Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:16:37.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Origins of Philippine Centralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

M. Ladd Thomas
Get access

Extract

In the Philippines a qualified system of centralism prevails today whereby most formal and all real power resides at the national level of government, though local units possess. some attributes of autonomy. Some local officials are elected but others are appointed by, and responsible to, the central government. Moreover it directs most local services and tightly controls local finances. Any explanation of this system must he sought on more than constitutional grounds. It becomes essential to examine the theory and practice of previous periods as regards central-local relations – for the interaction of these beliefs and practices are the historical antecedents of, and helped shape, this system.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 1963 , pp. 73 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Taft, William H. and Dickinson, J.H., Special Reports on the Philippines (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919), p.23.Google Scholar

2. Romani, John H. and Thomas, M. Ladd, A Survey of Local Government in the Philippines (Manila: Institute of Public Administration, University of the Philippines, 1954), pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., p.41

4. Ibid., pp.41–42.

5. See Report of the Philippine Commission to the President (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), Vol.1, pp.44–49.Google Scholar

6. The first Philippine Commission investigated conditions in the Philippines shortly after the United States acquired the islands, then returned to the United States and made a report to the President containing several recommendations.

7. “… [The Commission] should in general he enjoined … to devote their attention in the first instance to the establishment of municipal governments in which the natives of the Islands, both in the cities and the rural communities, shall be afforded the opportunity to manage their own local affairs to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and subject to the least degree of supervision and control which a careful study of their capacities and observations of the workings of native control show to be consistent with the maintenance of law, order … The next subject in order of importance should be the organization of government in the larger administrative divisions, corresponding to countries, departments, or provinces, in which the common interests of many or several municipalities falling within the same tribal lines, or the same natural geographic limits, may best be subserved by a common administration. In the distribution of powers among the governments organized by the Commission, the presumption is always to he in favor of the smaller subdivision, so that all the powers which can properly be exercised by the municipal government shall be vested in that government, and all the powers of a more general character which can be exercised by the departmental government shall be vested in that government, and so that in the governmental system, which is the result of the process, the central government of the Islands, following the example of the distribution of the powers between the states and the national government of the United States, shall have no direct administration except in matters of purely general concern, and shall have only such supervision and control over local governments as may be necessary to secure and enforce faithful and efficient administration by local officers …In all cases the municipal officers who administer the local affairs of the people, are to be selected by the people, and that wherever officers of more extended jurisdiction are to be selected in any way, natives of the Islands are to be preferred, and if they can be found competent and willing to perform the duties they are to receive the offices in preference to any others.” See “President McKinley's Instruction to the Philippine Commission,” Reports of the Philippine Commission, the Civil Governor & the Heads of Executive Departments, 1900–1903 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), p.5.

8. U.S. Congress, Senate, The Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Doc. No.208 (Washington, 1900), pp.82–83.

9. Also a majority of Filipinos were appointed to the Philippine Commission, and this meant the complete Filipinization of the legislative branch – for the lower house, the Philippine Assembly, was already popularly elected.

10. In 1916 both the Municipal and Provincial Codes, with some amendments, were imbedded in the Administrative Code.

11. Hayden, Joseph Ralston, The Philippines, A Study in National Development (New York: the Macmillan Company 1942), p.265.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., p.271; also see Romani, and Thomas, , op.cit., p.44.Google Scholar

13. Hayden, , op.cit., pp.272–274.Google Scholar

14. For instance see Taft, and Dickinson, , op.cit., p.34Google Scholar. They reported that “… sanitary measures cannot be safely entrusted to municipal authorities for enforcement when emergencies arise, but that some local agency of the central government muet be created for that purpose.”

15. Hayden, , op.cit., pp.306–307.Google Scholar

16. Report of the Committee on Provincial and Municipal Government (Manila: Constitutional Convention. 1935).

17. Constitution of the Philippines, Article 7, Sec.10 (1).

18. Messages of the President (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1936), Vol.3, Part 1, pp.115–120.

19. Hayden, , op.cit., p.305.Google Scholar

20. For the best available analysis of these decisions see Mariano, Leonardo C., “The Supreme Court and Local Autonomy,” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol.2, No.1, pp.46–48.Google Scholar

21. 65 Phil. 341 (1937

22. 67 Phil. (1939) and 67 Phil. 451 (1939).

23. Constitution of the Philippines, Article 7, Sec.10 (1).

24. Later decisions such as Juan de G. Rodriguez, et al. v. Aurelio Montinola, et al. and Jose Mondano v. Fernando Salvoso have whittled away at this concept until it now is only a shadow of its former content.

25. Hayden, , op.cit., p.311.Google Scholar

26. This reasoning was expressed in A Speech by President Quezon Before a Conference of Municipal Mayors of Tarlac and Pampanga (Typewritten; Manila: Department of Interior, June 1, 9138).

27. It recommended that municipalities and provinces he given additional powers and authority. See the Report of the Special Local Government Reform Commission (Manila: Bureau of Printing, 1947).

28. Republic Act No. 1205, April 20, 1955.

29. Republic Act No. 1062 and Republic Act No. 1063, June 12, 1954.

30. Republic Act No. 1245, June 10, 1955.

31. An excellent discussion of these bills and the factors responsible for their defeat in Congress can be found in Buenaventura M. Villanueva, “To Govern or Not to Govern: A Case Study,” Philippine Journal of Public Administration. Vol.3, No.1, pp.24–38.

32. This admission was made by President Magsaysay in a personal interview with the author on July 8, 1954.

33. Republic Act No.2370, June 20, 1959.

34. Republic Act No. 2343, June 20, 1959.