Communication strategy
□ Various approaches
utilized by leadership in “Kauswagan
presenting the corporate kan Naga—Kun
mission/vision to its Bako Ngonian,
constituency Nuarin Pa?”
□ Goal is securing their
support so that the
corporate vision
becomes a shared
community vision
□ Includes the use of
logos and
sloganeering
 Strategies and outcomes
PHASES STRATEGIES/MANIFESTATION
Sponsorship • Vision-selling through social
marketing: “Naga’s Progress—If
Not Now, When?” slogan
• Operationalized our 1988 election
campaign vision of “City for the
People” into three doable
elements: inspiring governance,
renewed community pride, and
economic recovery and progress.
Resistance • More than 30 court cases filed
against city government by
nightclub, bus terminal operators
• Political conflict between city
government and other politicians
behind illegal vices
OUTCOMES
• Shared city vision
• Bureaucratic reforms: elimination of
patronage, results-oriented
management
• Societal reforms: anti-vice drive vs.
smut films, lewd shows and gambling
• Expansion of business district through
bus terminal relocation
• General approval from key sectors of
society, i.e. church, business
• “Wait-and-see” attitude from the
general public, local civil society
 Strategies and outcomes
Transition • Sustain confidence-
building measures by
forging sustainable
partnerships, i.e. with
business sector, local civil
society
• “Growth with equity”
development philosophy
Culture fit • Governance framework
anchored on leadership,
partnerships and
participation
• High approval rating from the general
public
• Rapid economic growth, jumpstarted by
private sector-led property development
(Panganiban area upgrading, satellite
and district markets, etc.)
• Continuing professionalization of local
bureaucracy (PIP, Quality Service
Improvement Program)
• Dialog, engagement and partnership with
NGOs and POs, e.g. NGO-PO Council
• Culture of excellence in the local
bureaucracy
• National and international recognition as
center of local governance innovations
• Entry of more private sector-led
development initiatives: CBD II, South
Riverfront, Southwest, East Highlands
Ecotourism, etc.
• Novel participation mechanisms:
referendum, Naga City People’s Council
(NGO federation co-managing the city)
 Service quality improvement
□ PRODUCTIVITY
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (PIP)
□ Sought to improve both
processes and
procedures (systems
change) and values
and culture (people
change)
□ “Performance Pledge”
□ Annual Very Innovative
Person Award for cost
reduction measures
□ Productivity
Improvement Circles
 Service quality improvement
□ PUBLIC SERVICE
EXCELLENCE
PROGRAM (PSEP)
□ Linked service values
and orientation with
existing procedures.
Continually proposed
improvements
whenever possible
□ Documentation of City
Government’s frontline
services. Laid down
foundation for Citizen’s
Charter
□ Expanded service listings
in the Performance
Pledges
 THE NAGA GOVERNANCE MODEL

A guiding framework
Guided by its experience, Naga City
evolved its own governance model
□ Progressive development
perspective. Seeks
prosperity-building tempered by
an enlightened perception of
the poor
□ Functional partnerships.
Vehicles that enable the city to
tap community resources for
priority undertakings
□ Participation. Mechanisms
that ensure long-term
sustainability of local
undertakings
The Naga Governance Model
 DOING MORE WITH LESS

Building partnerships
□ Tapped community resources in implementing
development programs and projects
□ By design, almost all city programs are implemented in
partnership with both GO, NGO sector
□ Complements City Hall’s limited resources. Doing more
with less
□ Illustrative examples:
□ Kaantabay sa Kauswagan – tripartism
□ Emergency Rescue Naga – pooling together of people,
equipment, facilities, other resources of local schools,
police and fire departments, amateur radio groups,
national and local health agencies
□ NEED and School Board education projects – city
government, DepEd, NACITEA, PTAs, barangays, other
stakeholders
 THE IMPERATIVES FOR

People participation
□ At the operational and practical level,
partnerships work best among organized
groups and institutions
□ Can exclude community at large
(particularly marginalized sectors and
individual citizens) reducing them to mere
spectators
□ Partnerships must be complemented by
mechanisms that mainstream the
marginalized, and actively engage them in
governance
 SHAPING, INSTITUTIONALIZING FUNCTIONAL

Participatory mechanisms
□ Continuing NGO accreditation
□ After the Code was passed, Naga was among the first
to implement the provision mandating NGO
accreditation.
□ During its first run in 1993, more than 40 applied
with the city council and were duly accredited.
□ Multi-level consultation
mechanisms
□ Under Naga SPEED component, multiple consultation
channels were set up
□ Specific sectors, groups, or the entire constituency
can participate in identifying and affirming
developmental priorities
 SHAPING, INSTITUTIONALIZING FUNCTIONAL

Participatory mechanisms
□ Referendum on development issues
□ On August 6, 1993, Naga pioneered the conduct of a
citywide referendum when three development issues were
submitted to Nagueños for decision
□ In the process, the city government demonstrated that
participation even at this scale works
□ The Empowerment Ordinance and the
Naga City People’s Council
□ Through a landmark legislation, the local government
initiated a system of partnership wherein it encouraged the
federation of NGOs and POs into the Naga City People’s
Council (NCPC)
□ Institutionalized a system of self-regulation among the rank
and file of NGOs and POs in the city
 FUNCTIONS OF THE

Naga City People’s Council

The council
□ appoints NGO representatives to local special
bodies of the City Government
□ observes, votes and participates in the
deliberation, conceptualization, implementation
and evaluation of projects, programs and
activities of the City Government
□ proposes legislation, participates and votes at
the committee level of the Sanggunian, and
□ acts as the people's representatives in the
exercise of their constitutional rights to
information
 2ND LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION: ENGAGING WITH INDIVIDUALS

The i-Governance Program

□ A program that identifies and uses
various tools to:
□ encourage participation in government
decision-making, especially by individual
citizens and households
□ concretize the governance principles of
transparency and accountability
□ Allows city government to meet the
challenge of sustaining innovative
approaches by:
□ Doing more with less
□ Improving and ensuring equitable service
delivery
 PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Delivery mechanisms
1. Analog or paper-
based tools. Addresses
need of around 67% of
population without ICT access
ƒ Performance Pledges
ƒ Citizens Board
ƒ Naga City Citizens
Charter
2. Digital or ICT
media (eGovernance)
ƒ naga.gov initiative,
through the city’s website
www.naga.gov.ph
3. Mobile Governance.
Uses cellphones which have
higher penetration rate than dial-
up internet. Around 67% of
households own a mobile phone.
ƒ TxtNaga
4. Network access
improvement. Addresses
digital divide through strategic IT
investments
ƒ Cyberschools (Click
Project)
ƒ Cyberbarangays
 City website
□ Maximizes web
technology
□ Within reach of local resources
and capability in a developing
country
□ Offers access to information on
Naga, including city government
financial reports
□ proposed and approved annual
operating budget
□ quarterly financial statements
□ bid tenders, and bidding
outcomes
□ Platform for communicating
requests and complaints in
cost-effective and efficient manner
□ Contains a digital version of
the Charter (called NetServe)
and the Citizens Board
 TxtServe Naga
A MOBILE GOVERNANCE ENGAGEMENT TOOL

□ Allows citizens to send

complaints, other
concerns to City Hall
through SMS or text
messaging
□ Previously uses Smart
Telecommunication’s 2960
facility
□ Reconfigured early this WHY IS D YOUTH CNTER\'S
year to meet local POOL W/C S SUPPOSD 2 B
needs more fully PUBLC POOL BEING CLOSED
□ Owned by city government, COZ PRIVATE SKOLS\' P.E.
instead of being Smart STUDENTS R USING D WHOLE
network dependent POOL EXCLUSIVELY? why?
 TxtServe Naga, Reloaded
i-GOV’S MOST PROMISING FRONTIER

□ TXTNAGA Hotline – a
locally managed and
controlled SMS messaging
system
Consists of
□ a PC
□ a GSM/GPRS modem
□ TXTNAGA hotline with ADVANTAGES:
Globe Telecoms □ Locally managed, customizable and
(0917-TXTNAGA or therefore more flexible, instead of being
0917-8986242), and network dependent
□ SMS applications □ More accessible to ordinary citizens.
developed by local Less than P1 per SMS sent vs. P2.50
under the 2960 service
programmers
□ More cost-effective in the long-run
 The Innovations paradox
A POLICY ISSUE IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE

□ “But if [innovation] sounds so simple,

why is it so difficult for institutions to
innovate?”
□ Peter Senge, senior lecturer at MIT, after listening to
Peter Drucker describe three elements of the
discipline of innovation in 1998
□ Philippine institutions also need to ask a
similar question – especially 15 years after
enactment of 1991 LGC
□ “In spite of the opportunities described above, why it
is difficult for innovative ideas and endeavors to be
scaled up and adopted by the mainstream?
 Opportunities

□ Policy environment
□ Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic
Act No. 7160) – local autonomy law adopted
decentralization as development strategy;
devolved powers, authority, resources and
accountability to local government units
□ Supreme Court rulings affirming local
autonomy – IRA impoundment (vs national
government), utilization of SEF (vs COA), etc
 Opportunities
□ LGU exemplars
□ Local authorities and communities that
continue to ‘push the envelope’ of
innovations in governance:
□ Naga, Cebu, Marikina, San Fernando, La Union
(cities);
□ Bulacan, Nueva Vizcaya, Oriental Negros, Bohol
(provinces);
□ Concepcion, Iloilo; Upi, Maguindanao; Irosin,
Sorsogon (municipalities)
□ Lahug, Cebu City; Calag-itan, Hinunangan, Leyte;
Tabuk, Mandaue City (barangays)
 Opportunities
□ Support systems
□ LGU awards programmes: Galing Pook,
Clean and Green, Most Competitive Cities etc
□ Grants, technical assistance
programmes:
□ WB’s Panibagong Paraan; AusAID, ADB, CIDA
programs for local development initiatives (foreign-
assisted)
□ Synergeia Foundation; Foundation for Worldwide
People Power; etc (local + foreign assisted)
□ Kilos Asenso (?) – proposed grants matching
program in 2006 GAA. Conceptually sound.
Implementation mechanism, implementors’
credibility are suspect
 Institutions and human
development
□ In Philippine context, 1987 Constitution
mandates local autonomy as state policy
□ Operationalized through Local Government
Code of 1991
□ Envisions partnership between national government,
LGUs (provinces, city/municipality and barangay), and
civil society organizations (CSOs) in promoting
development in local communities
□ 15 years later, there is need to assess impact
of these institutions in enlarging people’s
choices in the context of decentralization
strategy
 Three propositions for
investigation
□ Based on “Declaration of Policy”
(Section 2, RA 7160)
□ Responsive and accountable local
government structure (Sec. 2a)
□ Exacting public accountability (Sec.
2b)
□ Building stakeholdership (Sec. 2c)
 Responsive and
accountable govt structure
□ Section 2a - development of self-reliant
communities that will be more effective
partners of the national government as end-goal
of local autonomy
□ Broadly, how strong or weak are the institutions
involved in the decentralization process?
□ More specifically
□ How self-reliant are the communities that we have today?
□ How autonomous are the local government units
(provincial, city/municipal, and barangays) that are
supposed to facilitate the development of self-reliant
communities?
□ To what extent has the national government decentralized
power, authority, responsibilities and resources to bring
about genuine local autonomy under the LGC? And how
were these carried out by national agencies at the regional
level?
 My sense
□ Decentralization flattened government structure
from vertical top-down orientation towards
broad-based horizontal one
□ Contributes to tremendous resiliency of the Philippines
□ There are less self-reliant communities
□ But self reliance should be measured in terms of
outcomes, not just IRA dependency
□ Lack of focus, weak policy support at national
level. National government still competes with
LGUs in service delivery
□ National agencies should focus on quality assurance
□ Impels need for best practice-driven policymaking
 Exacting public accountability
□ Section 2(b) - mechanisms of exacting
accountability from local governments
□ Operative principles behind public accountability
are information openness and transparency. The
LGC requires this of all LGUs
□ Broadly, how open and transparent are the institutions
involved in the decentralization process—from national,
regional, provincial, city, municipal to barangay levels?
□ Are their annual budgets and performance reports readily
accessible to the public?
□ How many NGOs and civil society organizations have been
accredited by the LGUs? How many of these sit in the
local special bodies? More importantly, how are these
NGO representatives selected?
□ To what extent has the national government promoted
transparency and good governance among LGUs?
 Building stakeholdership
□ Section 2(c) - more about citizen
empowerment, which is at the heart of human
development
□ Stakeholder participation a key to better
services and more effective programs and
projects. Ensures success and sustainability
□ Most development outcomes today are in spite
of, not direct consequence of institutions
working together in Philippine governance
□ They can be much better if HD interventions are
planned and integrated with active
participation of stakeholders at all levels of
government
 Building stakeholdership
□ There is need to look closer at the entire
governance machinery (from planning to
monitoring and evaluation) in ensuring that
public investments on HD matter
□ To what extent do stakeholders participate in
governance processes at the local (barangay,
city/municipality, provincial), regional and national
levels?
□ Is their participation limited only to planning?
implementation? monitoring and evaluation?
□ To what extent are these plans implemented?
□ What mechanisms have been used to regular report
progress of implementation to stakeholders? Are these
reporting mechanisms effective?
 What needs to be done
□ Human development indicators to become
primary outcome-oriented public
accountability measure
□ Implications:
□ We should not stop at measuring HDI and its related
indicators merely for its sake; rather, we should
promote and mainstream it as a tool to exact public
accountability.
□ This will require thrusting HDI into the political realm:
□ as part of the political discourse
□ as primary issue over which citizens judge their leaders
during elections
 What needs to be done
□ “Best practices” driven policy
making
□ Next logical step to local awards
programmes and ongoing efforts to
replicate best practices over the last
15 years
□ We should set the bar higher for local
governments. If not now, when?
 What needs to be done
□ Link innovation by local authorities to
public accountability
□ According to Drucker, the discipline of
innovation has 3 elements: (1) focus on
mission, (2) define significant results, and
(3) do rigorous assessment
□ Rigorous assessment requires abandoning
what doesn’t work after assessing results
□ In the Philippines, it should include ditching
political leaders who are not able to deliver
results
 What needs to be done
□ Promote and enforce information
openness as fundamental public
policy
□ In Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory
□ Free flow of information is paramount
□ Opinion leaders exert strong influence in the
process, and
□ Change agents/gate keepers also play a key role
□ Under “information openness” regime
□ National leaders become lead change agents
by setting the primary example of transparency
and accountability
□ The role of gatekeepers is minimized