Every day, Metro Manila reminds us of its structural vulnerabilities—not just through traffic congestion, urban flooding, and service fragmentation, but through the quiet inefficiencies that have become normal. These are not merely symptoms of poor project execution or underinvestment in infrastructure. They reflect something more fundamental: the absence of an institutional framework appropriate for governing a megacity of over 13 million people.
Metro Manila, the Philippines’ principal urban engine, is governed by 17 separate local government units (LGUs), each operating with substantial autonomy. While local democracy is a constitutional value—and rightly so—the fragmentation in our National Capital Region has produced a situation where shared problems are addressed in piecemeal, inconsistent, and often incompatible ways.
Despite its best efforts, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is constrained by law and design. It lacks sufficient regulatory authority, independent funding, and the power to compel policy alignment across city boundaries. As a result, initiatives in transport, land use, disaster risk reduction, and solid waste management are often reactive, localized, and short-term. This outcome is not a failure of leadership. It is a failure of structure.
A Governance Challenge, Not Just an Urban One
Over the years, there has been no shortage of infrastructure programs to alleviate Metro Manila’s chronic issues. Flyovers, pumping stations, road-widening projects, traffic enforcement drives—all of these have their place. However, without a cohesive institutional mechanism for regional planning and decision-making, the impact of these initiatives will always fall short. The problem is not that we lack plans; it is that we lack integration.
The lived experience of Metro Manila residents—commuting across cities, relying on regional infrastructure, suffering from metro-wide flooding—demands a governance response that matches the geographic and economic scale of the problems. This situation is not unique to the Philippines. Global metropolitan areas from Tokyo to London have faced similar challenges and have responded by evolving new models of regional governance.
What the World Has Learned
We are not starting from zero. The international experience provides several instructive models:
- Greater Tokyo Areaoperates under a unified metropolitan government with jurisdiction over both city and prefectural functions, enabling coordinated land use and fiscal planning, health, education, and infrastructure.
- Seoul Capital Areahas developed an integrated metropolitan authority that manages transit, urban development, and environmental management across a population larger than Metro Manila’s.
- Greater Londonempowers a directly elected mayor and assembly to oversee the entire capital region’s transport, housing, and economic development.
These governments did not achieve efficiency by eliminating local voices. Rather, they clarified which issues must be addressed collectively, and they empowered institutions to manage those issues with the scale, tools, and accountability needed.
Constitutional Realities and Political Will
It is often said that the 1987 Constitution’s emphasis on local autonomy prevents the creation of a stronger metropolitan authority. That interpretation deserves nuance.
The Constitution allows Congress to create special metropolitan political subdivisions, subject to public approval. It also provides space for inter-LGU cooperation through regional development councils. In other words, the framework is flexible enough to accommodate reform—if there is political will and a clear plan.
The real constraints are political, not legal. Any move to centralize functions at the metro level risks being misinterpreted as an attack on local governance. Yet, experience shows us that it is possible to design a system where local governments retain their roles in community-level services, while a metropolitan authority handles matters that are inherently regional in scope.
A Phased, Realistic Reform Path
Institutional change should be deliberate, inclusive, and phased. It does not have to be radical to be effective. A reasonable roadmap could include:
- National Consensus-Building
A National Commission on Metropolitan Governance Reform should be convened by the Executive Branch, in consultation with Congress, LGUs, civil society, and the private sector. Its task: to study international models, consult stakeholders, and propose a pragmatic institutional design suited to the Philippine context. - Legislative Action
Congress should enact a Metro Manila Regional Governance Act to formally transform the MMDA into a Metro Manila Regional Authority (MMRA) with clear mandates in transport, land use, waste management, and flood control. The MMRA should have its own budget allocation, mechanisms for revenue sharing, and the authority to coordinate policy across LGUs. - Functional Integration and Citizen Participation
As the MMRA grows in capacity, it should take on more operational responsibilities. Alongside this, mechanisms for citizen input—such as open data portals, participatory planning tools, and metro-wide consultations—should be institutionalized to ensure transparency and accountability. - Democratization and Sustainability
Eventually, consideration must be given to allowing the direct election of a metro-wide leader to ensure a clear mandate and public legitimacy. This may require constitutional refinement. If so, it should be undertaken with caution, broad consensus, and a clear vision of the role such leadership will play.
Why This Matters
The goal is not to create a new layer of bureaucracy. The goal is to make existing systems work better by clarifying responsibilities, enabling scale, and creating alignment. Infrastructure projects will always be necessary. But without the proper governance structure, they will continue to be delayed, diluted, or derailed.
A reformed metropolitan authority is not a silver bullet. But it is an essential step toward coherence. It is also a recognition that Metro Manila is not simply a collection of adjacent cities. It is a single urban organism, with shared arteries, shared vulnerabilities, and a shared future.
We are not the first country to face this challenge, and we will not be the last. However, we can choose to be among those who respond with foresight rather than those who cling to institutional arrangements that no longer serve the public interest.
The case for reform is not ideological. It is practical. It is about outcomes. And it is long overdue.
[Alfredo E. Pascual is an Independent Director of BDO Unibank and a Regent of the University of the Philippines (UP). He has served as Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), President of the UP System, Director of Private Sector Operations at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), President of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), CEO of the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), and Finance Professor at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM).]
