Metro Manila or the National Capital Region is regarded as the Philippines premier urban center. Considered as the 18th largest metropolitan area in the world, its estimated daytime population of 9.9 million (NSO 2000) accounts for 13 % of the national population. The rich in their plush subdivisions, a rapidly growing middle class, and disproportionately large number of marginal-income and poor families co-exist in its over 630 sq.km. or 0.21% of the country’s aggregate land area.

The NCR's contiguous area of 13 cities and 4 municipalities, each independently managed, serve as sites for 90% of the country’s private business, cultural, educational and medical establishments.

Metro Manila’s transformation began with the period of reconstruction immediately after the Second World War, and with the great immigration of the 60s. Migrants from all over the country poured into Manila, overflowing onto its once quiet suburbs and spawning bustling communities. In search of better opportunities, these migrants inordinately swelled the ranks of the NCR’s population straining carrying capacities and creating problems resulting from unregulated growth.

For local governments, the delivery of basic services became increasingly difficult. As a consequence, quality of life suffered and the environment deteriorated rapidly. These problems put a considerable strain on the capability of individual local government units, stretching financial resources to the limit.

The Need for A Metropolitan Authority

What began as sporadic cries to the National Government for help on mostly infrastructure funding or specialized local support programs gradually evolved into a call for the creation of a multi-sectoral management planning and development body.

Proposals came from newspaper editorials, from the academe, and from different sectors suggesting action to combat the ill-effects of unplanned modernization. There was a strong clamor for a coordinating council that could oversee and advise local governments on metropolitan affairs, especially when they dealt with matters of common interests. There were also suggestions for an authority that could deal with problems that went beyond town or city boundaries; an authority that could better allocate common resources to achieve economies of scale.

The awesome service backlogs of the 70s compelled the mayors of Manila and its neighboring cities and municipalities to organize themselves into a league (later on, council) which is a loose coordinating body that could attend to the most pressing problems of its member communities.

However, since membership in this council was voluntary and without permanence, the council was unable to provide a vision for middle or long term development. It was against this backdrop that moves toward integration or metropolitanization, gained momentum.

In 1972, a constitutional convention began considering proposals to create a single metropolitan area. A proposal was submitted to the Office of the President advocating a complete restructuring – political subdivisions would be abolished. The region would be directly under the Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines.

Another proposal called for the creation of a metropolitan authority. Presented by the Inter-Agency Committee on Metropolitan Manila, the proposal reiterated the need for coordination in planning, implementation and management of the projects and delivery of services. It also emphasized the need for coordination in legislation and law enforcement.

Implied in the proposals was the need for a single body, unhampered by territorial and jurisdictional limitations, which could carry out a unified plan for the development of Metro Manila.

There were other calls for a metropolitan system of a core city and an outlying region for expansion. But opinions differed on the identification exact nature of such outlying region.

In the search of a better system, metropolitan governments of other countries which bore similarities to Metro Manila, were closely studied.

By mid 1972 however, town and city mayors themselves came up with a draft proposal for a metropolitan authority and the creation of a Metropolitan Manila Mayors Council.

As the public began to clamor for immediate solutions for the continually deteriorating metropolitan conditions, arguments for different proposals were weighed.

The proposals put forward at the time may be grouped into four major categories:

-The voluntary council approach (similar to what the mayors organized);
-The development authority approach (which is similar to a regional development corporation);
-The administrative agency approach (likened to a department bureau); and;
-The political–government approach.

While the four differed in what form a metropolitan government should take, each recognized the crucial role of existing local governments in managing affairs in the metropolitan area and thus proposed their continued existence.

In substance, all agreed on the necessity of having a central body to manage the needs and provide solutions to the problems of the Greater Manila Area. The efforts of local authorities needed overall direction, prioritization and orchestration.

The Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC)

On February 27, 1975, a referendum was conducted along with the local election. The proposed idea of a manager-commission type of government, as well as the integration of the 4 cities and 13 municipalities into one entity, were put to the public.

As a result of this referendum, the “popular mandate” led to the establishment of a central government to manage the “ public corporation known as Metropolitan Manila”. The Metro Manila Commission (MMC) was thus created under P.D. 824.

Under the Metro Manila Commission, separation of powers was completely abandoned. All legislative and executive authority was vested in a small, single, governing body whose members were appointed by the President of the Philippines. Five persons, called commissioners or board members, were appointed to serve as administrators.

The commission, in substance, was to act as a central government in the Metropolitan Manila Area. It aimed to establish and administer programs and provide services common to the metropolitan area, perform general administration, executive and policy making functions including the power to tax.

MMC was a Manager Commission type of government whose executive structure was composed of the Chairman or Governor, a Vice Chairman or Vice Governor, and three board members of commissioners, one each for Finance, Planning and Operations. All members of the commission held office at the pleasure of the President, and were under his direct control and supervision.

Structurally, the MMC acted like a province over the designated area, Contributions of the cities and municipalities comprising the Metropolitan Manila Area amounting to 20% of their annual income was then the source of funds for MMC.

Despite the logic of its creation, many were traumatized by the MMC experience of the Marcos years. In 1986-87, surveys showed that public opinion favored the abolition of MMC, as it was then known, primarily because of the common perception that it was used only for political purposes by the deposed administration.

But the constituents of the metropolis could not ignore the fact that Metro Manila still faced problems because of its uncontrolled growth. The need for a body to coordinate a development strategy to guide and control its growth could not be ignored.

Despite efforts by the national government to make other cities, more attractive by accelerating their development, it became obvious that Metro Manila would remain the country’s social and economic hub in the long term.

By 1988, opinion surveys were already showing a positive turn-around in the attitude of Metro Manileños. The majority were for the retention of an overseer authority for the metropolis and arguments were no longer for abolition but for reform.

MMC existed for 14 years and 2 months until E.O. No. 392 was issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on January 9, 1990 “constituting the Metropolitan Manila Authority, providing for its powers and functions and for other purposes.”

Metro Manila Authority (MMA)

Executive Order No. 392 was based on Article XVIII, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides that the Metropolitan Manila Authority will continue to operate as the metro-wide authority in the National Capital Region (NCR) until Congress shall have passed a law creating a metropolitan authority in the area.

Therefore, MMA was an interim body for the governance of the Metropolitan Manila Area. The Authority had jurisdiction over the delivery of basic urban services requiring coordination in Metropolitan Manila. These basic urban services included among others, land use planning and zoning, traffic management, public safety, urban development and renewal, management and control of operations affecting welfare and safety and sanitation and waste management.

The interim MMA system of governance gained more support form the local executives because it provided them with opportunities for a democratic and participative management. Governed by the Metropolitan Council composed of the Mayors of the 4 cities and 13 municipalities of Metro Manila, the MMA was headed by a Chairman who was elected every six (6) months from among themselves. The mayors act as a collegial body, making policy decisions relevant to and benefiting from their own individual experiences in their respective localities, ensuring better coordinated and planned delivery of services.

The MMA was given authority to continue collecting contributions from the LGUs at a reduced amount of 15% of their annual income.

The need to come up with the final authority for Metro Manila became more pressing each day. Every year, some 300,000 persons were added to the already bloated population, and problems ranging from sanitation to traffic to flooding persisted. MMA only lasted for five (5) years. In March 1, 1995, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7924 creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA).

The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

Presently the agency in operation is governed by the Metro Manila Council, which is the policy making body composed of Mayors of all the cities and municipalities in Metro Manila, the President of the Metro Manila Vice-Mayors League and the President of the Metro Manila Councilors League (voting members).

A Chairman with a cabinet rank, who is appointed by the President, heads the Council. He is assisted by a Deputy Chairman, General Manager and Assistant General Manager for Planning, Operations and Finance and Administration, all appointed by the President.

The services under the jurisdiction of MMDA are those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend legal political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it would not be viable for said services to be provided by the individual LGUs comprising Metropolitan Manila.

These services include: (1) Development planning: (2) Transportation and traffic management: (3) Solid waste disposal and management: (4) Flood control and sewerage management: (5) Urban renewal, zoning, land use planning and shelter services; and (6) Health sanitation, urban protection and pollution control and public safety.

For the initial operation of the MMDA an appropriation of P1 Billion was authorized under RA 7924. Other sources of revenue include the share in the Internal Revenue Allotment (like a province), national subsidy, 5 percent contribution of LGUs and fines, fees and charges.

In the implementation and delivery of basic metro-wide services in Metropolitan Manila, the MMDA is mandated by RA 7924 to maintain linkages with the LGUs, national agencies performing functions at the local level, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), People’s Organizations (POs) and the private sector.

MMDA Today

For the past years, the institutional weakening of the Metro Manila Authority has become evident while in transition to MMDA because of its interim posturing. The dearth of professional staff has become inevitable in the organization due to the implementation of the government program on personnel attrition.

Confronted with lingering problems, the present dispensation has resolved to move ahead and face the challenges with vigor, thus the continuing realignment of its existing personnel to conform with its new mandate so as not to impede the delivery of basic services to the public.

With the approval of the new organization and staffing pattern of MMDA by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), it is expected that its institutional capacity shall be strengthened by judicious selection and recruitment of a good sized professional staff and funded adequately to support its activities. To ensure the survival and growth of MMDA, it is therefore, imperative that it be provided with a framework that would rationalize the objectives, functions and services delivered and transform it into an efficient, effective and responsive metropolitan body.