---

By Karl Garcia

The Philippines does not suffer from a lack of laws, plans, or institutions. It suffers from something more corrosive and less visible: a system where no one is truly in charge, yet everyone claims authority.

The symptoms are familiar—non-integration, non-coordination, turf wars, ego, pride, and impunity. Each agency guards its mandate. Each local government invokes autonomy. Each official insists they are acting “within the law.” And when things fail, responsibility dissolves into a fog of coordination meetings and inter-agency committees.

This is not accidental. It is structural.

The Core Misdiagnosis

Many argue that the root problem is too much decentralization. Others counter that any re-centralization risks dictatorship or fascism. Both camps miss the real issue.

The Philippine governance crisis is not decentralization itself, but decentralization without enforceable integration.

The 1991 Local Government Code devolved functions, budgets, and discretion to more than 1,600 local government units—but it did not devolve integration mechanisms, command clarity, or accountability for national outcomes. What emerged was not empowered local democracy, but fragmented authority.

The result:

• National plans exist, but are optional
• Agencies “coordinate” instead of command
• Local autonomy becomes a veto power
• Failure produces no consequences

This is not democracy at work. It is organized irresponsibility.

Why Abolishing Devolution Is the Wrong Answer

Calls to abolish devolution are understandable—but dangerous.

Full re-centralization would:

• Overwhelm the national executive
• Recreate opportunities for centralized corruption
• Kill local innovation and responsiveness
• Reopen the door to authoritarian temptations

The Philippines has already lived through hyper-centralization. Speed was achieved, but accountability was captured. The post-1987 system overcorrected in the opposite direction, producing paralysis.

The real solution lies between these extremes.

The Missing Concept: Integrated Governance

What the Philippines never completed after 1987 was integrated governance.

In functional democracies, governance rests on a simple but disciplined principle:

Command unity at the strategic level, execution diversity at the local level.

The Philippines instead adopted:

• Political decentralization
• Administrative fragmentation
• And a culture of coordination without authority

This is why turf wars thrive. No one can compel integration, and no one is punished for refusing it.

The Civilian Supremacy Confusion

This dysfunction is worsened by a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution itself—specifically civilian supremacy.

Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution states:
“Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.”

Over time, this was distorted into a slogan meaning:

• Civilians must control everything, at every level
• Professional command is suspect
• Expertise is secondary to political discretion

This is a category error.

What the Constitution actually intended

Civilian supremacy has three distinct layers:

1. Civilian Supremacy (Normative)
   Civilians decide the ends: policy, goals, limits, and law.
2. Civilian Authority (Institutional)
   Civilians hold legal command: legitimacy, appointments, oversight.
3. Professional Command (Operational)
   Professionals decide the means: tactics, execution, deployment—within law.

The Philippines collapsed all three into one vague idea, producing civilian overreach and professional paralysis. Coordination replaced command. Fear of “militarization” replaced competence. No one led, but everyone interfered.

Ironically, this undermines democracy rather than protecting it.

Why Even Constitutional Framers Are Mocked

When constitutional convention members explain their intent, they are often ridiculed—not because they are wrong, but because principles were never translated into procedures.

The Constitution provided norms. Legislators failed to build:

• Command diagrams
• Legal triggers
• Integration mandates
• Automatic enforcement mechanisms

Without operational clarity, constitutional principles sound abstract—almost evasive. The mockery is misplaced, but the frustration is real.

The Real Reform Agenda: Integration Without Authoritarianism

The solution is not dictatorship, emergency powers, or strongman rule. It is rule-based integration.

1. National Policy Supremacy

National strategies (development, security, climate, maritime) must be legally binding, not advisory. Local autonomy cannot override national survival, environmental integrity, or economic stability.

2. Mission-Based Authorities

Replace endless coordination with mission authorities that have:

• Legal command power
• Budget-holding authority
• Single chains of command
• Time-bound mandates

Maritime security, food security, disaster response—these are missions, not committee topics.

3. Conditional Autonomy

Autonomy should be earned and maintained, not absolute. High-performing LGUs gain discretion. Chronic failures trigger temporary reintegration or receivership—rule-based, not political.

4. Budget Fusion

Turf wars exist because money is fragmented. Fund missions, not agencies. Compliance unlocks funds. Non-compliance automatically withholds them.

5. Automatic Enforcement

Political will fails when enforcement is discretionary. Automation removes ego from governance. If rules are violated, consequences follow—without presidential drama.

Political Will Is Not Courage—It Is Design

The Philippines waits endlessly for “political will,” as if governance depends on heroic leaders. It does not.

Political will emerges when:

• Defection is costly
• Compliance is inevitable
• Discretion is limited
• Law, budget, and careers align

Well-designed systems compel even weak leaders to govern competently.

The Bottom Line

The Philippine problem is not too much decentralization, nor insufficient civilian supremacy.

It is this:

Decentralization without integration, and civilian supremacy without command clarity, produce power without responsibility—and that is the real constitutional failure.

Fixing this does not require abandoning democracy. It requires finishing it.

Until the country learns to distinguish who decides the goals, who holds authority, and who commands execution, the Philippines will continue to coordinate endlessly—while nothing truly moves.

And when no one is in charge, impunity is not a bug.
It is the system working exactly as designed.