The report notes that the proposed new municipalities are far from viable. They cannot be counted on as means to improve the delivery of basic social services to their constituents and would definitely constitute an additional drain on the already scarce resources of the national government.

Citing Benedicto Bacani of the Institute of Autonomy and Governance in the Notre Dame University, the report says that the new municipalities were seemingly created in a bid to temporarily resolve conflicts among rival political clans further entrenching the prevailing feudal culture. "New LGUs are created to avoid political conflicts between clans," Bacani said, adding the new towns "serve as enclaves for the political families." With everyone provided with his own political turf, they are less likely to kill each other for political power, as the logic goes for political accommodation.

And, in the strife-torn areas in Mindanao, even such a brokered peace will give valuable time to build and rebuild. You simply cannot go about delivering basic social services and promoting grassroots development if the people in the area are prone to shooting at each other. There is a need for a more tranquil and, therefore, more conducive environment. There is no disagreement with that. But is this what we really need?

For countless of times already, we have stressed the importance of LGUs in being active catalysts to development. Being closer to the people, they are in a better position compared to national government agencies to determine what basic social services are required and how best to deliver them.

But the problem is that there are never enough funds or expertise at the local level. Instead of being development advocates, local officials become glorified beggars and political hostages to the powers that be that hold sway over national government agencies. This problem will not solve itself until local executives learn to take matters into their own hands and take charge of their own destinies. In the process, they must learn two things. First, to invest their own resources, no matter how scarce, into priority development efforts instead on relying on the national government to do it for them. Second, to use their own political and corporate powers to increase their revenue streams.

In this regard, there is no better example than Makati City, which under the leadership of Mayor Jejomar Binay has become the premier LGU of the country. From an annual income of around a quarter of a billion pesos in 1986, it has since multiplied more than thirty-fold, allowing it to spend more per capita on its residents than the national government does. It has already completed all its basic infrastructure requirements and is focused on improving its global competitiveness by investing even more heavily on public education and health services.

Despite some criticisms that it has done so only because it is the country’s economic center (implying also that the Makati development model is not replicable), the fact remains that Makati was not always like this. When Binay assumed office in 1986, the then municipal government was in debt equivalent to one and a half years of its income. Clearly the decisive element in Makati’s pre-eminence is its political leadership and not its good fortune of being the country’s economy hub. Bringing about development is a matter of political will and not an exercise of politics, specifically by the "troops."