Revisiting local development councils

BANTAY GOBYERNO

Ike Señeres

The Local Government Code (LGC) provides for the creation of a Local Development Council (LDC) at every level of local governance, from the barangay level all the way up to the regional level. Their names change at each level, for example there are Barangay Development Councils (BDCs), Municipal Development Councils (MDCs), Provincial Development Councils (PDCs) and Regional Development Councils (RDCs).

In this connection, I maintain that towns and cities should both be considered as municipalities, meaning that their local councils could both be called MDCs. What I mean here is that some towns may become cities, but technically they should still be considered as municipalities in the context of the LDC framework.

Since the functions of the LDCs are basically the same at all levels, allow me to analyze the conduct of the MDCs to be able to point out some problems and opportunities in terms of their relationships with the elected officials at their level of governance.

According to the law, certain non-government organizations (NGOs) are supposed to become members of the MDCs. Aside from that however; certain sectors are entitled to name their ex-officio representatives to the Sangguniang Bayan (SB). In effect the SB is functioning as the Municipal Council. In other words, what actually happens is that the same sectors that are already represented in the MDCs by way of their NGOs are also represented in the SBs.

According to the LGC, the Liga ng mga Barangay, the Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) and the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are entitled to have seats as ex-officio representatives to the SB. In effect, both the youth sector and the indigenous sector have the dual opportunity to be represented in both at the MDCs and the SBs. Also according to the LGC however, three other ex-officio representatives could be named to represent the women sector, the labor sector and any other sector such as the urban poor, indigenous cultural communities and disabled persons or any other sector that may be identified by the SBs.

What that means is that these other sectors also have the dual opportunity to be represented in both at the MDCs and the SBs. While this dual representations may not be a problem by itself, there could be problems in the selection of people, which could be subject to political biases.

 The term “indigenous cultural communities” is not very clear, because it could possibly mean local communities that are not necessarily IPs nor are they necessarily tribal. As defined in the Indigenous Peoples Republic Act (IPRA), some Islamized tribes are no longer covered by the jurisdiction of the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

The problem is, only the NCIP has the authority to certify which communities could be considered as IPs and which ones could not be. As it could possibly happen, some communities may claim ex-officio seats in the SB, even if they are not certified as genuine IPs. As it usually happens, there are always disabled persons in all communities, but it does not always happen that there are indigenous peoples. That being the case, how could the SBs favor one sector over the other?

 The term “urban poor” is also not clear, but in the absence of an official definition, I now propose that it should refer to any community of informal settlers within the urban areas of any town or city. The legal fiction that should be followed is that they are informal settlers because they could not afford to buy or lease their own land, therefore they are poor.

The bottom line here is that the urban poor communities should be organized, and they should have an association that should be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and accredited by the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). Same goes for the disabled persons or the People with Disabilities (PWDs), they should also have associations that are registered with the SEC and accredited by the National Council for Disability Affairs (NCDA).

Just for the sake of argument, we could say that the MDCs are the advisory councils specifically for all matters pertaining to local development planning, while the SBs are the policy making councils generally for all matters pertaining to local lawmaking.

In reality however, the presence of special representatives in the SB either duplicates what the MDC does, or supplements it, depending on who is looking. However, since there is a thin line between development and lawmaking, duplication almost always happens. In order to differentiate the functions of these two bodies, it may be a good idea to assign long term planning to the MDCs, and assign short term policy making to the SBs.

As the law prescribes, the women sector are automatically represented in ex-officio capacities, but the other three sectors namely the urban poor, the indigenous cultural communities and the disabled persons still have to compete for the last remaining slot. Since the indigenous cultural communities could be considered as one and the same as the IPs that leaves only the urban poor sector and the disabled persons sector to choose from. Instead of depriving or the other however, it may be wiser to just add one more slot, so that both these sectors could be represented. For best results, it may be best for all these sector representatives to be elected from among their own ranks.Email bantaygobyerno-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text +639369198429