MODERNIZING THE MMDA
MODERNIZING THE MMDA
What really is
the role or mandate of the MMDA? Many of us assume that it is a policy-making
body, because we see its Chairman constantly issuing statements, directives, or
pronouncements that affect the daily lives of Metro Manila residents. But the
truth is, the MMDA is not supposed to be a policy-making agency at all. The
actual policy-making body is the Metro Manila Council (MMC).
This is where
the confusion begins. The MMDA, under Republic Act 7924, was created as a
development authority to implement programs for Metro Manila—traffic
management, flood control, solid waste, urban renewal, disaster response, and
so on. But technically, the MMDA is supposed to be just an executive or
implementing agency, acting under the authority of the Metro Manila Council. In
corporate terms, the MMC is the “Board of Directors” of the MMDA. The MMC is
also supposed to function as the de facto Regional Development Council (RDC)
for the metropolis.
If that is so,
then why is the MMDA acting as if it were an authority on its own? Why does it
have a Chairman, with Cabinet-level rank, who sometimes looks more powerful
than the 17 mayors combined? If the MMC already has a Chairman—usually one of
the mayors elected among themselves—why do we still need another Chairman for
the MMDA? To me, this looks like a leftover from the martial law years, when
central authority had to be asserted above local governments. That might have
made sense then, but should it still be the case today?
I think not.
What MMDA really needs is not another Chairman, but a General Manager who
reports to the MMC Chairman. The Council should be doing the planning, while
the MMDA should be doing the executing. That way, the mayors—the real elected
leaders of their constituencies—would collectively set the direction, and the
MMDA would serve as the professional implementing arm.
To be fair, the
MMC is not a token body. It is composed of the 17 Metro Manila mayors as voting
members, with representatives from national agencies like DPWH, DOH, and DepEd
as non-voting members. The MMC approves metro-wide plans and regulations, coordinates
development across LGUs, and provides oversight on MMDA programs and budgets.
But here’s the catch: since the MMDA has its own Chairman with Cabinet rank,
the balance of power often tilts toward the MMDA itself, reducing the MMC to a
consultative role rather than the governing body it was meant to be.
This imbalance
explains why Metro Manila often looks more like a patchwork of competing
jurisdictions than a coordinated metropolis. Traffic rules differ from one city
to another. Flood control is carried out in fragments—some dredging here, some
drainage unclogging there—with no unified master plan. Solid waste management
is uneven, with some LGUs doing well in segregation and recycling, and others
lagging far behind. Shouldn’t these functions be integrated at the metro-wide
level, under the clear planning authority of the MMC and the executing mandate
of the MMDA?
The irony is
that the law already provides for this arrangement. But practice has distorted
it. The presence of an MMDA Chairman has allowed the implementing agency to
sometimes overshadow its supposed policy-making council. In effect, it is as if
the “secretariat” has become the “board,” while the “board” has been reduced to
a rubber stamp. That is not the way governance is supposed to work.
If we are
serious about modernizing the MMDA, the reform should begin with governance
structure. Let the MMC truly function as the board of directors and as the
regional development council. Let the MMDA become what it was meant to be: the
professional, technical, and executive arm of the Council. No more confusion,
no more duplication of chairmanships.
This structural
reform will also clarify accountability. When floods happen, or when traffic
grinds to a halt, people will know exactly who is responsible for planning (the
MMC) and who is responsible for execution (the MMDA). Right now, accountability
is blurred, and this blurring allows problems to persist year after year.
Modernizing the
MMDA is not just about adding more traffic enforcers, building more pumping
stations, or buying more garbage trucks. It is about fixing the very foundation
of governance in Metro Manila. Planning and execution must be clearly divided.
Authority must flow from the MMC as the governing body, down to the MMDA as the
implementing arm.
Otherwise, we
will continue to live under a system where the agency meant to implement is
busy pretending to be the authority, while the council meant to govern is
sidelined. And Metro Manila, the country’s most vital region, will continue to
stumble along without the modern, coordinated management it so badly needs.
Ramon Ike V. Seneres,
www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282,
senseneres.blogspot.com
Comments
Post a Comment