Village-level governance

IT seems that old habits really die hard, because up to now, even Cabinet members are referring to Barangay Chairmen as “Barangay Captains”. It may just be a slip of the tongue or a Freudian slip on their part, but it just goes to show how much they do not understand the Local Government Code (LGC) or how much they care for village level governance. If you ask me, “Barangay Captain” is actually the more apropos term for the village head, because of the legal fiction that the present day Philippine village is named after the “Balanghais”, the ancient boats that were found in Butuan City. In that sense, the village head could be likened to a “ship captain”, but that is moot and academic now, because the LGC is now officially using the title “Barangay Chairman”.

In theory, the Barangay could now be considered as a virtual corporation, and it could actually be managed and operated as public corporation for all intents and purposes. Part of the theory is that all registered voters who are residing in the Barangay are actually the stockholders or shareholders of the corporation. Pursuing further this argument, the Barangay Assembly is actually the equivalent of the Stockholders Meeting where everyone could vote. The one difference between the meetings of the private corporation and the meetings of the Barangay Assembly is that proxy voting is not yet allowed in the latter. The other difference is that private corporations would only hold stockholders meetings once a year, whereas Barangay Assemblies are supposed to be held at least once a year.

Again pursuing further this argument, the Barangay Council (BC) is actually the equivalent of the Board of Directors of a private corporation, being the policy making body in both cases. That being the case, the Barangay Assembly (BA) actually has more authority than the Barangay Council, meaning that the former could actually overrule the latter. As it is now in the private sector, there are already oversight committees that are chaired by individual board members, assigned to oversee specific functions. That is also the case now in the Barangay Councils, wherein individual council members are also the heads of oversight committees that oversee specific functions.

According to the LGC, there is supposed to be a Barangay Development Council (BDC) that is also chaired by the Barangay Chairman, but has a broader scope of membership that should include representatives of non-government organizations (NGOs) that are operating within the barangays. Looking at this from a broader perspective, the BDC is actually part of taller ladder that also includes the Municipal Development Council (MDC), the Provincial Development Council (PDC) and the Regional Development Council (RDC). As it is supposed to be, all problems and concerns that could not be addressed at the BDC are supposed to be elevated to the MDC and if necessary, it could be elevated further to the PDC and RDC.

In a manner of speaking, it could be said that the barangay government takes on a parliamentary form, because the council members who have legislative functions also have executive functions as heads of oversight committees. Since it is very clear that the BC is the policy making body of the barangay, it would perhaps be a good idea to consider the BDC as the program planning body, in which case project development, the only lacking component could be handled by the organic employees of the barangay government. This idea is based on the present practice of the national government to develop projects based on program plans that are in turn based on policies that are made at the higher levels.

Policy making, program planning and project development should be a complete supply chain that should be implemented at the barangay level. Nothing will work if one part of the chain is broken or missing. As it is now, there are many programs at the barangay level that are not based on policies, and there are many projects that are not based on programs. These wrong practices have to be stopped; otherwise, village level governance will never improve. Looking at the present situation, it seems that the obvious broken or missing link is program planning, because in most parts of the country, the BDCs are not active. Much worse than that, the BDCs do not exist at all.

As the saying goes, “you get what you pay”. That is the same as saying that if the people will choose not to participate in village governance, they should not expect to get good governance at all. As another saying goes, “there ought to be a law”, but in this case, since there is already a law, we should just say “there ought to be participation” in village governance. As provided for in the law, the people could directly participate in village governance through the BA, and could indirectly participate through the BDC, by way of the NGOs. These are already sufficient means for the people to participate, even if they could not attend the meetings of the BC as voting members. Never mind that, because if they would not agree with any policy that the BC passes, they could always campaign to have that repealed or overruled by the BA.

It should not worry the people that they could not directly participate in the BC, because there is a way of going around that. As it is supposed to be, the BDC is supposed to create functional committees, perhaps by way of Technical Working Groups (TWGs), and anyone in the barangay could be part of these TWGs for as long as they are a member of any NGO. According to the LGC, at least one fourth of the BDC members should come from the NGOs. That said, there should be enough people from the NGOs who could actively participate in the TWGs. For some reason, the LGC did not specify the functions that should be formed into committees, but that should be seen more as an opportunity rather than as a problem.

In the absence of any other reference, I created a development framework that includes six functions that were derived from the Human Development Index (HDI) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The six functions are justice, education, wellness, employment, livelihood and safety, or Jewels for short. By my own design, I made sure that the Jewels framework could be delivered online. Since it is online, it could also be supported by four software services namely Geographic Information Systems, Electronic Commerce Systems, Mobile Applications and Social Networking Sites or Gems for short. For purposes of easy recall, we could refer to these two “treasures” as Gems and Jewels.

E-mail: bantaygobyerno-subscribe@yahoogroups.com