The Congressional investigation of the flood control mess has brought out the failure of two elements of the national economic development structure to effectively perform their assigned roles in the drama of managing the nation’s economy. One is the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The other is the system of regional development councils (RDCs).
In her testimony before Congress, the Secretary of Budget and Management stated that DBM was unable to review claims for payment for public-works project because of the voluminousness of the National Expenditure Program (NEP) – thousands of contracts crammed into 700 pages – said Secretary Pangandaman – and the fact that such review is not a part of DBM’s statutory mandate. DBM just prepares and releases SAROs (special allotment release orders) and nothing more, she said.
Given the non-approval of the proposal to elect senators on a regional basis, the RDC concept is the closest that this country has come to governance-by-region. Economic regionalization has preceded political regionalization.
As its name suggests, an RDC is intended to be the nerve-center of economic development in its area of responsibility. Everything of significance that materializes in the region especially programs, plans and projects – should be known by, or should be made known to, the RDC. In essence, every RDC is a mini-Depdev (Department of Economic Planning and Development).
To be an effective part of the national economic development structure, on RDC must be alert and active. It must keep itself aware of, and be an active participant in, every happening that is of significance to the economic development of its area of responsibility. And it should regularly provide DepDev with comprehensive and useful reports on development and trends in the region.
Unfortunately, this is not the prevailing situation. It is probably not unfair to say that the RDC system has not lived up to the expectations of the lawmakers who crafted the legislation creating the RDCs. With a handful of exceptions, the fifteen RDCs have not been performing their statutorily mandated contributions to the cherished idea of rational regional development.
Two or three examples will illustrate this point.
The Chocolate Hills of Bohol are a national geophysical and cultural treasure. The RDC of Central Visayas, of which Bohol is a part, should have known about and should have red flagged desecratory construction of a tourist resort right at the foot of one of the Hills. But the Central Visayas RDC apparently was unaware of the project or, if it was aware, failed to act.
Then there was the gain POGO (Philippine Overseas Gaming Operations) mini-kingdoms that were constructed in Pampanga and Bulacan. It boggles the mind to imagine that the Central Luzon RDC had no knowledge of the goings-on in those provinces. Again, the region’s RDC neither took steps to stop the enormous POGO projects nor did it make a report to the concerned national authorities.
And then, of course, there is the Bulacan-Pampanga flood control mess. The Central Luzon RDC has in the last few years failed to call attention to the non-execution of numerous major flood control projects in Bulacan and Pampanga, and the consequent horrendous floods year after year, in its area of responsibility.
And the situation is no better with most of the other RDCs.
Summing up, the RDC system in this country has been ineffective thus far. The RDC legislation should be amended to make the RDC an effective tool of national economic development or the RDC system should be scrapped altogether. (llagasjessa@yahoo.com)
