Metropolitan Arrangements - Philippine Institute for Development ...

270 ManagingUrbanizationUnder a DecentralizedGovernanceFramework
_s_s_essme nt
League (1993) noted that because of the unique situation
brought about by the appointment of the First Lady as Governor of
Metro Manila while being the head of the powerful Ministry of Human
Settlements (MHS), the MMC enjoyed a position of primacy in the
metropolis. While no formal evaluation of the performance
effectiveness has been undertaken, there is some agreement that the
MMC was effective in more ways than one (League 1993; HUDCC
and LOGODEF 1995). For instance, the squatter problem was
reportedly better controlled; traffic and public transport were better
managed; the environment was cleaner and greener. Moreover, the
MMC was able to generate strict compliance from LGUs with respect
to the remittance of their mandated contributions. The MMC was
able to prepare the first metropolitan land use and zoning plan which
was enforced through a zoning ordinance. Much of this success was
dependent of the personality/individuality of the First Lady who was
able to generate the greater support and cooperation of LGUs and
national government agencies than would have been possible if any
other person were appointed Governor (HUDCC and LOGODEF
1995).
In spite of the MMC's enormous power and influence, it did
not evolve into a real metropolitan institution. The MMC actually
performed a rather limited range of normal metropolitan services.
For most services, it was unduly dependent on national government
agencies.
Table 7 shows that in 1988-1989 the MMC spent 84.3 percent of
its budget on operations. In turn, 91.9 percent of this amount was
expended on solid waste management. On the other hand, Table 8
documents MMC's reliance on central government agencies. In 1988-
1989, MMC's expenditures accounted for a low 7.5 percent of total
general government expenditures in Metro Manila,. The bulk (62.2
percent) of total general government expenditures in the region was
expended by central government agencies. In comparison, member-
LGUs contributed a sizable portion (30.3 percent) of total general
government expenditures. The latter were allocated largely to local
concerns.