Every proposed revision/amendment of the Constitution (House proposal, Abueva’s Concom, Senate resolution 10, even Sigaw ng Bayan’s) I found incorporated local autonomy in the final product. (Though with some less eloquent than others)

Mindanaoan’s states are autonomous. Yours, obviously, is not.

Where did you get that idea?

If you are concerned with the issue of State Constitutions having to conform within limitations of a Federal Charter; you are going to have to provide an example of one that doesn’t have to even though the Federal Charter says that it does .

Like say the Federal Constitution states that the right of citizens of Graymalkin to vote shall not be denied or abridged by Graymalkin or by any state on account of sex. And the proof of autonomy of States is that they can defy this provision? Is that what you mean?

Your refer to specific proposals, but, how far will it go in the hands of con-con delegates who are in no way bound by any?

Every proposed revision/amendment of the Constitution (House proposal, Abueva’s Concom, Senate resolution 10, even Sigaw ng Bayan’s) I found incorporated local autonomy. (Though with some less eloquent than others)

A Concon will likely follow suit.

But the fact of the matter is; you are the one who said my question was misleading.

In relation to your issue; I had basis for that kind of question and that basis is the House proposed amendments, and no amount of your spin is going to neutralize that basis.

If you can lose, you will!

Why take the risk of losing what you already have when you don’t have to? I’m sorry, but, didn’t this question come from you? Or should!

You seem to be forgetting my post on Dec. 17, 10:46 pm wherein I stated;

“ And that cause happens to be that we don’t need Charter change to have a decentralized and empowered local government as what federalists want.”

And when I said that we don”t need Charter Change regarding this issue, it meant we don’t need to Federalize.

You seem to be spinning out of control.

You should know when to leave well enough alone.

Otherwise this is going to be the wrong fight at the wrong time.

Mindanaoan’s states are autonomous. Yours, obviously, is not. Your refer to specific proposals, but, how far will it go in the hands of con-con delegates who are in no way bound by any? .

“Federalization would not negate local autonomy unless of course they re-write the local government article and state policy again and remove those provisions.” If you can lose, you will!

Why take the risk of losing what you already have when you don’t have to? I’m sorry, but, didn’t this question come from you? Or should!

justice league, taxj, i’m sorry i have to leave the discussion. i’m out of town, can’t sit down much. nice talking to you

No problem though It would probably take you only a couple of minutes to read the latest replies.

But like I stated; I believe our issue is done.

I believe your concerns have been addressed. You can always resurrect it if you have concerns when you come back whether in this thread or in a future one.

I was actually hoping you would not have dragged me back.

I didn’t want to have to counter and water down whatever arguments you have already put forth.

But if we were to base it on the House proposed amendments; I believe local autonomy of provinces and even 2 regions down to the barangay would still be assured in a federal government because the Charter still says it so even though the manner of federalization would still have to be worked out.

As based on the House proposed amendments; Federalization would not negate local autonomy unless of course they re-write the local government article and state policy again and remove those provisions.

Even state Constitutions still have to follow the Mother Charter.

Sorry but cheers.

I’m really sorry about that dig. I just fancied saying it, but pressed the post key before I could edit. You don’t deserve such unwarranted arrogance considering that I learned so much from you. For instance, I realized from your comments that with federalism our lgu’s stand to lose the measure of autonomy they now enjoy.

justice league,

Your latest post should give lg officials an idea of how much they would be losing if we adopt federalism. I suppose that because of his silence on this issue, he has realized by now that federalism does not guarantee local autonomy, and that we can have federalism without local autonomy, but we can have local autonomy without federalism.

justice league: Would you care to prove that we can’t achieve self-reliance of local government and decentralization UNLESS we revise the Constitution for a federal set-up?

taxj: This question is rather misleading. It assumes that self-reliance of local governments is a feature of federalism. It is not. Actually, we stand to lose, not enhance, our gains at local autonomy if we federalize. A federal constitution grants autonomy only to states. It will be up to states to determine the degree of local autonomy they are willing to give. This will be decided upon when the state constitutions are drafted.

If the crafting of a constitution is a whammy, federalism is not just adouble or triple whammy because federalism may produce more Constitutions than there are states.

how do you enforce responsibility? by putting controls on the source of funds, right?

YES!!!

AND THOSE CONTROLS ARE EMBODIED IN BOTH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE!

Controls that must be followed.

right? which means, still looking up to manila.

WRONG!!!

so much for decentralization.

As based on the provisions of the Charter and the LGC; ABSOLUTELY so much for decentralization!

A proposal is that the IRA be increased and that can only be done by amending the LGC.

The increase in the IRA then has the power of the law.

And the power of that law has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Presidency (executive department) previously sought to impose restrictions on the IRA of local government units.

On several occasions, THE PRESIDENCY LOST!

G.R. No. 152774 May 2004

THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS vs. HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Executive Secretary and Chairman of the Oversight Committee on Devolution; HON. EMILIA BONCODIN, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR., Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government,

- Section 4 of AO 372 cannot, however, be upheld. A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the National internal revenue. This is mandated by no less than the Constitution. The Local Government Code specifies further that the release shall be made directly to the LGU concerned within five (5) days after every quarter of the year and “shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose.” As a rule, the term “SHALL” is a word of command that must be given a compulsory meaning. The provision is, therefore, IMPERATIVE.

-Significantly, the LGSEF could not be released to the LGUs without the Oversight Committee’s prior approval. ………………………………………………

To the Court’s mind, the entire process involving the distribution and release of the LGSEF is constitutionally impermissible .

Indeed, the Oversight Committee exercising discretion, even control, over the distribution and release of a portion of the IRA, the LGSEF, is an anathema to and subversive of the principle of local autonomy as embodied in the Constitution. Moreover, it finds no statutory basis at all as the Oversight Committee was created merely to formulate the rules and regulations for the efficient and effective implementation of the Local Government Code of 1991 to ensure “compliance with the principles of local autonomy as defined under the Constitution.”

- That the automatic release of the IRA was precisely intended to guarantee and promote local autonomy can be gleaned from the discussion below between Messrs. Jose N. Nolledo and Regalado M. Maambong, then members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, to wit:

MR. MAAMBONG. Unfortunately, under Section 198 of the Local Government Code, the existence of subprovinces is still acknowledged by the law, but the statement of the Gentleman on this point will have to be taken up probably by the Committee on Legislation. A second point, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that under Article 2, Section 10 of the 1973 Constitution, we have a provision which states:
The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio, to insure their fullest development as self-reliant communities.

This provision no longer appears in the present configuration; does this mean that the concept of giving local autonomy to local governments is no longer adopted as far as this Article is concerned?

MR. NOLLEDO. No. In the report of the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles, that concept is included and widened upon the initiative of Commissioner Bennagen.

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you for that.

With regard to Section 6, sources of revenue, the creation of sources as provided by previous law was “subject to limitations as may be provided by law,” but now, we are using the term “subject to such guidelines as may be fixed by law.” In Section 7, mention is made about the “unique, distinct and exclusive charges and contributions,” and in Section 8, we talk about “exclusivity of local taxes and the share in the national wealth.” Incidentally, I was one of the authors of this provision, and I am very thankful. Does this indicate local autonomy, or was the wording of the law changed to give more autonomy to the local government units?31

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. In effect, those words indicate also “decentralization” because local political units can collect taxes, fees and charges subject merely to guidelines, as recommended by the league of governors and city mayors, with whom I had a dialogue for almost two hours. They told me that limitations may be questionable in the sense that Congress may limit and in effect deny the right later on.

MR. MAAMBONG. Also, this provision on “automatic release of national tax share” points to more local autonomy. Is this the intention?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, the Commissioner is perfectly right.32

-The concept of local autonomy was explained in Ganzon v. Court of Appeals33 in this wise:

As the Constitution itself declares, local autonomy ‘means a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization.’ The Constitution, as we observed, does nothing more than to break up the monopoly of the national government over the affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents, to “liberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila.”

-Local autonomy includes both administrative and fiscal autonomy. The fairly recent case of Pimentel v. Aguirre 35 is particularly instructive.

The Court declared therein that local fiscal autonomy includes the power of the LGUs to, inter alia, allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities:

Under existing law, local government units, in addition to having administrative autonomy in the exercise of their functions, enjoy fiscal autonomy as well. Fiscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the national government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. It extends to the preparation of their budgets, and local officials in turn have to work within the constraints thereof. They are not formulated at the national level and imposed on local governments, whether they are relevant to local needs and resources or not.

- Indeed, the value of local governments as institutions of democracy is measured by the degree of autonomy that they enjoy.

- Our national officials should not only comply with the constitutional provisions on local autonomy but should also appreciate the spirit and liberty upon which these provisions are based.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

//www.yehey.com/news/print.aspx?id=115502

Give local govts their money

- The Court ruling stemmed from a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus that Mandanas had filed in May 2004 when he was Batangas governor. The decision is final and executory.

- In a ruling in Aquilino Pimentel Jr. v. Hon. Alexander Aguirre and Emilia Boncodin on July 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declared that the President could not withhold the IRA.

- Since the decentralization of the central government and the devolution of its functions, local governments have been saddled with increased responsibilities that require additional funds. They are therefore empowered to create their own source of revenues and given the right to receive the IRA and an equitable share from the national wealth within their boundaries.

-The Mandanas resolution on the release of the IRAs to local governments must proceed without delay and without conditions. It’s a matter of right and justice, not presidential prerogative.

Interesting, for someone who likes to proclaim support for “Federalism”, PGMA sure likes to tread waters on issues on the IRA that have already been ruled against such!

Would you care to prove that we can’t achieve self-reliance of local government and decentralization UNLESS we revise the Constitution for a federal set-up?- justice league

again, if you mean lgu’s, no need for revision. we don’t even need to go federal for that.

Very well.

We have previously discussed in long dead threads issues like “who is in charge of the welfare of Ilocandia as a whole”.

You and taxj seem to have some unsettled business.

But since you accept that we need not go federal to achieve autonomy, self-reliance, and decentralization for LGUs (ARMM, CAR, Provinces, Cities, Municipalities, Barrios, Barangay, etc….);

I believe our issue is DONE!

With too much funding, nfa has ceased to function as a hedge against the impact of any food shortage. Instead it has assured us of permanent ones. I did not say anything about abolishing the nfa. But I think it’s not a bad idea. With such an agency around, we can never attain a no-shortage level.

Your question is, What is the general principle why you think giving much of the budget to lgu’s is a good idea, given we have a unitary form of government? This implies that it’s not a good idea to give much of the budget to lgu’s in a unitary system. Right? Where does earning and receiving come in here? Don’t you understand your own question?

“No shortage, no need for it.”

not exactly. food shortage is not its only lookout. and even then, it still should be “no probability of shortage”. but then again, you should listen to yourself. we should attain a no-shortage level first before we contemplate abolishing the nfa!

“Your blabber … is off-tanget.”

you said to replace lgu’s with states in my question. i said you cannot do that because they are not the same. states earn, lgu’s just receive. the question cannot happen in a federal set-up. that’s off-tangent?