Chapter 038: "GOOD GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION AT THE LGU LEVEL:  THE CASES OF MARIKINA CITY AND SAN JUAN CITY" by Prof. Toti Dulay

GOOD GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION AT THE LGU LEVEL:

THE CASES OF MARIKINA CITY AND SAN JUAN CITY

A DISSERTATION PROPOSAL

SUBMITTED TO

THE NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

AND GOVERNANCE

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

SUBMITTED BY

SOFRONIO DULAY

OCTOBER 1, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

      Chapter                                                                                                                Page

            I           Introduction    .           .           .           .           .           .           .           .  1

                                    Background of the Study       .           .           .           .           .  1

                                    Statement of the Problem       .           .           .           .           .11

                                    Objectives       .           .           .           .           .           .           .14

                                    Significance of the Study       .           .           .           .           .15

                                    Scope and Delimitations         .           .           .           .           .16

          II           Review of Related Literature and Studies     .           .           .           .17

         III           Conceptual Framework           .           .           .           .           .           .35

         IV           Methodology  .           .           .           .           .           .           .           .48

                        Bibliography   .           .           .           .           .           .           .           .55

                        Appendix 1.  Checklist of Indicators .           .           .                       .62

                        Appendix 2.  LGU Awardees of the Galing Pook Awards

                                              (1994-2009)      .           .           .           .           .           .65

                        Appendix 3.  The Awards of Marikina City under Mayor

                                              Bayani Fernando (1992-2001)  .           .           .           .68

                        Appendix 4.  Questionnaire (for the city mayor)        .           .           .70

LIST OF TABLES

  No.                                      Table Title                                                                     Page

Table 1.        

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.                         Figure Title                                                                    Page

Figure 1.        

  GOOD GOVERNANCE AND INNOVATION AT THE LGU LEVEL:

THE CASES OF MARIKINA CITY AND SAN JUAN CITY

CHAPTER 1.  INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study:  A Tale of Two Cities

            Marikina City and San Juan City, two cities out of the 17 cities that compose Metro Manila or the National Capital Region (NCR), have carved out a string of distinct recognitions as city local government units in the Philippines worth emulating by other cities and other local government units (LGUs) in the country.  Both have earned various awards for implementing successful programs and projects that made them models of what LGUs and their chief executives should be doing.  In the development phrase that now animates international donor agencies and their recipient countries, these two cities are models of good governance.

            Marikina was only a municipality of Metro Manila when it started to take notice, under the able leadership of former mayor Bayani Fernando.  His election in June 1992 gave Marikina the badly-needed turnaround.  In his own words,

            “Marikina . . .was murky, sinking and full of debris that clogged its flow; its

             banks teemed with squatter shanties; uncollected garbage, streets

             synonymous to anarchy; chaotic public markets that offers smell; vendors,

             hawkers, illegally parked vehicles, garbage cans and other obstructions

             dominated the sidewalk and forced pedestrians to walk on the streets

             adding woes to the already dreadful traffic situation; third class municipal-

             ity with unsafe and unsanitary surroundings” (Dannug & Campanilla, 2003:

             95). 

Bayani Fernando’s efforts as mayor had much impact.  From Marikina’s previous lowly reputation, it became

            “…very organized;  well accomplished city since it was physically rehabi-

              litated, reformed, and spiritually invigorated; a realization of a friendly,

              happy working class community; industrial peace characterized by zero

              strike; growth in all facets of life; a sense of community among the people;

              and marked improvement in education, environment, infrastructure, peace

              and order, business and industry…” (Dannug & Campanilla, 2003: 95).

            Most important change of all was that only four years into his nine-year mayorship, Bayani Fernando’s achievements paved the way for the old municipality of Marikina to become a city.  On December 8, 1996, by virtue of Republic Act 8223, Marikina converted to the status of a highly urbanized city – a quantum leap to what it had been for long in its history, as a pueblo in Spanish times, to a town in the American period, and a municipality under the Metropolitan Manila Authority. 

            The development advance of Marikina City has been short of phenomenal.  In terms of awards it received from award-giving institutions and bodies, Marikina received

the following:

1994:   Best Local Government Unit in the NCR, awarded by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the then Presidential Assistant on Community Development (PACD)

1995:   1)  Best Local Government Unit in the Philippines, awarded by the DILG, and       

2)  Galing Pook Award for its Save the Marikina River program

1996:   1)  Hall of Fame, Search for the Cleanest and Greenest Town in the NCR,             awarded by the DILG-NCR

            2)  Hall of Fame, Search for the Cleanest Inland Body of Water in the NCR, awarded by the DILG-NCR

            3)  Most Outstanding Local Chief Executive in the Philippines

1997:   1)  Best Public Wet Market in the NCR, awarded by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the National Consumers Council

            2)  Most Outstanding City in the Philippines, awarded by the DILG

            3)  Productivity Excellence in Leadership Award, given by the Asian Productivity Organization Society of the Philippines

            4)  Galing Pook Award for its Pulitika sa Bangketa (red sidewalk), Simula ng Pagbabago program

1998:   1)  Outstanding Filipino (TOFIL) Award for Government Service

            2)  Best Managed Public Market in the Philippines and NCR, awarded by the Department of Health (DOH)

            3)  Galing Pook Awards for two programs:  Barangay Talyer and Squatter-free Marikina

1999:   1)  Best Managed City in the Philippines, DILG

            2)  Cleanest Market in the NCR, Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran, awarded by the DILG, DOH, MMDA, and the Philippine Tourism Authority (PIA)

3)  Two Philippine Quality Awards, given by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI):  

a)  Silver Award, proficiency level for organizational excellence, and  b)  Bronze Award, commitment level for organizational excellence

4)  Cleanest School in the NCR (Parang Elementary School), Gawad Pangulo sa  Kapaligiran

5) Galing Pook Award for Five-minute Quick Response Time program

Bayani Fernando was succeeded by his wife, Maria Lourdes Carlos Fernando (MCF) in 2001.  MCF also served as Marikina City mayor for three full terms up to 2010.  During her term, Marikina City won additional awards and the more that the city became known as a multi-awarded city with programs that have benefited the people and the business sector of Marikina.  As a result, she went on to reap the following distinctions (Http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/>, retrieved March 6, 2012; Http://www.world mayor.com/> retrieved March 7, 2012):

2002:   Clean and Green Awardee, by the Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran

2003:   1)  Most Competitive Metro City in the Philippines, awarded by the Asian   Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Research Center, Asia Foundation, International Labour Organisation (ILO), German Technical Foundation, and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung..          

            2)  Ten Outstanding Local Government Programs Award for Continuing Excellence (ACE), conferred by Galing Pook Foundation to LGUs which have sustained and demonstrated significant achievements along the various Galing Pook local governance criteria                                                                                                 

2005:   Galing Pook Award for the Bicycle-friendly City program    

2006:   One of the Healthiest and Most Livable Cities in Asia-Pacific, as cited by the World Health Organization (WHO)                              

2007:   Galing Pook Award for the EcoSavers program                                   

2008:   1)  Galing Pook Award for the program Service without Delay through  Centralized Warehousing    

            2)  Finalist for the World Mayor Award                                                                            

2009:   Galing Pook Award for the program Promoting Healthy Living through Clean Food and Water Laboratory

Marikina has also been honored to be included in the Global 500 Roll of Honor of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 

San Juan City showcases another LGU good governance model.  Less lionized by the media compared to that of Marikina City, San Juan City as much vigorously implemented programs that demonstrated good governance.  In 2001, the new city mayor elected was Joseph Victor Gomez Ejercito (JVE), the son of Joseph Ejercito and Guia Gomez, the current mayor of the city.  From 2001 to 2010, a whole three-year term of service to the people of San Juan, JVE implemented the following programs that also served notice to other LGUs in the country (Http://sanjuandemo.wordpress.com/>, retrieved March 7, 2012; Http://www.sanjuancity.gov.ph/>, retrieved March 7, 2012; Http://www.jvejercito.com/>, retrieved March 7, 2012):

2001:   1)   Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the National                   Police Commission (Napolcom)

2)      Best Drug-free Municipality, conferred by the Metro Manila Drug Enforcement Group

3)   Double A rating in recognition of its being the most financially stable LGU in the country, given by the LGU Credit Corporation

2002:   1)  Most Outstanding Municipality in the Implementation of Population Programs in Empowering Filipino Families, given by the National Commission on Population (NCP)

2)      Green Banner Award for Nutrition

3)      Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Award

4)      Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

5)   Double A rating in recognition as the most financially stable LGU in the country, given by the LGU Credit Corporation

2003:   1)  Most Outstanding Municipality in the Implementation of Population   Programs in Empowering Filipino Families, given by the National Commission on Population (NCP)

2)      Green Banner Award for Nutrition

3)      Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Award, in recognition for San Juan’s Linis Bayan program, efficient garbage collection, and clean facilities

                        4)   Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

5)   TROY Awards for Clean and Sanitized Public Toilets

6)   First LGU to Create a Municipal Focal Point for Gender Equality 

7)   Double A rating in recognition as the most financially stable LGU in the country, given by the LGU Credit Corporation

 2004:  1)  Consistent Regional Winner in Nutrition (CROWN) Award

            2)  Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

 2005:  1)  Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

2)      Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

3)      Best Municipal Fire Station of the Year, awarded by the Bureau of Fire Protection, DILG

2006:  1)   Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

2)  Most Progressive Municipality as adjudged by the Commission on Audit.  San Juan was the number one municipality in terms of Cash in Bank with P526.65 M and had the Highest Gross Income of P686.56 M.

2007:   Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

2008:   Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

Due to San Juan’s progress, it became a city on June 16, 2007 by virtue of Republic Act 9358 as sponsored by Congressman Ronaldo B. Zamora (Http://www.sanjuancity.gov.ph/>, retrieved on March 6, 2012).                                                                                                     The successful tale of Marikina City and San Juan City makes many Filipinos wonder.  Why were these two cities able to do it? – that is the intriguing question they often ask.  Just like Marikina City and San Juan City, other cities and LGUs were also able to make it, such as Naga City and Cebu City.  Why?  On the other hand, why did other cities and LGUs did not quite make it to the same extent as the cities of Cebu, Naga, Marikina, and San Juan?  In the case of other LGUs, why did they not even have a successful program on par with Marikina and San Juan?  What was in Marikina and San Juan that led to success that the non-successful cities and LGUs did not have?

Statement of the Problem          

            That the cities of Marikina and San Juan churned out successful programs that earned recognition from award-giving bodies further leads anyone with an inquisitive bent of mind to find out what in these cities were present that were not present in other cities and LGUs.  One would logically suspect, given his educational preparation and readings, that the environment, or maybe the leadership, or maybe the available resources in these cities, have something much to do with the program/project success. 

            Then following trendy leads in public administration reform that the success of national and local governments depends on their use of market principles like privatization, deregulation, effectiveness, efficiency, or the application of the new public management, or reinvention principles, or even of sustainable development, the curious academic scholar and researcher would also be examining the phenomenon of Marikina City and San Juan City as probably due to any of these factors.

Meanwhile, a new theory has been attracting public administration theorists stating therein that programs and projects of government agencies are guaranteed success if these agencies concerned practised good governance. From the looks of it, the good governance theory seems apropos to the political economy in the Philippines where corruption is rampant.  It seems that good governance has the edge in terms of being the antidote to corruption in many countries both rich and poor (Tanzi, 1999: 2-4; Brillantes, Jr., 2003:  19).          

            If this is the case, did the cities of Marikina and San Juan practice good governance?  Was there good governance also in the programs and projects that were successful and were awarded?  In what way did they practice good governance in the awarded programs?  What specific elements in their awarded program contributed to good governance?  What elements in the awarded programs manifest as representative of good governance?  What good governance elements proved significant over other elements?   

Again, the new research findings highlight that good governance largely depends on factors like accountability, transparency, participation, and aggressive leadership.  They are often cited as contributing to good governance by public agencies as these principles develop into effective organizational/institutional mechanisms that discourage politicians to be corrupt.  Instead, they prompt these political leaders to give a real public service which means that zero corruption leads to faster delivery and more qualitative services.  If this is the case, did the awarded programs of Marikina City and San Juan City likewise demonstrate the good governance principles and mechanisms?  Did they demonstrate the functioning of accountability, transparency, participation, and leadership?

The twin case studies would hope to find out how accountability, transparency, participation, and leadership were carried out in the two cities’ awarded programs.  In this regard, Marikina City under MCF received four Galing Pook awards.  Of these four, two are selected for the study’s purposes:  1) the EcoSavers program which earned the nod of Galing Pook Foundation judges in 2007 and, 2) the Promoting Healthy Living through Clean Food and Water Laboratory program which won the Galing Pook award in 2009.   Thus, how was good governance practiced in these two programs?  In what way were these two programs able to demonstrate accountability, transparency, participation, and aggressive leadership?  Why were they able to do so? 

In the case of San Juan City, though it had not received any Galing Pook award, it nevertheless garnered several awards from other award-giving government agencies.  Only two are selected, again, for the study’s purposes:  1) the Most Peaceful Municipality Award which it won in 2001 consistently up to 2005, awarded by the DILG and Napolcom, and 2) the Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Award for its Linis Bayan program which was awarded in 2003.

Similar questions are asked as in Marikina City’s two programs:  How was good governance practised in the two cited programs of San Juan City?  In what way were these two programs able to demonstrate accountability, transparency, participation, and aggressive leadership?  Why were they able to do so? 

In the study of public administration, inputs are elements or ingredients that are fed into the process to become converted into outputs (direct and immediate) as well as outcomes (long-term).  There is also context which is composed of the environmental factors which indirectly influence inputs.  Outputs and outcomes have their influences via feedback that serve to alter the quantity and quality of the context and the inputs.  Using these terms, what factors or elements comprise the context for good governance? 

Good governance is assumed, in this study, to be made up of two important elements or factors:  1) resources (the qualities of the leadership and of the stakeholders), as well as the 2) mechanisms/strategies of organizing and mobilizing the above resources.  The mechanisms/strategies are, in turn, made up of the cluster of good governance principles, namely:  accountability, transparency, and participation.  How then are both resources and mechanisms/strategies mixed or processed to produce the outputs, which refer to the successful innovations of Marikina City and San Juan City?  To what extent have the resources and mechanisms/strategies been converted to produce a successful output in the form of innovative programs and project of the cities under study? 

Objectives of the Study

            The study addresses the following objectives:

1.   To describe the two Galing Pook awarded programs of Marikina City – EcoSavers and Promoting Healthy Living – and two of the awarded programs of Sam Juan City – the program that earned the Most Peaceful Municipality Award and the Linis Bayan program which received the Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Award.             

2.      To determine how the above awarded innovative programs (outputs) demonstrated good governance, that is, how such inputs as the mechanisms/strategies of accountability, transparency, participation, along with the resources of leadership and the city stakeholders were processed that contributed to the production of the awarded and innovative programs of the two cities under study,

3.      To cull out lessons and insights on good governance from the above programs that may serve as models for replication in other cities and LGUs of the Philippines.

Significance of the Study

            The study of good governance has gained ground both on the national and local government level in the country.  On the local government level, the good governance achievements of Naga City and Cebu City have been much documented.  The programs under MCF’s  and JVE’s terms have been documented, but description and analysis, however, does not use the framework of good governance.                                                                                                                                                                          

            The case studies would thus be the first to examine the awarded programs of these two city mayors in terms of a good governance perspective.  It would be initiating a path for the study of successful programs on the LGU level that would seem appropriate and relevant to apply in the case of other LGUs that have implemented successful programs also. 

            Lastly, the case studies would further show what the ingredients are in good governance and how it comes about.  First, leadership must be there, then the support of stakeholders.  Once these two are present, they trigger accountability, transparency, and participation mechanism/strategies, which then move, set into action, and convert the inputs into outputs.  The study also strengthens the need among governments, national and local, to take into account accountability, transparency, and participation mechanisms in their programs and projects.

Scope and Delimitations

            The study is delimited to two of the many successful and awarded programs of MCF and JVE.  MCF and JVE are also just two city mayors out of the many city mayors who have likewise implemented successful programs that need to be documented, studied, and analyzed. 

            Another limitation is that of the many good governance principles elaborated in the literature of public administration reform, only four are considered in the study. These are accountability, transparency, participation, and leadership. 

CHAPTER 2.  REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

            The chapter reviews previous literature on the general subject of good governance.  It includes the sub-headings of accountability, transparency, participation, and aggressive leadership, among others.  Finally, it reviews good governance studies in public administration both on the national and local government level.

Public Administration Reform via Good Governance

Admittedly, the imperative for good governance did not originate out of the concerns of developing countries themselves and their leaders to reform their own local public sector institutions.  The initiative came from the outside:  first, from the World Bank (WB) which attempted in the early 1990s to consolidate its entire funding experience over the years. 

In 1991, the WB published Governance and Economy: A Review, which it followed in 1992 with a report titled, Governance and Development.  Since then, many other WB reports came out echoing on and drumbeating the same governance theme, among them the 1994 report titled Governance: The World Bank’s Experience (Gonzalez, III & Bhatta, 1998: 19). 

According to these reports, a country’s capacity to implement planned programs and projects was “a critical determining component of …success and sustainability” (Gonzalez, II & Bhatta, 1998: 4).  Such capacity of course eventually came into being as “governance,” the new WB and international assistance buzzword whose efficacy still works and reverberates up to the present.

            Other international donor agencies – the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the Overseas Development Agency (ODA) of the United Kingdom, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Institute on Governance (IOG) of Canada, among many more multilateral and bilateral donors – literally jumped soon on the governance bandwagon.  The ADB, for example, pointed out that “the quality of a recipient country’s public administration system was a strong determinant of a project’s success or failure” (Gonzalez, III & Bhatta, 1998: 4). 

Since then, these donor institutions have been promoting for more well-governed economies and good governance to reduce the financial crises in these developing countries and spur their economic growth.  Consequently, they have also asked donor-recipient countries to comply with the governance prescription (Tanzi, 1999:  1-7).

            Gonzalez, III and Bhatta (1998: 4) would like to note however that public sector reform in developing countries was not something new.  Even in the colonial rule period in the history of these developing countries, the colonial masters organized and reorganized the administrative systems of their colonies to suit their colonial political and economic agenda. 

            Today, the whole world – starting from the international donor agencies down to the developing countries and their civil society organizations – is paying attention to governance and its avowed tenets of accountability, transparency, participation, equity, etc.  The developing countries have, in turn, risen to the governance challenge, finding it beneficial to do so not only in terns of the financial assistance that come in with compliance to the governance requirement but also because they have realized it as a valuable means or instrument – as if some external stimulus has to stir them up – to get them some sense of direction and vitality to take a concrete piece of development action.   

            The question, however, is whether the governance-challenged countries have succeeded in instituting the pillar of governance in their own public sector management reforms.

What Is Governance?

            Starting in 1994, the UNDP declared that sound governance was a “growing international consensus” and that to build it up, the UNDP must back up “capacities that are needed to realize development that gives priority to the poor, advances women, sustains the environment, and creates needed opportunities for employment and other livelihoods” (UNDP, 1994; 1997).  It raised the issue of what constitutes good governance in this respect because the concept had not yet been well thought-out, its elements not clearly identified, and its link with development not well defined. 

The first discussion paper on this topic which came out in 1995 stressed the importance of the public sector management aspects of governance, such as civil service reform, leadership, strategic management, management training and development and accountability (UNDP, 1997).  The UNDP also noted that the means to attaining sustainable human development was governance. Good governance is the primary means for achieving sustainable human development. 

            The UNDP (1997) pointed out the importance of the institutional landscape within which political, social, and economic activity takes place, for such provides the system or framework of rules and procedures that helps to govern the activity.  Thus, governance came to encompass three major realms of activity:  the state, the private sector, and civil society.  It also elaborated on how governance has evolved in the rapidly changing and increasingly complex and turbulent social, political, cultural, economic, technological and ecological environments.

Governments must create conditions that improve empowerment, cooperation, equity, sustainability, and security.  Failure to create such an enabling environment makes it more difficult for all people to attain these objectives and makes it impossible for marginalized groups in society to benefit from economic and social progress.  So the challenge is to create a system of governance that promotes, supports and sustains human development. In 1997, the search for a clearly articulated concept of governance has only just begun (UNDP, 1997: 7-9).

Governance is the “exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs” (UNDP, 1997: 9).  ADB (2003: 1, cited by Domingo, 2004: 11) defined governance as “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” purposes.  In the Philippines, the leading national planning body which is the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) provided another slant of definition – it is “all the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights and obligations, and mediate their differences (NEDA, 1998, cited by Tigno, 2003: 25).  Manasan, Gonzalez III, & Gaffud (2000: 37) acknowledged the UNDP definition.

Tigno (2003:  25-27) amplified on the concept of governance.  He referred to it as “that process of crafting and finalizing public policy taking into account the interest of different stakeholders.”  He also pointed out that governance was “the process of prudent intervention, coordination, and control to achieve the public good.”  Bautista (2002, cited by Moreno, 2004: 5-6) defined governance as one aspect of poverty reduction.  Good governance involves the design, processes, and strategies of implementing and managing government-driven …programs for poverty reduction. 

Given the above varied definitions, Dhungel (2002: 1) concluded that there was no single definition of governance that was universally acceptable – which also implied that there were many aspects to look at in studying governance.  He suggested, however, that the three core area in governance were accountability, transparency, and participation.

Sound governance exists where public resources and problems are managed effectively, efficiently, and in response to critical needs of society.  Effective forms of governance rely on public participation, accountability, and transparency.  On the other hand, poverty is the manifestation of poor governance.  Failed programs are due to poor governance.  Sound development is sound governance (WB, 1998, cited by Moreno, 2004: 46-47).  Mendoza (2000: x) viewed that governance failures stemmed from inadequacy of rules.  Breaking rules also breaks the institutions.  Institutional weaknesses explain the failures. Governance can be either good or bad (Cariño, 2003: 75, cited by Domingo, 2004:13).

The challenges to governance range from renewing political institutions, finding new modalities of governance, expanding political capacities that:  promote participation, elicit public consensus, creating constructive engagement with civil society, and encouraging business and civic leaders to pursue social and economic activities.  A sound system of governance is essential for creating an enabling environment in which to pursue sustainable human development. 

The Constitutional-Legal Framework of Local Autonomy

The 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991 provide the constitutional-legal framework for local autonomy in the Philippines.  The 1987 Constitution declares local autonomy as one of the policies of the State.  Section 25 of Article II (State Policies), says that “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.”  Article X devotes a whole separate article on local autonomy fleshed out in 21 sections, the first 14 sections of which consist of general provisions and the next sections (Sections 15-21) pertain to autonomous regions.      

Section 1 of Article X declares that the “territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays.  There shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.” Section 2 provides that the LGUs “shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.”  Section 3 entrusts to Congress the responsibility to enact a comprehensive local government code (Bernas, 2006).

The President as head of state exercises general supervision over all LGUs.  In Section 4, the President exercises supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to barangays (Cabo, 1998: 149).

The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines abounds with many provisions mandating for mechanisms which would make government agencies accountable, transparent, and participative.  Thus, accountability was ensured when public officials were “answerable for government behavior, and responsive to the entity from which their authority is derived”; for transparency, laws, regulations and policies were to be clearly enunciated and fairly known to the citizens; and for participation, membership of civil society organizations in local special bodies were mandated via cooperative arrangements with local government units (LGUs) in “the delivery of basic services, capacity building, and livelihood projects…” (Capuno, 2005: 6-7).

            In the LGC, services and functions are now the responsibility of LGUs.  Section 17 of the LGC states that “LGUs shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue to exercise the powers and discharge the duties and functions invested upon them.  They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to them.  They also exercise such powers and discharge such functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of basic services and facilities.”

Concomitant to this, LGUs have been given the power to appoint personnel involved in the delivery of services; they have assumed broad training powers; are given share from the proceeds of nationally imposed taxes; given alternative sources of revenues; and provided participative mechanisms for people/community involvement in decision-making (Legaspi, 2001: 9).  For autonomy to function effectively, the constitution gives LGUs the power to create their own sources of revenue (Section 5), to have a just share in the national taxes (Section 6), have an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth (Section 7).  To enhance revenue sources, LGUs may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate efforts, to deliver services of common benefit (Section 13) (Bernas, 2006).

            On the basis of the twin goals of democratization and development via the strategy of decentralization, the LGC devolved or transferred the powers, responsibility, and resources for the performance of certain functions from the national government to the LGUs (De Guzman & Reforma, 1998:  22-23).  The LGC devolved to LGUs the responsibility for the following (Brillantes, Jr.,1997: 85-86):

1.      The delivery of basic services in

- health,

- social services (social welfare),

- environment (community-based forestry),

- agriculture,

- public works (funded by local funds),

- education (school-building program),

- tourism (facilities, promotion, and development),

- telecommunications service,

- housing projects in provinces, cities, and

- other services, such as investment support.

            2.   The enforcement of certain regulatory powers such as the

                   - reclassification of agricultural lands,

                   - enforcement of environmental laws,

                   - inspection of food products and quarantine,

                   - operation of tricycles,

                   - processing and approval of subdivision plans,

                   - establishment of cockpits and holding of cockfights.

              3.  Augmenting their own financial resources,

              4.  Laying the foundation for the development of an entrepreneurial orientation

                   through the build-operate-transfer scheme, bond flotation, and loans from

                    local private institutions, and

5.      Involving the participation of the NGO-PO sector through mandatory

      membership of this sector in LGU special bodies.

Local governments in the Philippines have enjoyed local autonomy since the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991, though the Code started to be effective only on January 1, 1992.  The shift from central control to local control of provincial, city, municipal, and barangay (formerly called barrio) affairs may not be accomplished in a matter of a few years. Yet some local government units (LGUs) rose to the occasion and responded positively to the local autonomy challenge placed on the palm of their hands.  From a few LGUs coming up with innovative programs and projects in the delivery of basic services devolved to them, many followed suit afterwards. 

The Mixed Results of Decentralization/Devolution

            Decentralization has not been without accompanying problems.  For example, due to insufficient IRA shares to cover the cost of devolved services, many LGUs have not been able to afford the salaries of devolved government agency personnel, among them the health workers (Brillantes, Jr., 2001: 85).

            Agra (1998, cited in Brillantes, Jr., 2001: 85) cited policy lapses on local autonomy the effects of which only ran counter to and, thus defeat the objectives of local autonomy.  The lapses Agra listed included:

1.      The partial devolution of the environment sector.  The DENR still retain the power of control, supervision and review of community-based forestry projects,

2.      LGUs still have no share in national tariffs and customs duties which should form part in the computation of their IRA shares,

3.      Issuances and circulars from some national government agencies continue to undermine the spirit of local autonomy.  For example, participation in seminars by LGUs, even if funded locally, continue to be regulated, and

4.      Congress has been considering and deliberating on bills seeking to recentralize and renationalize powers devolved to LGUs.

Capuno (2005: 2-5) asked:  Has the quality of local governance improved under decentralization?  Has it led to local development?  His study found that development in general had been slow, with some having moderate developments while others have the least developments.  He attributed the imbalance of development among the LGUs to many factors but stressed quality of institutions.  Weak local government mechanisms, poor compliance with the governance features of the Code shaped low levels and quality of local public services.    

Innovations in Governance in the Philippines

In his article about doing things differently, Brillantes, Jr. (2001) emphasized that since the passing of the LGC in 1991 many LGUs have adopted innovative and creative ways of meeting the challenge of good governance.  On the basis of data from award-giving bodies recognizing the innovative programs of these deserving LGUs along with the rapid field appraisals of the Gold and Local Democracy Project (GOLD), he found nine key factors which may have contributed to these LGUs’ innovativeness. Six of them are worth mentioning in this case (the last three factors being collapsible into one or two of these six factors):

1.      A hospitable policy environment,

2.      A triggering crisis,

3.      Aggressive political leadership, motivated by commitment, responsiveness, practical purposes, and political expedience,

4.      Aggressive civil society,

5.      Inadequate financial resources, and

6.      Response to a demand for a specific basic service (Brillantes, Jr., 2001: 92-93).

In the same article, Brillantes, Jr. went on to hypothesize the reasons for the success of some of the LGUs’ innovations, implying that some innovations were not as successful as others.  The more successful innovations came about as a further result of the following five factors:

1.      Leadership, citing in this regard, the strong leadership of the mayor of Marikina, referring to then Mayor Bayani Fernando,

2.      People’s participation and support to the extent that the people “own” the program or project,

3.      Multisectoral cooperation,

4.      media and information dissemination, and

5.      support of external international institutions.

Leadership as a Key Good Governance Factor

            Guiza and Fernandez (1997) highlighted the achievements of Bulacan provincial governor Roberto Pagdanganan and two city mayors, Naga City’s Jesse Robredo and Puerto Princesa City’s Edward Hagedorn.  Pagdanganan’s centerpiece was the Kaunlaran sa Pagkakaisa Program, which aimed for the development of cooperatives in the province.  The program benefited the cooperative members, which comprised one third of the province’s population and Bulacan now ranks as one of the most progressive provinces in the country.  Robredo’s governance feat was his Productivity Improvement Program which began with city hall employees’ confidence-building measures followed up by improvement of frontline services delivery.  The outcome was the increase of the city’s revenues, restoring Naga City’s status to a first class city.  Hagedorn launched the Bantay Puerto Program which addressed the degradation of natural resources.  The program had two components:  the Bantay Gubat, which aimed to protect and rehabilitate the forests, and the Bantay Dagat, which looked at the protection and conservation of marine ecology. 

            Mactaggart & Shie (1997: 44) look at leadership as the glue which binds the partnership between government, business, and citizens.  Effective governance cannot occur without effective leadership.  Developing the core competencies of effective leaders in the 21st Century, the writers recommended the following ASEAN core leadership competency model, which requires leaders who have the following:

1.      Are visionary, well-educated, able to solve problems, and be service-oriented;

2.      Have excellent communication skills, collaborative abilities and charisma;

3.      Are technologically inclined and environmentally aware,

4.      Are able to think nationally, regionally and globally as well as act as mediators to ensure that harmony is maintained,

5.      Are honest, trustworthy and pro-family, and

6.      Have a sense of spiritualism and tolerance for diversity.

            Four lessons may be learned from the innovative programs of the cities of Naga and Puerto Princesa.  According to Guiza & Fernandez (1997: 91-94).  These included: 

1.      A facilitating and enabling environment.  The LGC enabled people to participate in community affairs; promoted transparency and accountability among the local executives; and the people have become more aware of their rights and have an enhanced sense of responsibility.

2.      People empowerment.  The local executives recognized the capacities of their own people, trusted and consulted them, and motivated them to become better public servants.  The people also responded and volunteered, leading to a change of habit and attitudes.

3.      Recognitions and awards.  The LGUs instituted a system of recognition and incentives by giving awards to the deserving.

4.      Leadership.  The local executives showed political will, that is, faithful in delivering one’ commitments and pronouncements, along with actual enforcement of laws and regulations.  They exhibited genuine trust and confidence in people and were ready to develop their capacities and competencies. Other traits are being sensitive to community demands, being consultative, and with long-term visions which they communicated and shared with their own people.

Measuring Good Governance

The study of Capuno (2005: 9-15) analyzed and compared data trying to measure the quality of local governance devised by different evaluation-monitoring agencies.  These eight measures differed from each other in several ways, to wit:

1.      The Local Productivity and Performance Measurement System (LPPMS) of the DILG and the UNDP.  The LPPMS had 91 input and process indicators, and 100 output and outcome indicators, designed to determine the efficiency of the delivery of basic services at the local government level.

2.      Minimum Basic Needs of the DSWD, which had 33 indicators to measure the extent of unmet basic needs. 

3.      Human Development Index (HDI) by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and the Philippine Human Development Network.  The HDI was perhaps the mot popular measure of local development and governance, using only three component indicators:  life expectancy to indicate health, literacy to indicate education, and family income to indicate social welfare. But the results were confusing because the provinces with the biggest decline in HDI in 1991-2000 were both poor (Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Sur) and rich provinces (Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna).

4.      The Governance Quality Index (GQI) by Manasan, Gonzales, and Gaffud, through NEDA and UNDP.  It had 25 indicators that pivot around revenue generation, beneficiaries’ satisfaction with social services, and accountability.

5.      The Filipino Report Card on pro-poor services by the WB.  It provided indicators on client’s satisfaction with basic public services to measure the people’s perspective on pro-poor services.

6.      The Good Governance Index (GGI) by the NSCB.  The GGI had 12 sub-indices. There are 12 indices on economic, political, and administrative governance aimed to measure the quality of governance of the LGU concerned.

7.      The Philippine Cities Competitiveness Ranking by the DOTC and the Philippine APEC Study Center.  Indicators included:  cost of doing business, human resource endowment, infrastructure, linkages with growth areas, quality of life, dynamism of the local economy, and responsiveness of the local government.

8.      The Governance for Local Development Index (GOFORDEV) by the Philippine Center for Policy Studies and the Ford Foundation.  The GOFORDEV had a total of 10 indicators on the needs and provision for social services and the extent of participation and consultation.  The objective was to measure the extent of good governance and local development. 

Innovation Strategies

            Martin, J. (2001), on the basis of Australian local government data, listed the following as important strategies for innovations in governance to succeed:

1.      Role of creative individuals

2.      Responding to external pressure for change

3.      Encouraging experimentation and the search or new ideas

4.      Networking with other organizations

5.      Building on absorptive capacity

6.      Building on innovative capacity

7.      Managing flexible organization structures

8.      Having a long-term community focus

Accountability

            Domingo (2004: 5-7) provided the reason for accountability:  “Government organizations are accountable to the public…because they provide public goods and services that affect people’s lives….Since they operate in the public sphere they are accountable to the public and the state…the recipients of their services – their clients, members, staff, partners, and the community where they operate.”  In another section, Domingo said that accountability was “the acceptance of responsibility and implementation o measures to fulfill legal and regulatory compliance requirements, financial and fiduciary duties, ethical, and moral obligations.  It means the establishment of criteria for measuring performance, and answerability to stakeholders” (Domingo, 2004: 129).

            Manasan, Gonzalez, & Gaffud (1999:  41) said of accountability as the capacity to hold public officials responsible for government behavior, to make them responsive to the needs of the citizenry.”   Citing the WB, they pointed out that macro-level accountability was promoted by:  making timely information available, classifying expenditures consistent with budget programs, doing appropriate analyses for decision-making, and improving the organization and accounting system.  In some other parts of their study, they elaborated on how to build accountability into the system.  They said that LGUs must have the capacity to enforce rules and regulations.  Such rules prevent the abuse of powers, keep LGUs honest by reducing transaction costs, and establish credible controls over use of inputs.  Public officers must account for funds received, account for money spent. 

            Finally, Brillantes, Jr. (2003: 73) uses the word, “accountability,” on the basis of the criteria of the Local Government Leadership Award (LGLA), to refer to the imperative to make public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to the entire entities from which they derive their authority.   

            Accountability is provided in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XI, Section 1.  It states therein that “Public office is a public trust.  Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” 

Transparency

            Domingo (2004: 129) defined transparency as “the availability and accessibility of information that enables stakeholders and the public to make informed judgments and evaluate performance.”   Razon-Abad, et al (2002:  33-34) looked at transparency as “having reliable information available to and accessible by the public.”  The guide questions to find out if transparency was practiced would include:  How are decisions arrived at?  How was the project designed?  How were target partners identified?  Were genuine consultations with stakeholders conducted?  Transparency could be ensured by having accurate and updated information about the extent of poverty in the community as well as the presence of a data board.

            Brillantes, Jr. (2003: 73) used the LGLA’s definition of transparency:  as “the availability and accessibility of reliable information to the general public.  It is the provision of appropriate, necessary, and relevant information to stakeholders when needed and upon demand.”

            Manasan, Gonzalez, & Gaffud (2000: 43) included in transparency the provision of relevant and reliable information, reduction of uncertainty, and the curbing of corruption through efficient use of resources and promoting participation. They added that transparent decisions would also be secured when citizen feedback mechanisms were established along with strong intergovernmental link-ups to promote innovations in local resource management.

Participation

            According to Capuno (2001: 39), at least four special consultative bodies have drawn a wider participation from the private sector and civil society.  These included:  Local School Board, Local Health Board, Local Development Council, and the Peace and Order Council.   Domingo (2004: 138) articulated that governance must involve the people’s participation, making people part of the engagement, and empowerment or proper participation.  Again, using LGLA criteria, Brillantes, Jr. (2003: 73) defined participation or participatory governance as partnering with civil society, that is, the provision of a voice for all stakeholders in the formal and informal decision-making process. 

CHAPTER 3.  THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter fleshes out the concepts, elements, processes, and relationships involved in the study.  They are defined and clarified on the basis of available data from the literature from which they may be adopted wholly or modified for the study’s perspectives and purposes.  The overall conceptual framework is finally illustrated in a diagram.

The Concept of Innovation

            Much in the public management reform and governance literature introduce terms such as “governance innovations” or “innovations in governance.”  What both these terms mean is the area within which the innovations were applied, that is, in the area of governance.

In general, an innovation involves change brought about by “the incorporation of new elements, a new combination of existing elements or a significant…departure from the traditional way of doing things” (UN, 2006: 5).  Way back in 1980, Van de Ven (cited in Martin, J., 2001: 52) defined innovation as the introduction or implementation of a new product, service or policy.  The same ideas of what an innovation is are also stressed by different authors, as cited by Martin, J. (2001: 52). 

            Pelz & Munson (1980, cited in Martin, J., 2001: 53) considered the level of development of the new idea tried by the adopting individual or organization.  They referred to whether the idea was created or initiated by the individual himself or the organization, or adapted from another idea, or borrowed from somewhere else where the idea had already been tried and tested. 

The Concept of “Governance Innovations”/“Innovations in Governance”

            Brillantes, Jr. (2001) and the United Nations (2006) used the term “innovations in governance” while Bhatta & Gonzalez, III (1998) as well as Guiza & Fernandez (1997) preferred “governance innovations.”  Actually, both terms have the same denotative reference and meaning. Brillantes, Jr. assumed that “innovation” was already an understood term in his 2001 article.  He was more preoccupied with Gow’s (1994) question such as “How do new ideas emerge under a devolved setup?” or “How are new ways of doing things discovered?”  The same with Guiza & Fernandez.  Bhatta & Gonzalez III, however, went to great lengths to define “governance” but still did not elaborate on their term, “governance innovations.”  All the above writers left to their readers what the terms they were using meant.

            The United Nations (2006) gave insights on what “innovations in governance” referred to. It began by saying that the field of innovation in governance was not well-developed, and for that matter, different definitions existed on what an innovation in governance was.  It then surveyed the different government awards that used innovation as one of the criteria. For example, the American Government Awards’ selection of innovations in the USA uses four criteria:  novelty, effectiveness, significance, and transferability.  Among the criteria employed by the American Society for Public Administration Public Service Awards were:  made a profound difference in improving service to the public, been willing to take risks to achieve change, changed the way a government organization, achieved substantial savings in government operations, among others.

            The United Nations then proceeded to define innovation in governance as “a creative idea which is successfully implemented to solve a pressing public problem.  It is the act of conceiving and implementing a new way of achieving a result and/or performing work” (2006: 5).  Public sector management innovation may also be defined as “the development of new policy designs and new standard operating procedures by public organizations to address public policy problems” (2006: 5).  

The Good Governance Framework Specific for the Study

            The study had an array of governance frameworks to model around with.  The old one of input-process-output-outcome was relied on.  What these in the study were then fleshed out.  Martin’s (2001: 67) work about the case study councils in Australia came in handy. He described these case study councils in terms of:  1) context for reform, 2) the players, 3) the innovation strategy, and 4) organizational outcomes.

            This study based its own framework on the above four aspects.  Thus, his “context” became the public sector management reform in the study. His “players” became this study’s elements of the leader and the stakeholders (considered inputs but also very much involved in the good governance process as the people who turn the potential of inputs into actual action in the process). His “innovation strategy” became another set of elements in the study, the mechanisms and strategies (accountability, transparency, and participation), all of them involved in the good governance process.  Then his “organizational outcomes” was split into the separate conceptual categories of “outputs” and “outcome.”  The outputs refer to the successful good governance of the twin case studies as demonstrated by many of its programs being recognized and awarded.  The outcomes refer to long-term benefits accruing to the residents and the community in the two cities under study.

Operational Definitions

            The concepts, elements and/or factors that are employed in the study and serve active roles within a system of exchanges, flows, and relationships are discussed and elaborated as follows:

Context as Triggering Input:  Public Sector Management Reform. 

The public sector in the Philippines had undergone various waves of reform.  More often than not, the reforms aimed to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in fat and slow-moving bureaucracies and transform the administrative agencies into instruments that are responsive to the needs of the people.  Some are internally-driven reforms such as what occurred during the martial law years, but most are due to external pressures for change.

            The external pressures emanate from international donor agencies – the financial assistance and support agencies such as the WB, the UNDP, the ADB, among many others.  These international donors prescribe and exact specific conditions and requirements from recipient countries for the latter to be able to achieve the goals of their development programs (Tanzi, 1999: 3; Minogue: 2003: 158-160).

            Over the years, public management reform has been at the core of donor prescription.  One such reform addressed to the public sector is the public management reform oftenly packaged as the New Public Management (NPM) (Minogue, 2003: 158). The package includes a set of inter-related reforms based on neo-liberal market sector principles such as privatization, deregulation, and decentralization all aiming to promote fiscal and, henceforth, economic development. 

            Experiences in the fund-recipient countries have shown that being rich does not automatically translate to being able to deliver services to the people (Brillantes, Jr., Reyes, Lopos, & Tiu Sonco III, 2011: 9).  Institutional reforms in the public sector thus became a more relevant concern of donors Paradigm shifts and shifts in mindsets came with the next reform wave labeled as good governance.         

International Donor Agencies.  These refer to such big financial/funding institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the Asian Development Bank, and the like.  These are the international donor community who are interested in the economic and political development of poor, developing countries by means of multilateral and bilateral assistance.  They fund programs of the governments of developing countries, of course, not without strings attached.                 

This international donor community constitutes part of the policy environment of good governance.  They have prescribed various objectives and have promoted several development agenda such as sustainable development, gender quality, privatization, deregulation, and currently, good governance.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution.  Ratified and approved in 1987 after its draft by the 1986 constitutional convention contains adequate provisions for human rights, civil society sector participation in government affairs, local autonomy, decentralization, empowerment of local governments, among others.  This constitute enough policy environment very much conducive to good governance in the Philippines because the fundamental law of the land promotes, guarantees and recognizes the efforts of local governments to give a good performance, deliver basic services fast and satisfactorily, and be effective and efficient.

The Local Government Code of 1991.  The 1991 Code contain provisions strengthening local fiscal autonomy and governance mechanisms.  To ensure these, the Code requires them to be accountable, transparent, participative in their processes and procedures.  The Code pushes for good governance (Capuno, 2005:  6).

Thus, public officials are answerable for their behavior, must be responsive or accountable; the laws, policies, regulations are clear and known to citizens (transparent).  For example, government procurement is through the local Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC). (Capuno, 2008: 2-6). 

Millenium Development Goals (MDGs).  These are development goals as mandated by NEDA, the national planning body.  In the MDGs, good governance is enshrined thus making for the environment for good governance conducive to LGUs.

            All of the above also constitutes the policy environment that has made it conducive for good governance to be practiced in LGUs.  Policy, according to Strachan, Hardee & Grey (2001) refers to the composite of “actions, customs, laws, or regulations by governments or other social, civic groups that directly or  indirectly…affect” a program project or activity.  If policy is a supportive one, then it becomes a major factor in the success of a program national or local.  The policy environment in the Philippines has been conducive to LGUs and good governance.  The policy environment refers to the factors affecting program performance that are beyond the complete control of national program managers. 

Good Governance Resources as Potential Inputs

            Good governance can only depend on resources in the community.  Resources in this study refers exclusively to human resources, not physical nor environmental, nor financial resources.  It is assumed that human resources constitute major determinants of program success. The study posits two major resources categories that determine good governance.  These are: 1) leadership, and 2) stakeholders.

            Leadership.  The study stresses that leadership is the biggest determinant in shaping up good governance in local governments.  If there have been no city mayors with such qualities as MCF and JVE have, there would have been no good governance in their city LGUs. 

            Leadership is an elusive term to define although people focus on the person of the leader as defining what leadership is.  Scholars offer a varied definition of leadership.  Bass, who had reviewed the concept of leadership decades back defines it as “an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectation of the members” (quoted in Pierce & Newstrom, 2008:  9). 

            There is some sort of family resemblance among the different definitions, noted Ciulla (1995:  12), as all of them talked about leadership as process, act, or influence that in some way gets people to do something.  What this amounts to saying is that it is unlikely that there will ever be a single acceptable-to-all definition.  Nevertheless, Pierce & Newstrom (2008: 10) define leadership as a sociological phenomenon (a social, interpersonal process) involving “the intentional exercise of influence by a person over one or more individuals in an effort to guide activities towards the attainment of some mutual goal that requires interdependent action among them.”

            What elements in leadership need to be examined?  Again, there are differences among the scholars.  Of Bovaird & Lofler’s (2003: 17) seven elements of the New Public management (NPM), one has to do with more responsiveness to users and other customers in public services.”   Amabile (1988, cited by Martin, 2001: 54) stressed the component of organizational innovation in terms of resources, techniques, and motivation.  Resources refer to individual talent and organizational funds, materials and support.  Techniques are individual skills and organizational skills in innovation management. 

            In the study, the role of leadership in governance is demonstrated in the following indicators: 

1.      Provision of a clear long-term vision and mission (Razon-Abad, et al, 2002).  This is the same as Osborne & Gaebler’s (1992) mission-driven government.

2.      VMG owned by all and arrived at through consensus of key stakeholders. (Razon-Abad, et al, 2002)

3.      Effective, strategic leadership.  As elaborated by the UN (2006: 10-12), this refers to a leader who:  a)  develops and builds capacities of people, b) open to good ideas and takes risks, and c) chooses not to personalize programs and projects implemented or leaders that have avoided the “I” syndrome and who uses a more inclusive language.  Martin (2001: 56) characterizes leadership in innovation as driven by an innate curiousity to find new ways of working and having an inherent belief in his/her own ability to succeed. 

In the study, the indicators of the above measures will reveal the responses to the following questions:

1.      Is the leadership able to translate the city’s VMG?

2.      Does the leader actively develop networks and linkages with other institutions, local, national, and international?

3.      Is the leader able to attain the targets despite constraints, financial, political, and administrative?

4.      Is the leader aggressively pursuing resource generation and mobilization for the sake of the programs?

5.      Does the leader ensure the accuracy and reliability of information coming to the mayor’s office?

6.      Does the leader uphold merit over patronage in the implementation of programs?

7.      Is the leader able to facilitate consensus building and manage conflict among competing interests?

Stakeholders.  The stakeholders refer to all those involved in programs and projects.  As it may overlap with another indicator which is “participation,” stakeholders as human resources with contribution to the success of programs and projects of the city hall, the kind of stakeholders needed are those who have the following values:

1.      They attach importance to the need for changes in the city and improve its status and prestige,

2.      They give importance to cooperation, collaboration, teamwork, and networking to strengthen a program’s success, and

3.      They trust their mayor’s leadership knowing that they who support the mayor can do wonders for the programs and the city.

Process:  Leadership/Stakeholders Spearheading and Orchestrating Organizational Strategies/Mechanisms

Accountability.  This organizational mechanism/strategy has to be built into a program’s system.  It needs to be institutionalized so that it will be mobilized, applied, or translated into action.  It cannot jut be wished for; the leader and the stakeholders in the community has to join together to make this mechanism a real thing. 

Key elements in understanding accountability are assumed to include the notions of responsiveness, responsibility, answerability of public servants to the people.  Responsiveness is

Accountability indicators to be used in the study may include the following question items (adapted from Razon-Abad, et al, 2002: 42):

1.      Is there an office responsible for the formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of programs?  Are the expected outputs of the office concrete and measurable?

2.      Are the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders well-defined?

3.      Are the program’s activities monitored and evaluated?  Is the monitoring and evaluation conducted regularly?  Do the programs allow for timely and necessary changes in implementation?

4.      Are there planning tools used (work plan, Ghantt chart, SWOT analysis) in the programs?

5.      Is the attainment of program objectives included in the performance evaluation of the mayor and program directors/coordinators?

6.      Do auditing rules and procedures facilitate the [programs’ implementation?

7.      Are audited reports and schedules of the programs posted in public places?

            Transparency.  This is defined as accessibility to and availability of reliable information about the programs by the public (Razon-Abad, et al, 2002: 41).  Information may be in the form of government rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, program work, bidding procedures, bidding results, financial statements, contracts, etc.)

            To measure transparency, the following indicators are used:

1.      Is there accurate and updated information about the extent of poverty in the community?  Is this available to the public?

2.      Is there a community data board?  What kind of data are posted?  Is the board updated?  Who gathers the data board and records them on the board?

3.      Does the public know where they can access information about the programs of the city hall?

4.      Are reports and other pertinent documents from design and implementation o the programs easily available to the pubic?

5.      Are the criteria used for selection of beneficiaries in the programs made available?

6.      Is information on the process made clear?

7.      Are there feedback or built-in corrective mechanisms established to obtain inputs from stakeholders?

            Participation.  Participation is that the public sector agencies, private sector companies, and civil society (NGOs, voluntary organizations, non-profits) work together in designing of the programs and giving inputs in the decision-making processes of the programs.  Presence of cooperative and collaborative mechanisms and processes exist among stakeholders.  The key indicators are revealed in the following questions (Razon-Abad, et al, 2002: 44):

1.      Are there mechanisms to encourage participation and obtain feedback from the stakeholders?

2.      Are there sectoral representatives for the marginalized communities, such as the urban poor, women, senior citizens, in the local special bodies and Sanggunians?

3.      Do the local special bodies meet regularly?

4.      Are minutes of the meeting kept?

5.      At what point has civil society been involved in the programs?

6.      Are there incentives provided by the city hall to encourage public-business sector-civil society partnerships?

7.      Are there policies and ordinances enacted by the city to ensure participation of the poor and vulnerable in the programs?

8.      Are the NGO/PO representatives bonafide members of their sectors?

Output of Good Governance:  Successful Innovative programs and Projects

            The outputs are nothing but the attainment of the objectives of the programs concerned.  If the objectives have been attained, then the program is successful.  The success of a program may also be gauged by the awards it earned from various award-giving bodies. If not, then the program failed; the leadership has failed to wield into effective action, the principles of accountability, transparency, an participation

Outcomes of Good Governance

            Outcomes are the longer-term results or impact o the programs and projects.  They include improved community welfare, economic sustainability, if not the disappearance of graft and corruption and other illegal practices of government officials. 

Feedback Effects

            It is assumed that from the output and the outcomes, feedback goes to the government officials in the legislature, to program directors of particular programs, which is a mean of revising and improving the programs for improvement purposes.

            The following diagram depicts the conceptual framework used in the study.

CHAPTER 4.  METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The study makes use of the qualitative and descriptive research design.  Specifically, it employs the case study approach by relying on two cases of good governance at the LGU-city level. 

Through the case study, the two cases of Marikina City and San Juan City will be able to understand and explain the factors or elements that contribute to good governance.  The detailed examination of the context, the factors that contribute to the shaping of a series of action processes involving actors or stakeholders with goals to achieve, and finally the output as well as the long-term outcome of the action processes will yield significant findings in relation to good governance.

            It is expected that the cases will provide a working model of what an LGU must do to achieve good governance.  Serving as models of good governance, it is hoped that the cases of Marikina City and San Juan City provide other LGUs the much-needed lessons and insights on essential principles of good governance that may also be applied and replicated in their own turfs.   

Sources of Information

            As a case study, the relevant information will be obtained from the following:

1.      Direct observation to see and examine the actual behavior of people concerned, the consistency of their actions and language, and discern certain meanings from their actions,

2.      Documentary evidence, primarily formal government papers and records filed in the various city hall offices,

3.      Literature published in books, newspapers, and professional journals,

4.      Responses from key informants.

Selection of the Twin Cases

            Local government leaders include the whole range from provincial, city, municipal, to barangay local executives.  Of these, only two are selected.  They are both city mayors o Metro Manila, namely:  the former city mayor o Marikina City, Maria Lourdes Carlo Fernando (MCF) and the former city mayor of San Juan City, Joseph Victor Gomez Ejercito (JVE).

            Why confine the study to just the city mayors in the first place?  On a more logical level, cities are showcases of development.  City programs and projects immediately catch the attention of citizens.  On the practical level, the choice of limiting the study to city mayors is due to proximity.  The researcher lives in Metro Manila and is a resident of Marikina City himself.  San Juan City is also not far away.  Besides, the choice of San Juan City was due to similar party affiliation.  The researcher and JVE belong to the same political party.  On the other hand, the researcher knows no kin or political affiliation member living in any other city of Metro Manila.

            On the case study level, the choice of Marikina City and San Juan City was dictated by the usefulness of these two cities for study purposes.  Five reasons provide the rationale for the choice of these two cities and their city mayors, namely:

1.      They represent unique and special cases, or good representatives of small Metro Manila cities that made good in performance. Both were once just ordinary cities but with the respective administrations of MCF and JVE, they zoomed into the limelight.  For this, they are considered unique and special..

2.      The two city mayors enjoy popular prestige/status.  MCF is the wife of Bayani Fernando (BF), whom she succeeded.  BF went on to become the chair of the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), and the more that MCF is in the limelight.  JVE is the son of former city mayor of San Juan, Joseph Estrada, who went on too to become senator, vice president, and finally, president of the Philippines.  He also shares in the popularity of his father and his half brother, Jinggoy Estrada, whom he succeeded as San Juan mayor in 2001.

3.      Both MCF and JVE implemented programs and projects that redounded to the benefit of the city residents which made their city residents very satisfied and empowered as well.

4.      Both are young mayors who have produced good programs and projects.  Young as they are, they may be considered only neophytes in the game of politics and public administration.  Yet, they made it as good performers who delivered in contrast to local executives who had had years of experience behind them and yet were not able to do what MCF and JVE have done in a short time.

5.      The two cities rank as progressive cities in Metro Manila.  The improvement and development of the two cities are very phenomenal, and many of the reasons forwarded both by academics and non-academics is the well-meaning performance, or good governance, of their city mayors.

Key Informants

            The twin case studies will elicit responses from key informants, or people who have first-hand knowledge about the good governance factors, processes, output and outcome from the programs and projects implemented in Marikina City and San Juan City.  The set of informants from whom the above information may be elicited include:

1.      the former mayors Maria Lourdes C. Fernando (MCF) of Marikina City and Joseph Victor G. Ejercito (JVE) of San Juan City,

2.      selected key officials in the city hall during the administration of MCF and JVE., tentatively the city administrator as well as the program heads of the awarded programs of the two mayors, and

3.      selected heads of civil society organizations involved in the implementation of the awarded programs and projects of the same two mayors.

Those without first-hand knowledge on the conceptualization, implementation, and sustenance of the awarded programs do not form part of the set of key informants.

Instruments

            The study makes use of two major instrument  to be able to gain valuable information from the informants.  These are the checklist and the questionnaire. 

            Checklist.  This instrument is supplementary to the main instrument which is the questionnaire.  A list is given to key informants and by checking or crossing X to the item on the appropriate column, the presence or absence of good governance principles will be revealed (Appendix 1).

            Questionnaire. This is a set of open-ended questions administered by the research himself to the key informants of the study.  The mayors and key officials of the city hall will be asked about their awarded programs (Appendix 4).

Data Gathering

            The proposal approved, the researcher shall start the data gathering phase of the investigation. The following are the data gathering activities:

1.      Formal letter to be sent to the city mayor respondents requesting for an

interview date with attached note of approval from the researcher’s adviser, as well as copies of the dissertation abstract and the interview schedule.  An email may also be sent to the city mayor respondents, assuming the researcher has their email address.

2.      Follow-up through the telephone or the email after a wait of a week from the date the letter was sent,

3.      Once the city mayor respondent agrees, the interview date, time and venue are agreed on by both interviewer and interviewee,

4.      The actual interview.  On the agreed date, the researcher goes to the agreed venue bringing with him his interview schedule, notes, tape recorder, and pencils.  The researcher asks the questions according to the sequence in the questionnaire.  Simultaneously, the researcher may take down notes selectively (not all the time), writing down his own comments and inferences to the response of the city mayor respondent to a particular question item asked.  The selective note-taking may also reflect the researcher’s personal observations, feelings and attitudes to the replies coming from the interviewee.

5.      The researcher may request for extended time if the allotted time for interview does not suffice, but only upon the consent of the city mayor,

6.      The interview finished, the researcher may need to clarify with the city mayor that in case some questions not in the questionnaire needed to be asked, he may have to come back for the follow-up interview. If it is only a minor one, the researcher may just have to contact the city mayor by email or telephone or mobile phone, whichever contact mode the latter wants the researcher to use.

7.      Recorded data from the digital tape recorder is transcribed and then consolidated together with the researcher’s notes during the interview. Transcription may take a week. Some parts of the transcription may be verbatim, but the minor exchanges may be briefly paraphrased. Any inconsistency shall be decided in favor of the tape recorder’s documentation, unless clarified with the city mayor by any of the contact modes approved by the city mayor. 

8.      The researcher starts the analysis of the answers of the city mayor to the questions in the interview schedule.

The stakeholders will be surveyed on the basis of the second instrument, which is the checklist of indicators. Who among the stakeholders will be included will be taken from the list of members of the four special bodies in the city government.  These are the Local School Board, Local Health Board, City Peace and Order Council, and the Local Development Council.  There will expectedly be members who represent NGOs and Pos in these local boards and councils. A random sampling may be used to come up with the final respondents from these councils/boards.    

Data Analysis

The items in the questionnaire are constructed variously.  Some are the open-ended type, others multiple choice type as well as scaled - item type using a 5-point response scale.

The data from the questionnaires and transcribed data from the digital tape recorder having been consolidated, content analysis follows. The order of analysis may use the sequence in the conceptual framework, that is, leader, follower, situation, and communication, along with their interaction with each other. 

            The resulting narration and description may be “thick” but this is the nature of a qualitative study, reflecting the in-depth investigation of a phenomenon.  The numerical responses are treated using summary descriptive statistics of the average.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amabile, T.M. (1988).  A model of creativity and innovation in oganizations.  In Staw, B. & Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior.  Greenwich, CN:  JAI Press.

Bambalan, G.C. (2005).  Elements of sustainability in Philippine forest governance.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.  NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, M.C.P., Reyes, D.R., & Tapales, P.D. (Eds.).  Introduction to public administration in the Philippines:  A reader (66-76).  Quezon City:  NCPAG, University of the Philippines.

Bell, P.D. (1993).  Fulfilling the public trust:  Ten ways to help nonprofit boards maintain accountability.  Washington, D.C.:  National Center for Nonprofit Boards.

Bhatta, G. & Gonzalez, J.L., III (Eds.) (1998).  Governance innovations in the Asia-Pacific Region; Trends, cases and issues.  Sydney: Ashgate.    NCPAG Reserve

            (reproduce pp. 23-48; 103-112; 231-256; 286-298)

Brillantes, A.B., Jr. (2001, January and April).  Developing indicators of local governance in the Philippines:  Towards an “ISO” for LGUs.  Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 45 (1 & 2):  18-34.

_______. (2001, January and April).  Doing things differently:  Innovations in local governance in the Philippines.  Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 45 (1 & 2) :  84-96.

_______.  (2003).  Innovations and excellence; Understanding local governments in the Philippines.  Quezon City:  Center for Local and Regional Governance, NCPAG, University of the Philippines. 

_______ & Cuachon, N.G. (2002).  Decentralization & power shift.  Working Paper Series.  Quezon City:  Center for Local and Regional Governance, NCPAG, University of the Philippines.

Buendia, E.E. (2001).  Democratizing governance in the Philippines:  Redefining and measuring the state of people’s participation in governance.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.  NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Cabo, W.L. (1998).  Overview of local governments in the Philippines.  In Tapales, P.D., Cuaresma, J.C., & Cabo, W.L. (Eds.), Local government in the Philippines:  A book of readings (147-164).  Quezon City:  CLRG, NCPAG, UP.

Capuno, J.J. (2005, July).  The quality of local governance and development under decentralization in the Philippines.  UPSE Discussion Paper No. 0506.  Quezon City:  School of Economics, University of the Philippines.

_______  (2010, November). Leadership and innovation under decentralization:  A case study of selected local governments in the Philippines.  UPSE Discussion paper No. 2010-10.  Quezon City:  School of Economics, University of the Philippines.

_______, Garcia, M.M.S., & Sardalla, J.S. (2001, January-April).  Tracking good governance and local development:  Is the GOFORDEV Index a valid measure?  Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 45 (1-2):  35-49.

Cariño, L.V. (2001).  Private action for public good?  The public role of voluntary sector organizations.  Public Organization Review, 1: 55-74.

_______ (2003).  The concept of governance.  In Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, M.C.P., Reyes, D.R., & Tapales, P.D. (Eds.).  Introduction to public administration in the Philippines:  A reader (66-76).  Quezon City:  NCPAG, University of the Philippines. 

Creswell, J.W. (1994).  Research design:  Qualitative and quantitative approaches.  London:  Sage.

Dannug, R.R. & Campanilla, M.B. (2003).  Politics, governance and government with Philippine constitution.  San Juan, Metro Manila:  C & E Publishing, Inc.

Decentralization & power shift:  An imperative for good governance (2002).  Quezon City:  Asia Resource on Decentralization.  JS 6950  D33  NCPAG, MLib Fil

De Guzman, I.A. (2007).  Determinants of productivity among senior citizens of Marikina City.  Undergraduate thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Home Economics, College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

De Guzman, R.P. & Reforma, M.A. (1998).  Decentralization towards democratization and development in the Asian Pacific Region.  In In Tapales, P.D., Cuaresma, J.C., & Cabo, W.L. (Eds.), Local government in the Philippines:  A book of readings (21-66).  Quezon City:  CLRG, NCPAG, UP.

Dhungel, D.N. (2002).  Governance, situation in Nepal.  Kathmandu:  Modern Printing Press.

Domingo, M.O.Z. (2004).  Good governance of civil society organizations and the role of the boards.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.   NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Estrella, M. & Iszatt, N. (Eds.) (2004).  Beyond good governance:  Participatory democracy in the Philippines.  Quezon City:  Institute for Popular Democracy.

            JS 7303  A2  B48   MLib Fil

Gonzalez, E.T., III & Mendoza, M.L. (2000).  Measuring public sector productivity and quality:  The use of data envelopment analysis.  In Mendoza, M.L. (Ed.), Measuring good governance in the Philippines (317-343).  Pasig City:  Development Academy of the Philippines.   

Gow, J.I. (1994).  Learning from others:  Administrative innovations among Canadian governments.  Monographs in Canadian Public Administration – No. 16.  The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

Gronhaug, K. & Kaufmann, G. (1988).  Innovation:  A cross-disciplinary perspective.  London:  Norwegian University Press.  HM 213  I66  CBA

Guiza, E.C. & Fernandez, M.A.Z. (1997).  Local governance innovations:  Learning from the experience of Galing Pook award winners in the Philippines.  In Taschereau, S. & Campos, J.E. (Eds.), Governance innovations:  Lessons from experience.  Building government-citizen-business partnerships.  Ottawa, Canada:  Institute on Governance.

Jung, S.J. (2004).  A study on leadership for good governance.  Star Paper submitted for the Master in Public Administration degree, NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobaton, P. (1999).  Governance matters.  Washington D.C.:  WB.

Local Government Academy, Department of Interior and Local Government (1999).  Squatter-free Marikina, Marikina City.  Manila:  LGA, DILG. 

            HN 720  Z82   C6  L62  no. 13   NCPAG  MLib Fil

MacTaggart, R.T. & Shie, A. (1997).  Public service leadership in the 21st century.  In Taschereau, S. & Campos, J.E. (Eds.), Governance innovations:  Lessons from experience.  Building government-citizen-business partnership (43-58).  Ottawa: Canada:  Institute on Governance.

Manasan, R.G., Gonzales, E.T., & Gaffud, R.B. (1999).  Towards better government:  Developing indicators of good governance for local government.  Makati City:  NEDA.           JS 7302  A2  M35   NCPAG, Econ

Martin, J. (2001, January and April).  Innovation strategies in Australian local government.  Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 45 (1 & 2): 50-80.

Mendoza, M.F.V. (2003).  Regulation in the Philippine electricity industry.  Lessons of the past and implications on governance.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.  NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Mendoza, M.L. (Ed.) (2000).  Measuring good governance in the Philippines.  Pasig City:  Development Academy of the Philippines.    JQ 1431  M43   NCPAG, Econ, Educ, MLib Fil

_______ & Gonzalez, E.T., III(2000).  Between good management and good governance:  The case for the Philippine Quality Award.  In Mendoza, M.L. (Ed.) (2000).  Measuring good governance in the Philippines (347-375).  Pasig City:  Development Academy of the Philippines.   

Merencilla, E.F. (2002).  A study on the food sanitation practices of microfood caterers in the informal sector of the food industry in Barangay Sto. Niño, Marikina City.  Undergraduate thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Home Economics, College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.    LG 993.5  2002   H67   M47

Moreno, F.G. (2004).  Good governance in microcredit strategy for poverty reduction focus on Western Mindanao.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.  NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Munshi, S. & Abraham, B. (Eds.) (2004).  Good governance, democratic societies and globalization.  New Delhi:  Sage.   JN 94  A58  G66   NCPAG

Natividad, J.N. (2000).  Measuring pro-poor governance:  Will the human poverty index help?.  In Mendoza, M.L. (Ed.) (2000).  Measuring good governance in the Philippines (17-34).  Pasig City:  Development Academy of the Philippines.

Oates, W. (1972).  Fiscal federalism.  New York:  Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

            HJ 192  O18   NCPAG

Paul, S. (1991).  Strengthening of public service accountability:  A conceptual framework.  WB Discussion Paper 136.  Washington D.C.:  WB.

Pierre, J. (Ed.) (2000). Debating governance; Authority, steering, and democracy.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

Philippine Governance Assessment Team (2003).  Governance assessment of the Philippines.  Mandaluyong, MMA:  Asian Development Bank.   NCPAG Reserve

Portfolio on enabling environment:  Poverty reduction through good governance (2004).  Manila:  Government of the Philippines.    JQ 1431  P67  2004   NCPAG

Premchand, A. (1999).  Public financial accountability.  In Schiavo-Campo, S. (Ed.), Governance, corruption, and public financial management (145-192).  Manila:  ADB.

Rama, S.D.V.B. (2011).  Governance of mining in Palawan, Philippines:  Collaborative governance and sustainability.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.  NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Razon-Abad, H., Gregorio-Medel, A., Brillantes, A.B., Jr., & Angeles, J.I. (2002).  Developing good governance indicators for anti-poverty program assessment.  Makati City:  NEDA/UNDP.

Root, H.L. (1995).  Managing development through institution-building.  Occasional Papers No. 12.  Manila:  ADB. 

Sabile, C.V. (2007).  The decentralization policy implementation and school performance.  Master’s thesis submitted for the degree Master of Arts in Teaching, College of Education, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.   LG 995  2007  E33  S24   Educ EDAD

Santiago, E.V. (1996).  Financial management innovations in Marikina.  In Tapales, P.D., Padilla, P.L., Joaquin, M.E.T. with Santiago, E.V. (Eds.), Modern management in Philippine local government (100-110).  Quezon City:  College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines, the Public Promotion Centre, and the German Foundation for International Development.

Schiavo-Campo, S. (Ed.) (1999).  Governance, corruption, and public financial management.  Manila:  ADB.

Sharp, B.S., Aguirre, G., & Kickham, K. (2011).  Managing in the public sector.  Boston:  Longman.

Smith, B.C. (2007).  Good governance and development.  Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hants:  Palgrave Macmillan.   JF 60  S56  2007  NCPAG

Strachan, M., Hardee, K., & Grey, G.A. (2001).  The policy environment score.  Retrieved from http://www.policyproject.com/>, August 9, 2012.

Sundbo, J. (1998).  The theory of innovation:  Entrepreneurs, technology and strategy.  United Kingdom:  Edward Elgar.    HD 45  S95   CBA

Tandon, R. (1998).  Board games:  Governance and accountability in NGOs.  In Edwards, M. & Hulme, D. (Eds.), Non-governmental organizations – performance and accountability:  Beyond the magic bullet (41-49).  London:  Earthscan.

Tanzi, V. (1999).  Governance, corruption, and public finance:  An overview.  In Schiavo-Campo, S. (Ed.), Governance, corruption, and public financial management (1-20).  Manila:  ADB.

Taschereau, S. & Campos, J.E. (Eds.) (1997).  Governance innovations:  Lessons from experience.  Building government-citizen-business partnerships.  Ottawa, Canada:  Institute on Governance.   NCPAG Reserve

Tigno, J.V. (2003).  Governance and public policy in the Philippines:  Republic Act 8042 and the deregulation of the overseas employment sector.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.  NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

United Nations.  Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2006).  Innovations in governance and public administration:  Replicating what works.  New York:  United Nations.

United Nations Development Programme (1997a, January).  Reconceptualizing governance.  Discussion Paper 2.  New York:  Bureau of Policy & Programme Support, UNDP.

_______ (1997b, January).  Governance for sustainable development:  A UNDP policy document.  New York:  UNDP.

Vergel de Dios, J.B. (2003).  Transformation of a once well-known red-light district:  The case of Calumpang, Marikina.  Master’s thesis submitted for the degree of Master in Urban and Regional Planning, School of Urban and Regional Planning (SURP), University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

            LG 995  2003  P518  V47   Archives, SURP

Verdote, A.G. (2000).  Waterfront redevelopment as an approach to urban renewal:  A case study of the Marikina River Park.  Undergraduate thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture, College of Architecture, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.   LG 995  2000  P518   V47   SURP, Archives

Internet:

City of San Juan.  “Tagumpay ng San Juan.”  (http://sanjuandemo.wordpress.com).  Retrieved March 7, 2012.

“Comments in support of Marides Fernando.”  (http://www.worldmayorcom/).  Retrieved March 7, 2012.

“Concepts of leadership.” (http://www.nwlink.com/).  Retrieved April 11, 2012

Department of Tourism.  “Marikina City.”  (http://www.visitmyphilippines.com).  Retrieved March 6, 2012.

London, Scott (1994).  Book review of Reinventing Government.  (http://www.scottlondon.com/).  Retrieved March 9, 2012.

“Marikina.”  (http://en-wikipedia.org).  Retrieved March 7, 2012.

San Juan City Government.  “The Historic City of San Juan.”  (http://www.samjuancitygov.ph/)  Retrieved March 6, 2012.

“San Juan City Mayor Accomplishments (2001-2010).” (http://wwwjvejercito.com).  Retrieved March 7, 2012.

Appendix 1.  Checklist of Indicators

Indicator 1:      Leadership

a.       Presence of a strong, strict but dedicated leader

- governs with conviction

- has a strong sense of political will

b.   Has clear direction in terms of well thought-out long-term vision- 

      mission-goals

b.      Is the leadership able to translate the city’s VMG?

c.       Does the leader actively develop networks and linkages with other institutions, local, national, and international?

d.      Is the leader able to attain the targets despite constraints, financial, political, and administrative?

e.       Is the leader aggressively pursuing resource generation and mobilization for the sake of the programs?

f.       Does the leader ensure the accuracy and reliability of information coming to the mayor’s office?

g.      Does the leader uphold merit over patronage in the implementation of programs?

h.      Is the leader able to facilitate consensus building and manage conflict among competing interests?

Stakeholders.  

a.       Do they attach importance to the need for changes in the city and improve its status and prestige,

b.      Do they give importance to cooperation, collaboration, teamwork, and networking to strengthen a program’s success, and

c.       Do they trust their mayor’s leadership knowing that they who support the mayor can do wonders for the programs and the city.

Good Governance Strategies/Mechanisms

            Accountability. 

a.  Is there an office responsible for the formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of programs?  Are the expected outputs of the office concrete and measurable?

b.  Are the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders well-defined?

c.  Are the program’s activities monitored and evaluated?  Is the monitoring and evaluation conducted regularly? 

d.  Do the programs allow or timely and necessary changes in implementation?

e.  Are there planning tools used (work plan, Ghantt chart, SWOT analysis) in the programs?  

f.   Is the attainment of program objectives included in the performance evaluation of the mayor and program directors/coordinators?

g.   Do auditing rules and procedures facilitate the [programs’ implementation?

h.   Are audited reports and schedules of the programs posted in public places?

            Transparency. 

a.   Is there accurate and updated information about the extent of poverty in the community?  Is this available to the public?

b.   Is there a community data board?  What kind of data are posted?  Is the board updated?  Who gathers the data board and records them on the board?

c.   Does the public know where they can access information about the programs of the city hall?

d.   Are reports and other pertinent documents from design and implementation o the programs easily available to the pubic?

e.   Are the criteria used for selection of beneficiaries in the programs made available?

f.    Is information on the process made clear?

g.   Are there feedback or built-in corrective mechanisms established to obtain inputs from stakeholders?

            Participation. 

a.   Are there mechanisms to encourage participation and obtain feedback from the stakeholders?

b.   Are there sectoral representatives for the marginalized communities, such as the urban poor, women, senior citizens, in the local special bodies and Sanggunians?

c.   Do the local special bodies meet regularly?

d.   Are minutes of the meeting kept?

e.   At what point has civil society been involved in the programs?

f.   Are there incentives provided by the city hall to encourage public-business sector-civil society partnerships?

g.   Are there policies and ordinances enacted by the city to ensure participation of the poor and vulnerable in the programs? 

h.   Are the NGO/PO representatives bonafide members of their sectors?

Appendix 2.  LGU Awardees of the Galing Pook Awards

(1994 to 2009)

1994:

            Naga City:  1)  Metro Naga Development Council

                               2)  Kaantabay sa Kauswagan

            Cebu City:  1)  Tax Computerization

                               2)   Hillyland Resource Management and Cebu City

            Mandaluyong City:  Build-Operate-Transfer Commercial Center/Public Market    

            Puerto Princesa City:  Bantay Puerto         

1995:

            Marikina City:  Save the Marikina River

            Cebu City:  Emergency Medical Service

            Naga City:  Productivity Improvement Program

            Victorias City:  Municipal Bond Flotation for Pabahay Bond Program

            San Carlos City, Negros Occidental:  Building a Barangay Fishport

            Muñoz, Nueva Ecija:  Acquisition of Complete Equipment Pool

            Surigao City:  Mobilizing Women for Primary Health Care

1996:

            Naga City:  1)  Government Computerization

                               2)   Education and Development Program

            San Carlos City, Negros Occidental:  Lote para sa Mahirap

            Baguio City:  Eco-Walk

            Cagayan de Oro City:  Agora Mobile School for School Children

            Puerto Princesa City:  Satellite Hospitals

            Lipa City:  Sipag Lakas

            Muntinlupa City:  Management of Human Settlement Program

1997:

            Marikina City:  Politika sa Bangketa (red sidewalk); Simula ng Pagbabago

            Puerto Princesa City:  Carabao and Tractor Pool

            San Carlos City, Negros Occidental:  Road for Progress

            Olongapo City:  Volunteerism, Olongapo Style

            Legazpi City:  Alternative Commercial Business District

            Sagay City, Negros Occidental:  Marine Reserve

            Bais City:  Environment Management Program

            Butuan City:  Child Labor Program

1998:

            Marikina City:  1)  Barangay Talyer

                                        2)  Squatter-free Marikina

            Surigao City:  Barangay Infrastructure Development Program

            Mandaluyong City:  More Homes for More People

            Pagadian City:  Livelihood Development Assistance Program

            Tagaytay City:  Financial Engineering Program

            Parañaque City:  Health Card System (blue card)

            Oroquieta City:  Barangay Self-sufficiency Program

1999:

            Marikina City:  Five-minute Quick Response Time

            Surigao City:  Local Government Economic Enterprise Development Program

            Muñoz, Nueva Ecija:  Moving Onwards to Muñoz Agricultural Science City

                  Program

            Tagaytay City:  People’s Park in the Sky

            Tagbilaran City:  Integrated Market and Business Terminal Complex

            Makati City:  Vendors Program

2000:

            San Carlos City, Negros Occidental:  Punongkahoy sa Bawa’t Pumanaw

            San Fernando, Pampanga:  Breaking Financial Barriers

            Legazpi City:  Integrated Program for Neglected and Abused Children

            Muntinlupa City:  Real Property Tax Computerization Program

            Dumaguete City:  Dumpsite as Ecology Park and Livelihood Source

2001:  No awards

2002:

            Science City of Muñoz:  Developing the Matingkis Farm Tourism Project

            Naga City:  People Empowerment Program

            Mandaue City:  Tripartite Industrial Peace Council

            Pasay City:  Bayanihan Banking Program

2003:

            Cebu City:  Support for Community Initiatives and Partnerships to Respond to

                  VAW and Other Gender Concerns

            Quezon City:  Effective Fiscal Management

            Muntinlupa City:  CRUSADA – Crusade Against Drug Abuse

            Pasay City:  PhilHealth Plus

            Iligan City:  Missionville – Reliving the Bayanihan Spirit through Multi-

                 Partnership

2004:

            Naga City:  1)  I-Governance

                               2)  Reinventing the Naga City School Board

            Vigan City:  The Vigan Heritage Conservation Program

            Calbayog City:  Marginal Fishermen

2005: 

            Marikina City:  The Bicycle-friendly City

            Quezon City:  Molave Youth Home

            Tuguegarao City:  Tuguegarao Agricultural and Fishery Modernization Program

            Ligao City, Albay:  Upland Central Economic Zone

2006:   No awards

2007:

            Marikina City:  Eco-Savers

            Naga City:  City Youth Month

            Cebu City:  Strengthening the Justice System at the Grassroots

            San Carlos City, Negros Occidental:  Tubig Bayranan Pagaagay sa Kaugmaan

                 (Water Levy and Watershed Management)

            Las Piñas City:  Integrated Shelter and Land Tenure for the Urban Poor

2008:

            Marikina City:  Service Without Delay through Centralized Warehousing

            Quezon City:  Transforming Payatas Dumpsite

            San Carlos City, Negros Occidental:  Orchestrating Efforts Towards a Sustainable

                 City           

            San Fernando City, Pampanga:  Governance as a Shared Responsibility

            Taguig City:  Condo Living for the Urban Poor

2009:

            Marikina City:  Promoting Healthy Living through Clean Food and Water

                  Lab

            Cebu City:  Kuwarta sa Basura – Harnessing Multistakeholders’ Participation

            Quezon City:  Creating Great Public Spaces – Massive Parks Development

            Valencia City, Bukidnon:  Barobo Uswag ug Lungtud – Ampingan ang Wati nga

                  Nagmugna sa Abonong Natural

            Parañaque City:  Adolescent-friendly Reproductive Health Services

            Malaybalay City:  Integrated Survey System

            Bayawan City, Negros Oriental:  Adopting the Ecosan Approach in Health and

                  Environment

Appendix 3:  The Awards of Marikina City under

Mayor Bayani Fernando (1992-2001)

• Philippine Quality Award 1999, Silver Award – Proficiency Level for Organizational Excellence awarded by Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

• Philippine Quality Award 1999, Bronze Award – Commitment Level for Organizational Excellence awarded by DAP /DTI

  • Galing Pook Hall of Fame Award for five programs:

o         Save the Marikina River

o         Politika sa Bangketa

o         Squatter-Free Marikina

o         Barangay Talyer

o         5-Minute Quick Response Time

o         Including in the TOP TEN Category in 4 years     (1995-1999)

• Hall of Fame, Search for the Cleanest and Greenest Town in the NCR, 1996 by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) of NCR

• Hall of Fame, Search for the Cleanest Inland Body of Water in the NCR, 1996 by DILG of NCR

• Cleanest School in the NCR (Parang Elementary School), 1999 awarded by Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran

  • Health (Best Managed) Public Market in the Philippines and NCR, 1998 by the Department of Health (DOH)

  • Cleanest Market in the NCR, 1999, Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran—DILG, DOH, MMDA, Philippine Information Authority (PIA)

  •  

  • Best Public Wet Market in the NCR, 1997, Department of Agriculture (DA), National Consumers Council

• Best Local Government Unit in the NCR, 1994 awarded by DILG and Presidential Assistant on Community Development (PACD)

• Best Local Government Unit in the Philippines, 1995 awarded by DILG

• Most Outstanding City in the Philippines, 1997 awarded by DILG

• Best Managed City in the Philippines, 1999 awarded by DILG            

Other Achievements                                         

1)     Outstanding Filipino (TOFIL) Awardee for Government Service (1998)

2)     Konrad Adonauer Medal of Excellence Award

3)     Productivity Excellence in Leadership Award by the Asian Productivity

      Organization Society of the Philippines (1997)

4)     Most Outstanding Local Chief Executive in the Philippines (1996)

5)     Outstanding Mapuan (1994)

6)   Conferred with 55 major regional and national awards during his 

       incumbency as Mayor of Marikina City

Motto: “Implement the law without the fear of losing votes. This is POLITICAL WILL.”

Appendix 4.  Questionnaire

(for the city mayor)

Name of Interviewee: ________________________________________

Date and time of interview: ___________________________________

Venue of interview: __________________________________________

I.   Interviewee’s Profile

     Date of birth: __________________________

     Place of birth: _________________________

     Town/Province of origin: __________________________________

     Highest educational attainment: ________________________________

     Religious affiliation: ________________________

     Year of start of residence in the city: ____________

     Name of spouse: ______________________________________

     Number of children: _________

II. Fill in the blanks with the appropriate response to open-ended questions, or encircle

     the number in case of multiple choice items or scaled items.

     1.  What is your area of specialization (college preparation)? _____________

                       ___________________________________________________________

     2.  Describe how your college preparation contributed to your competence in

                       city administration, governance, and ability to manage the city

                       government’s services, programs, and projects.  ____________________ 

                       ___________________________________________________________

                       ___________________________________________________________

     3.  Describe how your political experience contributed to your competence in dealing with and answering the needs and problems of the city residents.

___________________________________________________________

            ___________________________________________________________

     4.  Describe how your business experience contributed to your competence or

      ability to run the city government on a sound financial basis?

     5.  Rate yourself by encircling the appropriate number in the 5-point scale, with 1 as “not me” and 5 as “most truly me.”

a.   tolerant of others’ faults:                     1          2          3          4          5

b.  an understanding person:                     1          2          3          4          5

c.  disciplinarian:                                       1          2          3          4          5

d.  high-income family:                             1          2          3          4          5

e.  middle-income family:                         1          2          3          4          5

f.   public-oriented:                                   1          2          3          4          5

g.  private interest-oriented:                      1          2          3          4          5

     6.  Rate your decision-making behavior preference using a 5-point scale, with 1 as “not my preference” and 5 as “my most preferred decision-

                  making.”

                  a.  I decide based on my

                       own criteria:                                         1          2          3          4          5                               

                  b.  I decide independently:                       1          2          3          4          5

                  c.  My decisions prove better

                       than others’ decisions:                         1          2          3          4          5

 d.  I consult others before

                       making the decision:                            1          2          3          4          5

                  e.  I solicit the opinion or

                       advice of others to come

      up with a good decision:                      1          2          3          4          5

       7.  The moment you assumed your post as city mayor, which five tasks immediately demanded your attention?  

                  a.  ____________________________________________________________

                  b. ____________________________________________________________

 c. ____________________________________________________________

                  d. ____________________________________________________________                  

 e. ____________________________________________________________

       8.  What were the problems that made these tasks stressful?  Elaborate a little on

      your response.

      a.  ____________________________________________________________

           ____________________________________________________________

      b.  ____________________________________________________________

           ____________________________________________________________ 

      c.  ____________________________________________________________ 

           ____________________________________________________________       

                  d.  ____________________________________________________________ 

        9.  Looking back during your 9-year term, which do you now consider as your

three most successful programs/project?  Please explain why.

       10. What lessons have you learned during your 9-year stay at the city hall about

                  a.   what programs the mayor should prioritize:

                  b.  what kind of followers to rely on for the successful implementation of a   

                       program or project:

c.       what the most important factor in leadership is:

On Accountability 

1.   Is there an office responsible for the formulation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of programs?

2.  Are the expected outputs of the office concrete and measurable?

3.  Are the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders well-defined?

4.  Are the program’s activities monitored and evaluated?  Is the monitoring and evaluation conducted regularly?

5.  Do the programs allow or timely and necessary changes in implementation?

6.  Are there planning tools used (work plan, Ghantt chart, SWOT analysis) in the programs?  

7.  Is the attainment of program objectives included in the performance evaluation of the mayor and program directors/coordinators?

8.  Do auditing rules and procedures facilitate the [programs’ implementation?

9.  Are audited reports and schedules of the programs posted in public places?

On Transparency 

1.  Is there accurate and updated information about the extent of poverty in the community?

2.  Is this available to the public?

3.  Is there a community data board? 

4.  What kinds of data are posted? 

5.  Is the data board updated?

6.  Who posts and updates data on the board?

7.  Does the public know where they can access information about the programs of the city hall?

8.   Are reports and other pertinent documents from design and implementation of the programs easily available to the public?

9.   Are the criteria used for selection of beneficiaries in the programs made available?

10. Is information on the process made clear?

11. Are there feedback or built-in corrective mechanisms established to obtain inputs from stakeholders?

On Participation

1.   Are there mechanisms to encourage participation and obtain feedback from the stakeholders?

2.   Are there sectoral representatives for the marginalized communities, such as the urban poor, women, senior citizens, in the local special bodies and Sanggunians?

3.   Do the local special bodies meet regularly?

4.   Are minutes of the meeting kept?

5.   At what point has civil society been involved in the programs?

6.   Are there incentives provided by the city hall to encourage public-business sector-civil society partnerships?

7.   Are there policies and ordinances enacted by the city to ensure participation of the poor and vulnerable in the programs? 

8.  Are the NGO/PO representatives bonafide members of their sectors?

AUTHOR  INDEX

A

ADB, 20

Agra, 25

Amabile, 42

B

Bass, 41

Bautista, 21

Bernas, 23-24

Bhatta & Gonzalez, III, 36

Bovaird & Loffler, 42

Brillantes, Jr., 12, 24-25, 27, 33-34, 36, 39

Brillantes, et al, 39

C

Cabo, 23

Capuno, 23, 26, 30-31, 40

Capuno, Garcia, & Sardalla, 34

Cariño, 22

Ciulla, 41

D

Dannug  & Campanilla, 1-2

De Guzman & Reforma, 24

Dhungel, 21

Domingo, 32-34

E

F

G

Gonzalez, III & Bhatta, 17-18

Gow, 36

Guiza & Fernandez, 28-29, 36

H

I

J

K

L

Legaspi, 24

M

Mactaggart & Shie, 28-29

Manasan, Gonzales, & Gaffud, 21, 32-34

Martin, 31-32, 37, 42-43

Mendoza, 21

Minogue, 38-39

N

NEDA, 20-21

O

Osborne & Gaebler, 42

P

Pelz & Munson, 35-36

Pierce & Nostrom, 41-42

Q

R

Razon-Abad, et al, 33-34, 42, 44-46

S

Strachen, Hardee & Gray, 40

T

Tanzi, 12, 18, 38

Tigno, 21

U

UN, 35-37, 42

UNDP, 19-20

V

Van de Ven, 35

W

WB, 17, 21

Y

Z

CLAIMS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE SCHOLARS (by page and by author)