MATRIX MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNANCE

With all due respects to Sen. Nene Pimentel who authored the Local Government Code (LGC), I think that for coordination and integration purposes, it is still more practical to place all cities and towns under the jurisdiction and supervision of provincial governments. I also think that because of the LGC, the usefulness and effectiveness of the provincial governments have been greatly reduced, so much so that the funds and resources that are allocated for them are practically being wasted now.
**
As I see it now, it would do our country a lot of good if the national, provincial and municipal levels are each given their specific roles to play in a well organized matrix management system. Before I proceed with this discussion, I would like to clarify that I am not using the term “municipal” in a derogatory sense. In my mind, “municipal” is the practical term to use in referring to the local level, and my thinking is supported by the fact that people would still refer to the local seat of government as the “municipio”, regardless of whether the jurisdiction is a town or city.
**
In the matrix management system that I am proposing, the national level would be responsible for policies, the provincial level for programs, and the local level for projects. As I earlier indicated, this system would only work if the provincial governments are given back the authority and supervision over the local government units (LGUs) under their respective geographic jurisdictions. In practical and real terms, the geographic locations of the LGUs have a direct bearing on their day to day operations, even if some of them are no longer under the supervision of the provincial governments, in the case of the chartered cities.
**
To illustrate my point about matrix management, let us take the case of the so called “national” roads, as opposed to the so called “local” roads. From the perspective of ordinary citizens and taxpayers, a road is a road and they could not care less who owns it or who funds it. What they care about is that the roads are well maintained. Looking closer at this issue, the national government should just be responsible for policy setting (budgetary allocations being part of policy). Down the line, the provincial governments should be responsible for program management (seeing to it that road building programs are implemented). Finally at the bottom line, the LGUs should be responsible for project execution. Under this arrangement, it will not matter anymore whether the roads are nationally funded, for as long as these are all locally functional, based on accepted sets of standards.
**
To use another example, let us look at the case of the government hospitals, many of which were supposedly “devolved” already to the LGUs. Due to the fact that many of these hospitals have closed down due to the inability of the LGUs to operate them, there is now a trend wherein the Department of Health (DOH) has started taking them over, a behavior that could be termed perhaps as “reverse devolution”. In reality, the bottom line of this issue is that these “reversed” hospitals are still locally owned, even if they are now practically nationally funded again. In my opinion, the more practical approach to this problem is for these hospitals to be locally owned and operated, even if they are nationally funded.
**
Using the example of the roads and the hospitals, the matrix management system would work well if the provincial governments could be given oversight powers over all the towns and cities within their jurisdictions. As an extra layer of assurance however, I think that it would also do our country a lot of good if sectoral participation would be enhanced at the municipal level, supplementing the geographic set-up that now exists. In order for this extra layer to work however, it would be good if the participation of the sectors are coordinated and integrated at the provincial levels.
**
According to the law, the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is only a policy making and coordinating agency for development purposes. No matter what the MMDA does or says, the real authority over their respective jurisdictions is still with the respective towns and cities within the metropolis. In reality, the Chairman of the MMDA is really just an executive officer who should follow the policies set by the mayors who compose the Board of the MMDA. As it is now, we see the reverse happening, as the MMDA is behaving as if it is a “province” with uncertain powers over the metropolitan towns and cities. I think that the root of this problem is the fact that the Chairman is apparently moving independently on his own, without regard for the metro wide coordination and integration that should happen.