A DOCUMENTATION REPORT

BY THE POLITICAL DEMOCRACY AND REFORM

(PODER) AND GOVERNMENT-WATCH (G-WATCH)

TEAM

OF THE ATENEO SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT

AUGUST 4-5, 2015

RICHMONDE HOTEL, ORTIGAS, PASIG CITY

PUBLISHED AUGUST 18, 2015

1

“The conclusion of our unfinished

revolution is anchored on people

like you—

who serve rather than criticize,

collaborate rather than divide,

build up, rather than tear down,

people who engage to understand.”

JESSE ROBREDO (AS QUOTED BY CONG. LENI ROBREDO, IN HER KEYNOTE SPEECH ON AUGUST 5, 2015)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opening remarks Atty. Jaime Hofileña

ADMU

Backgrounder on the conference-workshop Ms. Joy Aceron

ADMU

Opening keynote Sec. Florencio “Butch” Abad

DBM

First panel discussion REFORMS AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL PLATFORMS

LIKE THE OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP

Panel moderator Asec. Maxine Tanya Hamada

DBM

Usec. Richard Moya DBM

Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan

R2KRN

Usec. Austere Panadero DILG

Mr. Arjan Aguirre PODER / G-Watch

Open forum

Second panel discussion

PREVENTING CORRUPTION AND THE IMPACT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN MAKING PROCUREMENT TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE

Panel moderator

Dr. Francisco Magno DLSU-JRIG

Usec. Francis Varela

DepEd

Atty. Dennis Santiago GPPB

Mr. Rechie Tugawin

PODER/ G-Watch

Open forum

4

5

6 8 8 10 11 12 13 16 16 18 19 22

3

Second opening keynote

Rep. Maria Leonor “Leni” Gerona Robredo Camarines Sur

Third panel discussion

QUESTIONING OUR ASSUMPTIONS: RESEARCH AND LEARNING ON “WHAT WORKS” IN CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

Panel Moderator

Ms. Carmel Abao ADMU

Mr. Francis Isaac

DLSU-JRIG

Dr. Ma. Elissa Jayme Lao IPC

Dr. Rosario Manasan

PIDS

Open forum

Fourth panel discussion EXERCISE OF RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE: HAS IT IMPROVED

ALMOST THREE DECADES AFTER MARTIAL LAW?

Panel moderator Ms. Joy Aceron

PODER / G-Watch

Mr. Ramon Casiple IPER

Hon. Jose Luis Martin “Chito” Gascon

CHR

Com. Luie Tito Guia Comelec

Ms. Risa Hontiveros

Akbayan

Dr. Ronald Mendoza AIM

Open forum

Closing keynote

Sec. Jose Eliseo Rocamora NAPC

Closing remarks

Atty. Antonio La Viña ADMU

25 28 28 29 30 32 34 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43

4

AUGUST 4, 2015

OPENING REMARKS

Atty. Jaime Hofileña Vice President for Social Development

Ateneo de Manila University

Atty. Hofileña, in his welcoming remarks, emphasized that topics like the Open Government Partnership

(OGP), bottom-up budgeting, and citizen participation in procurement processes contribute to the main

agenda of achieving justice for all and inclusive and accountable institutions, not only in the Philippines,

but also the world.

Highlights

Contributing to the reform of Philippine governance and politics is an express strategic goal of the academic

community, said Atty. Hofileña. It is within the ambit of the university’s adopted strategic thrust of

contributing to the building of the nation. Through workshops, fora and related activities such as those

entailed today and tomorrow, the university strives to be a catalyst in transforming Philippine governance

and politics, undertaking research and convening initiatives that enable as many as possible to be truth-

tellers and consensus-builders for ethical and effective solutions to governance and political challenges.

The discussions of the next two days of Quo Vadis, Citizen Participation, thus aim to closely examine key,

continuing initiatives to advance citizens’ participation and transparency in governance and to critically

assess where such participation is headed in the project of advancing Philippine democracy.

He shared that in the launch of the Sustainable Development Solutions-Network Philippines—another event

ASOG organized—the final set of 17 sustainable development goals, replacing the millennium

development goals, included that of “promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable

development, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable and inclusive

institutions at all levels.” Particular initiatives to be inquired into - Open Government partnerships,

Bottom-Up Budgeting, and civil society participation in procurement processes - evidently afford a measure

of the all-important solutions for achieving the inclusiveness, effectiveness, and accountability of

institutions at all levels referred to in that sustainable development goal.

He related these goals to Ateneo’s mission, and recalled the commitment to social action of a little-known

Jesuit, San Alberto Hurtado, for whom a hall in the Ateneo was named after. Hurtado said: “The primary

mission of the university is to unsettle the world, and the primary virtue of the university is to feel that

concern – that unwillingness to conform to a captive world. “

He added that the conference affected aspects of the reform agenda of the second Aquino administration in

the same manner the two previous conferences did. He stated this is to reform old ways which become

settled. If unsettlement of unacceptable ways through reform is called for, so be it, Atty. Hofileña said. He

added that a society held captive by bad or undemocratic governance among other manmade structures and

systems, should indeed not be conformed to. The University is reminded that its virtue lies in feeling that

concern: a healthy non-conformity to a world – or at least a Philippine society - which settles for captivity.

5

BACKGROUNDER ON THE CONFERENCE-WORKSHOP

Ms. Joy Aceron Program Director, PODER & G-Watch

Ateneo School of Government

Ms. Aceron set the tone by outlining expectations for the first two panel discussions. She explained the

reasons that led to the organization of the conference, and inquired what has become of the demands of the

people from the present Aquino administration.

Highlights

She began by putting civil society groups not as mere spectators but actors in exercising good governance.

Next, she said that we, as citizens, have to reflect on themselves, how well this country is, and where we

are going in the government in its political context. Today’s society has not done enough in pursuing the

platform of “Daang Matuwid,” which revolves on transparency, participation, and accountability. She

recommended that we backtrack a bit in remembering and reminding ourselves on the real meaning of state-

society relationship. This platform can be sustained if practices are common. Change can be felt if officials

dig deeper on the Anti-Dynasty Law and the Freedom of Information Act.

She enumerated the roles of civil society organizations, social movements, and other actors chipping in to

achieve change in a State that is ridden with corruption. First, they are (1) implementors contributing to

efficiency, (2) intermediaries to its citizens, (3) articulators of people’s needs and issues, and (4) watchdogs

of procurement corruption. On this ground, she believes that civil societies have attained its reputation of

highly-serving the people. Civil society is the forest of innovation, clamor, efficiency and true dedication

to public service, she said.

In truth, civil societies can be thought of as leaders of action because of their independent and progressive

nature. On the other hand, it’s not only civil societies that have to play a part in society. How should our

society react to this? People must take part in demanding what must be demanded in the administration.

Civil societies have paved way for constructive engagement to be made possible. These civil societies have

been institutions that keep the poor coming back to accountability.

6

OPENING KEYNOTE

CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT: GIVING ‘DAANG MATUWID’ A VOICE Sec. Florencio “Butch” Abad

Secretary Department of Budget and Management (DBM)

Sec. Butch Abad's presentation centered on the achievements of the Aquino administration in empowering

the citizens by making government transparent, accountable and participatory. He emphasized the

importance of sustaining the gains of reforms, which he said should be the direction of citizen participation

today. He underscored that in the past, now and in the future, citizen participation will be key to making

transformation of society a reality in the Philippines. As he reiterated: "citizens give voice to Daang

Matuwid.”

Highlights

Jumping off the theme “Quo Vadis,” Sec. Abad began with the question: what is the future of citizen

participation in building or rebuilding our nation? He said that the active engagement of citizen participation

will always have a meaningful place in our political narrative.

He went back to the 2010 elections, relating that under the Arroyo administration the government was

corrupt. Forthwith, he praised the late president Cory Aquino for being an “icon of democracy.” He recalled

the faces in the funeral march. He saw growing hope and faith in everything these people fought hard for.

Cory has made the impossible possible, relaying that, indeed, social transformation is possible.

According to Sec. Abad, this is manifested through the election of Cory’s son, President Noynoy Aquino,

who has put good governance back in Malacañang. The battle cry “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap”

was not just a catchy slogan; it described a strong culture of genuine public service. He identified three key

elements needed to be restored to form that culture: transparency, accountability, and citizen’s engagement.

This campaign was not run by kickbacks or traditional politics.

For Sec. Abad, President Aquino made it possible to forge a special relationship of the present government

especially towards his “bosses,” which are the masses. President Aquino has recognized this significant

partnership and has nurtured this by finding every opportunity for the public to participate in governance

he said. It is important to know that we have been able to do all of these without burdening you with your

taxes, the only exception during the sin tax reform law, he added.

Eventually, Sec. Abad reported that the administration’s program in social protection and economic services

particularly the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program benefited more than 800,000 households. In 2015,

he declared an investment of 62 billion for 4.3 billion households across the country. He prided that

increasing the budget for CCT in such a drastic manner has brought more economic opportunities to the

people. In 2010, the budget for education was 225 billion. Increasing the budget for CCT in such a drastic

manner has meant giving economic opportunities to the people. In 2010 the budget for education was 225

billion. This year, the budget was doubled to 483 billion thus around 84,000 classrooms were constructed

amidst the 66,000 classroom shortage. He prided on this accomplishment. Kaya nga po kapag pasukan

hindi niyo na naririnig na walang classroom, he said.

He also reported that previously, investment on public infrastructure was only 165 billion. This year,

infrastructure value is P570 billion that is equivalent to 4% of the GDP. There is already a proposed budget

for next year which amounts to 167 billion or 5% of the GDP. This is for thorough economic expansion of

the country. He showed further achievement on development projects for the country.

7

For BuB, P21 billion was allotted this year, affecting 16,000 citizens across 1,634 targeted local government

units. This can be related with citizen engagement initiatives creating lasting results. Civil society

organizations can now sit down with local government units to talk regarding the identification of local

priority projects. He believes that this has helped civil societies be empowered. This has made the role of

CSOs significant for participation in local government projects.

Sec. Abad addressed critics who say that the BUB program is the new pork. Let them think what they want

to think, wala tayong magagawa diyan, he said. For him, the success of the project belongs to the town

folk, that is, the CSOs and LGUs. BuB, in fact, has received international recognition. The project bagged

a gold medal on the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Awards in New York City last September 24,

2014. Then another award was handed in the Bright Spots Award in London. This represents how the world

looks at our country, even though for others it has no meaning, he said.

He then informed everyone that OGP projects can be seen in the website at data.gov.ph. He added that this

is what makes citizen participation possible: information made available for public scrutiny. The

government therefore wants to sustain inclusive growth. He said there has been a 6.2% global economic

growth in 2012 and 2014 growth. This has been the biggest 4% that the country has been receiving for the

last 25 years, considering we are the fastest growing country in South East Asia. He mentioned as well

that the country has been the fourth-fastest growing economy next to China, India and Qatar. In poverty

figures, he said that they managed bringing it down from 28.4% in 2009 to 25. 8% in 2014.

This is not just a good sign for investment but for many other benchmarks. The country was given a steady

progression investment grading in a double of 22-point quality rating action under this administration alone.

It is not just limited to finance and economics, one should look at it more comprehensively. What does this

mean to ordinary Filipinos? Simple. More jobs to our expanding workforce. When the term began in 2010,

the only direct investment amounted to $1.1 billion. Evidently, last year, this has increased to $6.2 billion.

He said that we cannot boil down the state of poverty, but we must try to achieve the millennium

development goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger.

He discussed the Philippine Financial Management Reform Law and FOI in both chambers of Congress to

solidify public engagement. All throughout, Sec. Abad was grateful that we have accomplished so much in

the last five years, that the administration has accomplished so much with Filipinos. However, it still goes

back to the citizens for the future of citizen engagement. This is the very lifeblood of good governance. His

vision is that it has a bright future. He advised that we should elect the right leaders that can uphold citizen

participation in 2016. Our judgement should not be based on ‘politics as usual’ nor should it be a popularity

contest. Our vote should not depend on personality but on principle.

8

FIRST PANEL DISCUSSION

REFORMS AND THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL PLATFORMS LIKE THE OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP Panel moderator Asec. Maxine Tanya Hamada Assistant Secretary DBM

Open government reforms in governments would inevitably face challenges

and resistance. Oftentimes, this would come from those within government,

who are accustomed to the old ways promoting closed doors and

bureaucracies.

This panel thus explored the following questions: what enables the government

to introduce open government reforms? What persistent hindrances keep it

from further advancing and institutionalizing the open government agenda?

What is the role of international partnerships and platforms like the OGP in

the efforts of the government to win reforms? What have been the strengths

and limitations of the country's ongoing engagement in the OGP? How can we

maximize the OGP to advance and institutionalize open government reforms?

Taking off from the OGP video presentation showed, Asec. Hamada noted that OGP is the heart and soul

of partnership, and that, as they say, OGP should put the winds behind the sails of reformers in government.

She said that the Philippines is one of the first countries to innovate – to create its own steering committee

that not only has government representatives but also has CSOs, business sector, and local government

representatives. She then introduced the panel, who mostly are part of the OGP Steering Committee of the

Philippines.

“Reforms and the OGP: the open government partnership in the Philippines” Usec. Richard Moya Chief Information Officer DBM

Usec. Richard Moya started his presentation by giving a little background on the Good Governance and

Anti-Corruption Cluster (GGACC) created by the Aquino Administration in 2010. The GGACC, according

to Usec. Moya, aims to promote and implement reforms for transparent, accountable, and participatory

governance. The cluster has key initiatives that aim to curb corruption, improve the delivery of public

services especially for the poor, and enhance the business and economic environment. Usec. Moya said

the cluster has also identified four (4) outcome areas that will be key in accomplishing the cluster’s mandate.

These are:

Improved transparency and citizens’ empowerment

Improved public sector performance

Improved anti-corruption measures

Improved policy environment for good governance

Usec. Moya went on to say that the need for change, reform, and shift in culture is very apparent to us all,

not only for the Philippines. With this, he started discussing OGP. OGP was established in 2011, with the

1

9

Philippines as one of eight founding governments. In the Philippines, he said, it is through the various

commitments to OGP that the administration has been able to lay strong foundations for our internal

reforms. The nine (9) commitments of the Philippines on OGP are:

Sustaining transparency in national government plans and budgets through the transparency seal

and the Full Disclosure Policy;

Supporting for the passage of legislations on access to information and protection of whistleblowers

through the Freedom of Information and Whistleblowers Protection Bills;

Engaging civil society in public audit through the Citizens Participatory Audit;

Enhancing the performance benchmarks for local governance through the Seal of Good Local

Governance;

Enhancing the government procurement system through the PhilGEPS;

Strengthening grassroots participation in local planning and budgeting through the Bottom-Up

Budgeting;

Providing more accessible government data in a single and open format through the Open Data

Philippines;

Initiating fiscal transparency in the extractive industry through the Extractive Industries

Transparency Initiative; and

Improving the ease of doing business through the Ease of Doing Business-Gameplan for

Competitiveness.

To provide guidance on the implementation of the OGP, the Philippine OGP Steering Committee,

composed of national and local government representatives, CSO representatives, and private sector, was

created. Usec. Moya also said that they conducted a self-assessment report to track the progress in terms

of open government. He said the report, published in June 2015, showed the following results:

Completed 3 out of 11 commitments;

Substantially made headways on 7; and

Made limited progress on one commitment.

For this 2015-2017 cycle, Usec. Moya said that they will be submitting a plan that is co-created – by the

government and civil society and private sector partners. According to him, the additional performance

targets committed by the nongovernment stakeholders make their development action plan process more

inclusive. Further, he said they also allow the CSO and private sectors to play a more proactive role in

good governance through helping them achieve the OG commitments.

In closing, Usec Moya said the Philippine government is proud of what it has achieved since joining the

OGP. He said that the OGP International Committee has taken notice of its achievements and cited two

awards the Philippines has had – in 2013, the Citizen’s Participatory Audit, a joint project by the ANSA-

EAP and the Commission on Audit, won the prize during the OGP Global Summit in London; in 2014, the

Bottom-Up Budgeting Program was one of the awardees in the Open Government Awards.

Institutionalizing the Open Government, according to Usec Moya, is ensuring that beyond 2016, our

government is still open, if not more open than in 2010. To end, he quoted President Aquino: openness

inspires trust, which is the foundation of genuine partnership." Because good governance is not a monopoly

of the government, it requires also the citizen side.

10

R2KRN's experience in engaging the OGP as a platform for reform Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan Co-Convenor Right to Know, Right Now (R2KRN) Coalition

Atty. Nepo’s comments centered on two parts: (1) on the coalition’s involvement on the OGP work within

the framework since it started; (2) his reflections on what he feels are the key elements in searching and

finding meaning in their participation, based on the coalition’s experience.

He started by saying that R2KRN learned of the OGP only thru invitation by the US government for a

meeting to talk about how the government can put together a stronger commitment on transparency and

anti-corruption. He said it was only during this time that they learned that the Philippines is a steering

committee member of the OGP.

He said R2KRN immediately saw the OGP’s relevance in their campaign for the passage of the FOI bill.

He said that they felt that the Philippine OGP membership reflects the desire of the administration to assume

a place in the international stage as one of the leading lights of transparency. He also added that they felt

there could be value in having a multilateral community where strong leadership demonstration effects of

gains from transparency and some incentive mechanisms can provide support for turning commitments into

reality.

However, he said that the coalition also had concerns on the danger of the OGP legitimizing a transparency

comfort zone for the member countries, rather than facilitating a significant scale up. It is within this

context, Atty. Nepo said, that the coalition sought representation in the Philippine OGP Steering

Committee.

In addition, he said that naturally, the coalition’s mandate for representation was to secure the FOI

legislation and implementation. Thus, for the rest of 2011 to 2013, the main thrust of the coalition’s

intervention was to stretch and specify the government’s commitment on the passage of the FOI bill, which

they thought was rather soft in the beginning.

Things took a turn though when in 2014, he said that the coalition felt discernible improvement in the

executive’s motion for the passage of the FOI bill: key allies of the government worked closely with the

FOI champions in the push for the FOI bill passage. He also added that this, including President Aquino’s

statement regarding the passage of OGP, quoting him on the assurance that the FOI bill will be passed

before the end of the President’s term in 2016, relaxed the coalition’s firming up of the stated commitment

on the FOI passage and shifted them into using the OGP Steering Committee process to help coordinate

action on the ground.

Before ending the first part of his talk, he asked, “Are we now looking at a happy ending for the coalition’s

engagement on the OGP?” He answered this by saying the answer remains high up in the air. Atty. Nepo

said that for one, they know that the push is not there in the House of Representatives. He added that they

thought the Aquino administration could make a difference, and that the latter’s last SONA would have

been a perfect opportunity for the President to include the FOI as among the measures he would like to see

the Congress pass. To the coalition, that would have been a clear message to the Congress and to the nation.

Atty. Nepo then moved on to sharing his reflections on what he feels are the key elements in searching and

finding meaning in CSO participation, based on the coalition’s experience. He said:

Government partnerships such as the OGP help public interest organizations have formal access to

government.

2

11

Once access is gained, we as advocates know that we will not be satisfied with token representation.

Thus, we would also want to see that we are able to somehow influence the setting of the agenda.

Once agenda has been set, we see the need for more – we seek to deepen participation by including

more systematic operations in the implementation of the agenda.

Ultimately, we want our participation to deliver fundamental, transformative, and even radical

results. This is the most difficult of all, but, according to Atty. Nepo, one we could not lose sight

of.

“What the DILG is pursuing in the OGP context” Usec. Austere Panadero Undersecretary for Local Government Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Usec. Panadero started his talk with a premise: much of the transparency work they’ve been doing, started

by the late Sec. Jesse Robredo and then pursued later on under the leadership of Sec Roxas, is not only to

advance the frontiers of open governance and support every one’s right to know.

He went on to say that transparency and participation initiatives were a response to a demand from below,

and cited an SWS survey in 2012 which revealed that close to 8 in every 10 household heads were interested

in participating in local governance; about 75% of respondents wanted to participate in barangay

governance, and 43% fiscal governance.

Proximity, he said, therefore matters to people. “Their lives are intertwined with the quality of local

governments, those closest to them.” He said that the people want to be involved in the governance of

planning work and the collective aspirations influence the direction of change in the community.

Usec Panadero identified several DILG initiatives in response to the demands from below, aligned with the

philosophies and advocacies of open government.

First is the Full Disclosure Policy (FDP). According to Usec Panadero, this started under the Good

Housekeeping program of the late Sec. Jesse Robredo and was continued under the Seal of Good Local

Governance even while waiting for the legal framework of the FOI. He said that under the FDP, 14

documents covering plans, budgets, and procurement of all LGUs are publicly disclosed by 80 provinces,

144 cities and 1,490 municipalities, uploaded on their own website or on the DILG FDP Portal. He said 9

in 10 LGUs are found in the FDP Portal and 64% of LGUs or a total of 1,110 LGUs have uploaded all 14

documents in the portal last year, making a large number of documents available online. The challenge,

however, is that while all these documents are available, they may not be meaningful. People would say

that those data sets are highly technical, input-oriented, and full of jargon, and no one seems to have interest

in poring over patterns and norms of governance, whether good or bad, he said.

Given this situation, Usec Panadero asked, even if we have information, how can we make these

information which is accessible to us meaningful? How can we do this and who will help our citizens use

it properly? He asked, now that transparency has become a norm in local governance, how do we transform

transparency data into meaningful, bite sizes of information for people and communities to use? How do

we excite the public to know at the very least what the local patterns of priorities and expenditures are?

Answering his own question with a story, he said that information can be given and used if will, interest,

and concern on the country’s situation are present. He said that DILG is counting on the CSOs and the

public to study these available data and to make use of it.

3

12

The second initiative Usec Panadero mentioned is the Local Service Delivery Data of 1,700 LGUs in the

Philippines encompassing disaster preparedness, social protection, making visible compliance to laws,

women, children, PWD, IP, and the youth.

He said good local governance should be used and studied; and LGUs responding to the call for good local

governance recognized while LGUs that are lacking pressured.

Use Panadero also said that beyond transparency and good local governance, the DILG is likewise pursuing

research that is now covering cities through the Citizens' Satisfaction Index System (CSIS). This is being

implemented with the help of the academe, for the use of the local government and city POs and CSOs.

According to Usec. Panadero, CSIS measures citizens’ awareness to the LGU services, levels of availment,

satisfaction, and the importance they give to the services, namely: health, basic education, social welfare,

governance public works and infrastructure, environment management, agriculture support, and tourism.

It responds to the clamour of people to have a say in monitoring, and according to him, citizens' voice and

feedback are important in strengthening local democracies and governance. CSIS, he said, covers all cities,

all LGUs. However, he identified one issue: capacity. Academic partners doing the CSIS surveys are not

that many and can only accommodate few NGOs in between academic calendars. As an alternative, they

are thinking of tapping CSOs to do it for them, or in addition to local universities.

To end, he said that with the concern of everyone to make sure that results are delivered, as Atty Nepo has

mentioned, there is no doubt that we will all reap the benefits of open data.

“Open government in the Philippines: institutionalizing good governance” Mr. Arjan Aguirre Instructor, Department of Political Science Ateneo de Manila University

Mr. Aguirre discussed ASOG’s ongoing research on the ‘journey’ of the country with regard to OGP. The

research he discussed covered three components: (1) the governance ecosystem, specifically, its actors; (2)

its process, where the research tries to understand the institutionalization of the OGP for the past five years,

and (3) the assessment of open government outcomes.

The research analyses how certain mechanisms in government make particular outcomes become possible.

Although this research is still ongoing, Aguirre said that ASOG is entertaining the idea that the OGP is

successful. It has strengthened good governance by concretizing it into an agenda.

He stated that open government is a directionality, which means anything could happen. Directionality is a

movement from one place to another. This directionality has a spatial reality wherein it allows a state of

power to become inclusive. This is the core of open government. Then, he pointed out that the main idea

the OGP itself is the slogan: “Walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” He said that good governance is already

there, as a ‘social contract’ that concretizes the Philippine development plan.

The OGP study thus looks into a platform of where open government plans are created. In this new

paradigm of governance, government is strengthened through the creation of a new mechanism. The

mechanism allows existing agencies/ departments to have a clear goal. In this process, the DBM became

the first champion of the open government. It allowed open government to be included in the budget.

What is important about open government partnership in the Philippines is that the government is forced to

come up with action plans with good governance initiatives. Another point is it encourages government

champions and civil society organizations to have collaborative governance.

4

13

He then identified that the outcome of OGP highlights the continuity of OGP initiatives, which contains six

continuing commitments: (1) sustaining transparency in national government plans; (2) supporting the

passage of legislation on access to information and protection of whistleblowers; (3) engaging civil society

in public audit, (4) enhancing performance benchmarks for local governance; (5) enhancing government

procurement systems; and (6) strengthening grassroots participation in local planning and budgeting.

Patuloy itong ginagawa, patuloy itong pinapalawig, Aguirre said.

Furthering on OGP outcomes also provides an effective monitoring mechanism, Aguirre shared. By

monitoring, the government is motivated to assess the good governance network. It also allows civil society

to participate in this monitoring. It also makes reform irreversible. It reframes reforms into something that

can be concretized, which means it is no longer an ideational myth, but is already happening in the

government. The presence of the OGP also creates productive tension in governance. What does this mean?

In the research, the interaction between and among the members of the steering committee creates an

inductive tension. This “tension” is not presupposed to be negative but positive. This allows meaningful

discussions of ‘what can be done’ or ‘what cannot be done,’

OGP also politicized stakeholders’ engagement. The good about open government was not based on a

script. Actors are encouraged to improvise and look for creative solutions in establishing good governance

/ open government initiatives. Lastly, OGP engages CSOs more. This is both critical and productive. They

do not participate just because they were invited, but they participate because they represent the people.

Aguirre also listed hindrances in the OGP, including the dominance of the technical and procedural

understanding of OGP. Only a few in the government are concerned with the OGP, contributing to certain

setbacks like the non-passage of the FOI Bill in Congress. Collaborative governance is needed.

Open forum

Asec. Hamada, the moderator, begins the open forum with a synthesis of what has been discussed by the

members of the first panel. The main question that resonates is: How does OGP go forward given the

lessons, successes, challenges, and opportunities that the Philippines has and is encountering?

Is DILG closely monitoring the projects of LGUs? Is it possible for CSOs to takeover projects?

There exists a program for DILG and CSO partnerships, but it is not implemented by the LGUs.

What is the future of BUB after 2017?

Since OGP is supply-driven, what other capacity building initiatives can be done in order to engage

the demands-side of accountability

Panadero: There should be a system wherein people are aware of what projects are done, in the process of

doing, and not doing. There are a lot of projects that haven’t been started yet. There are unliquidated cash

advances, national agencies cannot download these to the LGUs anymore. When it is downloaded in the

LGU, the LPRAT and the LGUs are the ones who will ensure that these projects that need to be done. It is

important that the LPRAT meet about budgetary concerns in order to carry these projects out, in order to

foster accountability.

Malaluan: Regarding the usage of information, we have to be aware that the supply of information is there.

However, it is impossible for the government to proactively disclose all information there is. There is a

Q

14

possibility that not all information disclosed will be useful. On the part of the citizens, there is an issue of

using the information available. They won’t always use what is available because it may not always be

relevant or useful to them. There are two systems: the proactive disclosure of information, and the heeding

of the people’s requests for access to information. I agree in building the people’s interests and improving

their participation in government disclosure of information. Sec. also adds that is important to promote the

passage of the FOI bill.

Moya: For government to engage in transparent/accountable regime, it is important to digitise documents.

There are times that the data is hard to obtain, primarily because it is not digitized. I challenge the notion

that data disclosure is supply-driven, the release of the data is also a response to a previous

demand. Regarding participatory governance, what we want is to one day stop it. The participation should

be a memory in government. Once everything is repaired through the participation of the people, the

government can function by itself.

Asec. Hamada said crossovers are encouraged in order to push LGUs, the government, and CSOs to move

and act towards the goals of OGP. The reason why the government is strengthening the LPRAT as a monitor

of the LGUs is because we want to push for the accountability.

How do we balance policymaking with what is popular and common as we see in laws and

administration—that is based mostly on parochial and vested interests of the policy makers and

legislature?

To what extent has OGP has already activated our state universities and colleges, and Manila

universities that are concerned with accountability? Could we at least put research and funding in

order to analyse data and make it more useful to people?

Are there updates on the implementation of product-buying in LGUs?

Moya: On procurement: all procurement procedures should be published. There should be a system in

which something like corporate cards are used in procurement. This won’t stop stealing; however, it will

make it easier to know who are accountable to stealing. The fact that people know that there is a publishing

of procurement information, there is a bigger chance that people will be discouraged to steal. Publishing

data, even when it isn’t used, is important. There is value in the knowledge that whatever transaction has

happened, everyone knows that it is published.

On capacitating CSOs: capacitating the CSOs in taking-over projects is problematic: national government

cannot download funds to agencies that aren’t part of the government. Even the people’s empowerment

fund wasn't downloaded immediately.

On transparency: There is also a potential in the usage of social media (Facebook) in order to publish

instances of corruption in order to foster political demand for accountability. Check the data that is

published by LGUs. People should also demand transparency from LGUs as well.

Panadero: On accountability: There is an anecdote about a mayor’s failure to build a building using the

materials listed on paper, and how a person used Facebook as a platform to showcase the injustice done.

The people were able to use Facebook as an avenue to demand action done in order to correct the issue.

One can make use of technology to foster accountability.

On the status of LGUs’ data organization: The data sector of the LGUs isn’t organized, especially on lower-

income areas. Therefore, it makes it hard for us to have readily available data on specific areas. However,

in terms of the health and educational sector, data is more available now. Lower-incomes LGUS really have

a hard time to analyse data.

15

Asec. Hamada closes the open forum by sharing that the government, alongside the CSOs, LGU, and the

private sector, have a bearing in the furtherance of and commitment to the Open Government Partnership

agenda. There is a need for a joint effort to move towards a strategy of open governance. The concluding

question given to the members of the CSO is this: what more can the CSOs, in terms of agenda-setting, do

in order to demand the government to follow through with OGP?

16

SECOND PANEL DISCUSSION PREVENTING CORRUPTION AND THE IMPACT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN MAKING PROCUREMENT TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE Panel moderator Dr. Francisco A. Magno Executive Director De La Salle University-Jesse Robredo Institute of Governance (DLSU-JRIG)

The Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA) provides a space for civil

society to ensure transparency and accountability in the procurement process

by serving as observers in the biddings and monitors in contract and project

implementation.

What are the concrete gains so far? How do we know that civil society is

contributing to the fight against corruption in the procurement? Any

measurable results? What efforts are being undertaken to further enhance civil

society's involvement in making procurement transparent and accountable?

What are the lessons from these efforts, and how do we ensure civil society's

participation in the procurement process can make it sustainable, transparent,

and accountable?

Dr. Magno started his introduction by providing the rationale of the panel. According to him, the

government procurement reform act provides a space for civil society to contribute in the procurement

process. By serving as observers in the bidding and monitoring of contracts and projects, CSOs will be able

to ensure transparency and accountability in procurement. Before introducing the first speaker of the panel,

he ended his introduction by asking the questions that need to be addressed in this session, as enumerated

above.

“Citizen participation and prevention of corruption” Usec. Francis Varela Undersecretary for Finance and Administration Department of Education (DepEd)

Usec. Varela shared the various initiatives of DepEd that opened windows for engagement with CSOs, such

as the delivery of textbooks to schools, monitoring of construction of classrooms both by DepEd and

DPWH, and observation of the conduct of bidding and procurement processes at various levels of the

agency. He affirmed that these initiatives have been very effective in improving the quality and cost-

effectiveness of the agency’s procurement activities.

On areas for CSO participation and their roles

Even though citizen participation prevents corruption, Usec. Varela reminded that attention should also be

given to the waste of public resources. According to him, corruption translates to wasted resources but

public resources can still be wasted even though no corruption is involved. He elaborated this by defining

corruption as a transaction wherein a public official derives personal gain in exchange for favors and

advantages given to private parties. On the other hand, he defined waste of public resources as that

1

17

occurrence when government procures products or services that are either not needed or less critical

compared to other priorities. He said, the two irregularities are usually caused by the government’s

weaknesses— (1) limited technical expertise and (2) poor industry networks in which suppliers can easily

exploit because of their motivation in making profits.

Usec. Varela identified the four areas in the procurement process where weaknesses may be present. These

are:

Procurement planning

Determination of the Approved Budget for Contract (APC) or price ceiling for procurement

Conduct of the procurement activity (through the competitive bidding or the alternative modes of

the procurement)

Contract implementation

According to Usec. Varela, these weaknesses can lead to waste of resources and opportunities for

corruption. However, he believes that CSOs’ can play a role in addressing these weaknesses in all four

areas. He identified the three roles as: (1) oversight, (2) advocacy, and (3) advisory.

On applying CSO roles in the four areas of weaknesses in procurement

After enumerating the four areas of weaknesses in procurement and the different roles of CSOs in

addressing these, Usec. Varela then applied these roles to each area:

Role of CSOs in procurement planning: while most CSOs are playing the oversight role, Usec.

Varela said that this is difficult to exercise especially in the procurement planning area. He said

advocacy and advisory roles should be given equal importance too. He thinks that organizations

should evolve and acquire technical expertise and knowledge to provide value added to

government especially in policy discussions. However, Usec. Varela is aware that not all CSOs

can invest resources to capacitate themselves and be able to provide the kind of inputs the

government needs. To address this, one good idea is to tap industries and professional

organizations and let them include knowledge sharing and skills development in their core

corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects which they will then provide to government or

CSOs.

Role of CSOs in determining the Approved Budget for Contract (ABC): Usec. Varela thinks

that setting the ABC is one of the most critical areas of procurement which is not getting the

attention that it deserves. According to him, collusion among the contractors and suppliers may

happen in this stage, such as when both said parties bid very close to the budget ceiling just to

maximize profits and divide the contracts among themselves. For him, it is very crucial to have

an oversight in the setting of ABC. There is a need for more specialized organizations with

expertise and can provide advisory support to government.

Role of CSOs in the conduct of procurement activity: the oversight role is very eminent in this

area as per Usec. Varela. He said that in the conduct of the procurement activity, the oversight

function will be more effective if the observers will be involved in the entire procurement

process and follows through to contract implementation.

Role of CSOs in the contract implementation: Since DepEd is a huge agency with 46,000

schools nationwide, Usec. Varela expressed the importance of involving a greater number of

citizen groups when it comes to contract implementation. Aside from the oversight function

and the technical expertise that CSOs can provide, DepEd also needs organizations with reach

and warm bodies who can help the agency in monitoring actual deliveries in schools and the

completion of construction and repair projects.

On DepEd’s priorities in 2016

18

Usec. Varela shared that DepEd has a 150% increase in budget for 2016 amounting to P 435.9B. He said

that the agency wants to make sure that these available resources will lean to better quality education for

Filipino children. He then enumerated the major items that have significant expansions which are as

follows:

School facilities, constructions and repair, 77B in 2016

Computers, 6.28B in 2016

Learning tools and equipment,7.4B in 2016

School seats, 3.4B in 2016

Textbooks, 4.18B in 2016

More resources will also be given directly for school-based management. Usec. Varela pointed out that

community awareness and involvement is the most effective tool for accountability. He said it is vital in

order to help make the schools respond to the most critical education needs of the students.

Usec. Varela ended his talk by expressing high hopes in continuing engagement with civil society

organizations in order to make government work.

“Participation of observers in procurement activities” Atty. Dennis Santiago Executive Director IV, Technical Support Office Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB)

Atty. Dennis Santiago commenced his talk by giving the legal basis of citizen participation which stems

from Article II, Section 13 of the Philippine Constitution. The provision states for a state policy of

encouraging the participation of non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations to promote

the welfare of the nation. After this, he gave a brief background on the history of CSO participation.

According to him, in 2002, World Bank expressed its concern on government procurement being

dysfunctional because there is no third lens or third party observing the government procurement processing

and procedures. This led to the amendment of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

On roles of CSOs in procurement

Atty. Santiago reiterated the provision in RA 9184 in which CSOs are supposed to be present in all stages

of the procurement process. Also, he said that CSOs should have knowledge, experience, and expertise in

procurement and they should not have any conflict of interest. He also discussed the procurement stages

and other important things to remember by CSOs in participating in the process of procurement.

Agreeing with Usec. Varela’s talk, Atty. Santiago also emphasized the importance of CSO engagement in

procurement planning. According to him, the government faces problems in underspending and in

delivering projects on time. What CSOs need to do is to maximize the opportunities given to them such as

to observe, examine, and look into the pertinent documents in which they have access to. In terms of giving

feedback, Atty. Santiago reminded that CSOs should prepare a report as observers.

On challenges that hinder CSO participation

While opportunities for participation are abundant in government procurement, Atty. Santiago stated that

CSO participation waned even though rules are being implemented. This resulted to government entering

into memorandum of understanding with CSOs just so they can participate. Based on their 2012 study, he

2

19

said the main reason why participation cannot be sustained is because of the lack of funding. He considers

this as a challenge.

Atty. Santiago ended his talk by asserting that government needs CSO participation in procurement. He

again emphasized that CSOs have the right to observe in all stages of the procurement process and that

nobody can deny this to them because it is already embedded in the law.

“Sustaining civil society participation in procurement” Mr. Rechie Tugawin G-Watch Consultant Ateneo School of Government

Mr. Tugawin tackled the sustainability of CSO participation in government procurement and

recommendations to address these, based on the years or experience of the Government Watch (G-Watch)

program of the Ateneo School of Government in engaging participatory performance monitoring in

education governance.

On policies supporting CSO participation

Mr. Tugawin began his discussion by enumerating the policies supporting CSO participation, which are

rooted from the Article II, Section 23 of the Philippine Constitution. According to him, in 2003, the passage

of RA 9184 or the Procurement Law gave space to CSOs in government procurement. In its Implementing

Rules and Regulations (IRR), CSOs should be invited to observe in all stages of the procurement process.

He also discussed DepEd’s step in operationalizing further the provision of the General Procurement

Reform Act by issuing Department Order 57, s.2009, a product of several years of CSO engagement in

DepEd which started with Textbook Count. He also shared that the Government Procurement Policy Board

also came up with a resolution that further expands the participation of CSOs in procurement through the

Agency Procurement Compliance Performance Indicators (APCPI), a look into procurement systems based

on international benchmarks. In APCPI, CSOs confirm/validate the self-assessment of government

procuring entities in terms of their compliance to performance indicators.

On initiatives of G-Watch that involve citizen participation

Mr. Tugawin shared the various initiatives that either shaped the previously mentioned policies or were

facilitated by the presence of such policies. He said that these initiatives that G-Watch undertook with

DepEd were collaborative and all multi-sectoral. These are as follows:

Textbook Count: Textbook count is the first joint CSO-government monitoring initiative,

according to Mr. Tugawin, which was meant to ensure that the right textbooks (cost and quality

wise, right title) reach the right recipients at the right time. He added that DepEd, through the

Instructional Materials Council Secretariat (IMCS), ADOPTED Textbook Count as a regular

program, including its expansion to cover onward distribution of elementary school textbooks

through the Textbook Walk.

Protect Procurement Project: Mr. Tugawin went on and said that G-Watch saw the need to

direct its focus on other big-ticket procurement items of DepEd to protect, sustain and expand

the gains of CSO participation won through Textbook Count. This is when Protect Procurement

Project was put in place, a systematic capacity-building of CSO observers.

Bayanihang Eskwela: With the goal of ensuring quality school buildings especially in areas

with classroom shortage, Mr. Tugawin described Bayanihang Eskwela as an initiative which

3

20

was institutionalized through D.O. 21, s.2011 and was rolled-out nationwide during the same

year.

G-Watch Local Hubs: In 2012, G-Watch Local Hubs was piloted aimed to become an

intermediary coordinating mechanism at the division/district level that shall be the backbone

for convergent school-based monitoring of education services. This, according to Mr. Tugawin,

is where the functions and roles of G-Watch at the national level were replicated at the local

level. He said that the lessons in this pilot implementation form the basis of the

recommendations that G-Watch will propose for the sustainability of CSO participation.

Edukasyon sa Naga, Salmingan Ta!: This initiative is a comprehensive monitoring of education

services wherein it is demonstrated at the local level, a result of the G-Watch localization

program at 2011. Mr. Tugawin said that this was a comprehensive initiative covering inputs to

education such as classrooms, teachers, furniture, textbooks, and even the LGU welfare

program. The inputs came from both the LGU and national government through DepEd.

Other initiatives: Mr. Tugawin also did a run-through on other initiatives involving

procurement and involving other government agencies. These are procurement of

infrastructures for Southern Leyte, procurement of rice seeds for San Miguel Bohol, drugs and

medicines for Dumaguete City, procurement of works for CBST sites in Puerto Princessa City,

and procurements during the utilization stage of the EUF of the Island Garden City of Samal.

Agency Procurement Compliance Performance Indicators (APCPI): This pilot initiative with

DepEd allows CSOs to validate/confirm the APCPI self-assessment of the agency’s procuring

entities. For this engagement, Mr. Tugawin said that G-Watch is working with local CSOs and

the central and field offices of DepEd in three selected regions.

On key results and opportunities

Mr. Tugawin affirmed that these initiatives have contributed in the efficiency of DepEd in terms of

reduction of prices, period of implementation, and compliance to standards. He also said that these also

operationalized a system for participation of CSOs and citizens in transparency and accountability in

DepEd, influenced policy-making, contributed in improving public trust, and established partnerships with

around 50 CSOs, 950 community monitors (BayEsk, Naga City), 101 procurement observers (PRO), and

702 members of the local monitoring hubs.

He also mentioned that there is a favourable institutional-legal framework for CSO participation in

education governance, which DepEd further deepened through its issuances supportive of CSO

participation. For him, these initiatives are worth noting not just because of its accomplishments but also

of the constructive environment within DepEd that presents opportunities for CSOs. He also believes that

DepEd is arguably the leading NGA in CSO-government engagement for transparency and accountability

in procurement and service delivery.

On challenges that confront CSOs and DepEd

Mr. Tugawin also enumerated the challenges that they encountered over the years of engagement with

DepEd and CSOs. These are:

1. DepEd’s sheer size as the largest bureaucracy is challenging enough for a limited number of CSOs

engaging in education governance.

2. Declining number of CSOs participating and actively engaging with DepEd over years.

3. Report generation for the implementation of monitoring initiatives from the field offices is a

challenge while CSOs on the ground cannot come up with an independent report without a central

coordinating mechanism.

4. Difficulty in determining which CSOs DepEd should engage with.

21

5. CSOs are challenged to keep their volunteers interested.

6. Though the spirit of volunteerism is still evident, there is not enough monetary support among

CSOs to sustain the coordination, aid in the preparation of reports and conduct of capacity building

activities for CSOs.

7. Absence of coordinating body overseeing CSO monitoring activities.

8. There is an overwhelming demand for CSO participation as government moves towards the general

direction of openness in the recent years (five years to be exact).

On key recommendations to sustain CSO participation in procurement

Given the challenges that Mr. Tugawin presented, the question now is how to sustain CSO participation in

government procurement. The proposed strategy, which according to him is based on the many years of

experience of G-Watch in engaging government and CSOs, is that State-based mechanisms should be

strengthened in such a way that it can ensure transparency and accountability of service delivery and not

dependent on citizen participation, but allows it whenever needed. He explained this further by saying that

government still has the mandate to ensure accountability and that efforts of CSOs should be seen as

corrective and supplementary. Intermediary CSOs’ capacity is built and sustained to have the capacity to

support school-based monitoring and exact accountability at levels where it is needed, not to parallel

government processes.

To sustain CSO participation in procurement and program implementation, Mr. Tugawin said G-Watch

recommends setting up a school-based monitoring mechanism supported by a division-level intermediary

mechanism (Local Hub) linked to national DepEd-CSO coordinating body, with DepEd accountability

processes being enabled for such strategy. Local Hubs shall perform the following functions:

Facilitator and coordinator of school-based monitoring of textbooks, school-building projects

and furniture

Repository of G-Watch knowledge products (monitoring designs and tools, etc.) that can

readily be accessed by school-based monitors

Trainer for school-based monitoring of education services

Transmission belt of information and monitoring results as well as feedbacks requiring quick

response

The division-level coordinating mechanism (Local Hub) may be through any of four modalities depending

on the peculiar condition of the division as long as it is effective in performing local hubs’ functions.

Model 1: Multi-stakeholder, with a coordinating body composed of DepEd division office, CSO

representatives, pilot round of local hubs

Model 2: Unit within DepEd/ personnel

Model 3: CSO-based

Model 4: CSO-LGU based (e.g. Naga City)

Mr. Tugawin also said that enabling school-based monitoring is the better design to guarantee sustained

transparency and accountability in education service delivery for the reasons: (1) there is a steady supply

of monitors in schools who have a major stake; (2) having beneficiaries as monitors empowers the

communities not only to be recipients of services but also active partners in making the delivery of services

transparent, accountable, responsive and efficient; and (3) decentralization allows a comprehensive look at

education services. To be able to do this, a working policy that supports decentralized and school-based

monitoring was also suggested by Mr. Tugawin.

To address resource needs, Mr. Tugawin mentioned the following modes worthy of exploring by both CSOs

and the government:

22

Providing of assistance for direct cost of citizen participation in performance monitoring (e.g.

provision of vehicles for monitoring, supplies, reproduction of reference materials and monitoring

tools, communication and coordination, accommodation, etc.)

Incorporating in a particular project or program a budget earmarked for citizen participation in

performance monitoring

Contracting out citizen groups as service providers for third-party performance monitoring

A locally-funded people’s council that provides financial and non-financial assistance to a network

of local CSOs and NGOs

Other mechanisms that Mr. Tugawin mentioned are:

One percent (1%) of the contract amount be allocated for CSO monitoring

Revenues from the sale of bid documents

Pool of funds from donors and government; with independent body to manage the funds

Integration in programs of departments and LGUs appropriated in the budget;

Contracting CSOs following procurement process

Funding should come from the oversight agencies

He also mentioned the type of CSO expense items that may be supported:

Capacity-building (briefing orientation, levelling-off phase)

Coordination/ Communication

Promotion/ dissemination

Direct costs (food and transportation)

Open forum

Dr. Magno commented that the panel is well-represented, with a representative from the regulatory body

and a government agency that has been very open with partnering with civil society for procurement

accountability and reform.

What can you say about creating a jury system in the Philippines on procurement monitoring, with

CSOs taking a more proactive role in investigation?

How do we develop the demand side of people participation?

Comment: corruption does not lie within the procurement process only, it is within the system.

Are there DepEd guidelines for school-related BUB projects?

Is there a possibility for well-performing cities to be given the opportunity to have the budget

downloaded to them for the implementation of BUB projects, instead of the budget being

downloaded to DepEd?

Santiago: On the jury system: what we have in our judicial system to mirror the jury system is the filing of

a case in the prosecutor’s office, who takes the role of the jury. We have what we call the civil law system

(Congress passes laws), as opposed to a common law system (laws are developed from cases). The reason

why you have a grand jury is it decides the probable cause, if ever that is the system. However, we do not

know if our citizens are in that level where they can effectively make a decision as a jury.

Varela: On the comment about corruption in procurement: I agree with the comment that corruption does

not only lie with procurement with DepEd but also in other agencies as well. With regard to the demand

Q

23

side of people participation, this can be related to a lack of justice in this country—many of the issues we

see are manifestations of that problem. We all contribute to the lack justice. A corrupt organization, for

example, has no business in educating children. We are trying to do something about it. Are we completely

successful? No, but we are trying. An example is the issue regarding payments for teacher’s items.

Addressing this is very critical; a department like DepEd should be the last department to be corrupt.

Tugawin: On creating the demand for citizen participation: Whenever we identify what we monitor, what

we look at is its importance. For citizens, it is the same what is most important to them? Is it where they are

most vulnerable? Is the demand there? Demand was there in the Arroyo administration. When we do

monitoring, we don’t necessarily look at all the standards; we only look at standards where there is most

vulnerability. Policies only enable demands; but it does not translate to demand itself. We have to shift the

thinking from monitors being beneficiaries to partners in nation-building.

Varela: On the listing of textbooks: There is a moratorium right now on the purchase of supplementary

materials, so let’s just wait for its lifting. It was suspended due to the standardization of reform efforts, and

need to review the relevance of materials. Regarding the BUB Guidelines: these have been released. With

regard to the downloading of budget, DepEd has been working on this for years. DepEd has been listed as

one of the agencies that cannot download; however, it our view that the budget should be directly

downloaded to the LGUs. Let’s wait for developments regarding this.

Comment: we have a bill in Congress—HB 468-A mandates DSWD to become sole accrediting-

agency for NGOs. In the Bill, to enhance transparency and accountability, the Bid and Awards

Committee shall in addition to COA representatives, should invite the observers. Comments

regarding the bill (which includes a public disclosure provision) are welcome.

Suggestion on making decisions on procurement be more environmentally-friendly. Explore PTA

in monitoring anti-corruption initiatives, and provide budget for research in the procurement

process.

How can CSOs address infirmities in the Annual Procurement Plan?

How do we communicate high-impact activities on accountability for other citizens to be engaged?

How do we address threats to procurement observers?

What initiatives are the Local School Boards undertaking to engage the youth in procurement

accountability?

Are there BUB initiatives that start from the barangay?

Comment: maybe we can have road access first before school buildings are constructed in remote

places. There are school buildings that cannot be finished because materials cannot be hauled to

the construction site.

Varela: Regarding school buildings: I cannot say if corruption is involved or not. If there is no corruption

but rather the budget is lacking, as much as possible, DepEd identifies areas where additional hauling cost

is needed. The agreement with DPWH is that the building must be finished—it is DPWH’s responsibility

to implement. There is also a mechanism to ensure that a building is finished if additional costs are needed;

the guidelines provide that additional budget must be requested. Beyond that, we must look into the local

level for other factors that may affect delay in construction. Information must be shared with the local

DepEd leadership.

Santiago: The presumption is that a bidder should have seen the project site. It is the responsibility of the

contractor to have seen the project site. I don’t believe the hauling cost is not included in the approved

budget. This opens up liabilities because it is possible that the contractor was just not able to finish the

project. Of course we don’t want this—we want the finished school. This is where monitoring comes in.

24

Regarding green procurement: This is being studied and is under the radar already. Good procurement is

sustainable procurement. There will come a time when monitors will not only look at the dimensions of a

piece of metal, for example, but will also look for environmental friendliness. At first, this might be more

expensive; in the long-run, this will be more beneficial. As early as 2004, we already have an executive

issuance (EO 301) regarding this, because the market is not yet ready. Green CSOs should also look into

the market. A Green Building Code has been issued, which recommends environmentally-friendly materials

for buildings.

Varela: One thing civil society can do is to encourage more professional and ethical suppliers to participate

in government biddings. We have limited progress in this.

Tugawin: Re: funds for research: Usually this is borne by the CSOs through external funding, but this can

be included in the line items. Re: knowledge communication: This is truly a weakness of CSOs who

undertake research. What we try to do is go local and get intermediaries. We can’t cover bureaucracy; we

can’t parallel government. Re: local school boards: there are dynamics between LSBs and politicians. More

work is needed here.

Varela: Re: involvement of the local community: This is in fact consistent with DepEd’s programs of

delegating to the schools the management of their future. We call this school-based management. It is the

mandate of schools to engage the community in various aspects of the running of the schools. In time, we

hope to provide more resources to the schools to implement this. A combination of stronger internal

accountability mechanisms and external mechanisms (the involvement of citizen groups) is important.

Santiago: Re: BUB in barangay level: In the KALAHI-CIDDS program, the project emanates from the

grassroots. The barangay identifies the project and ultimately takes ownership over the project for

sustainability. This exists, aside from the 4Ps, so that people will feel what government is doing for them.

In our government procurement tools, community participation is also present, where citizens are identified

as service providers.

In my experience as an NGO before, we were happy when the procurement law was passed. There was

really active participation from the CSOs. The government would not need to call upon the CSOs; CSOs

would volunteer, there was fire to look into what government was doing. I will echo what the President

said: there is a social contract, it’s a two-way thing. Di kaya ng gobyerno mag-isa. We need your assistance,

we need your help. Participation of CSOs have been waning. Please rekindle that fire. If you need training

and guidance, we are ready to assist and help you.

25

AUGUST 5, 2015

SECOND KEYNOTE

Rep. Maria Leonor “Leni” Gerona-Robredo Congresswoman

Third district, Camarines Sur Cong. Leni Robredo tackled the deep and critical issues of citizen empowerment, including exclusiveness

and over-concentration of power, patronage politics and the prevailing gap between the citizens and their

government. Reflecting on her experience and that of her late husband, former DILG Secretary Jess

Robredo, she offered the kind of leadership and governance that can bring forth true citizen empowerment,

which ultimately boils down to two key points: (1) a leadership that is one with the people (felt by the

people in their everyday struggles) and (2) a state that institutionalizes the needed support for citizens and

civil society to effectively and actively participate in politics and governance as independent actors of

nation-building.

Highlights

Robredo shared her pleasure in speaking before a group of people who ask difficult questions that are

necessary to answer, who are not scared of deepening discussions and talking openly about problems that

some officials may not be open to discuss. These may include the bills on the BUB, people empowerment

bills, among others, bills which do not go beyond second reading.

There is a great fear of institutionalizing citizen participation mechanisms in government. The great news

is, the talk on citizen participation is one major step higher than the talk on accountability. With efforts such

as the full disclosure policy, the BUB, and open data set up by Sec. Butch, and FOI by the CSO community

and the academe, among others, transparency and accountability are being institutionalized, and will not

come and go as leadership comes and goes.

However information is useless without citizen participation. All the information posted would only be

useful if citizens can understand them and hold their LGUs to account if there is misuse of funds. Ilan ba

yung tumitingin? Ilang ang ginagamit? Gaano sila ka-useful? ‘Yung may problema lang ang tumitingin.

Our version of FOI is a supply-driven FOI as opposed to a demand-driven FOI, which is the traditional

FOI. Even without demand, government must release information—which should be user-friendly. The

FOI from the House will mandate that information be user-friendly to encourage citizens to engage LGUs

and make them accountable.

Robredo shared that during the launch of a knowledge-partnership project, Sec. Jesse said: “The conclusion

of our unfinished revolution is anchored on people like you who serve rather than criticize, collaborate

rather than divide; build up, rather than tear down, people who engage to understand.” Maraming maingay,

pero parating tanong, bakit nag-iingay? Pero nag-iingay dahil gusting mag-engage, yun yung magandang

ingay. Pero kung nag-iingay para lang mag-ingay, sarado ang isip, bakit pa nag-iingay.

Now that the elections are approaching, Robredo remembers those words of Sec. Jesse above, because the

reality is citizens are the center of government, not politicians who win elections. The next two years is

crucial in the fight for participation. There is still so much to be done. How do we even measure

engagement?

Robredo says she does not know the numbers—how many policies changed because of citizen

participation? This is crucial to ask because citizen participation is not just organizing or making noise, but

26

how we influence change. How many budgets include inputs from people on the ground? How do we

measure citizen participation? What cannot be measured cannot be improved. This is where the academe

and CSOS play a great role.

It is only in asking the right questions, Robredo said, that we find the path to solutions. Is power truly

inclusive today? Are people who are empowered today held accountable, and to what extent? Is there a

deepening of democracy contributing to substantial change?

With regard to the first question, Robredo answered that power is inclusive, pero kulang na kulang pa. Ang

hashtag ay dapat #pushpamore. While there are initiatives to identify projects for the people’s money, this

is not enough. The situation is still fragile. More mechanisms are needed at the ground level. This is one of

the reasons why Robredo filed the People Empowerment Bill, so that the government is not just open to

participation. The bill also obliges government to help civil society get organized and start people engaging,

because this is what honest-to-goodness engagement is. You create the mechanisms and institutions for

engagement, but you also need to capacitate the people so they are comfortable in using those mechanisms.

Only then can trust be rebuilt, only then can one say power is inclusive. If not, then only the elites and the

already-powerful will be able to use those mechanisms, who already have the advantage, further

perpetuating the gaps between the haves and have-nots.

Maraming grupong walang capacity to organize themselves. People’s council ordinances thus should

always have a provision for a people empowerment fund, so they do not become dependent on government.

Dependence defeats the purpose of organizing. She cited the example of unorganized farmers versus those

organized farmers, the former not being able to obtain benefits from the Department of Agriculture. These

unorganized farmers needed support to sustain themselves, are concerned with their basic needs. The

government, thus, if it is genuine in enhancing citizen participation, should create an environment

conducive to it. This is the perpetual struggle; there are a few mechanisms, lack of capacity, lack of funds

even to start organizing.

Next question: are people empowered today held accountable? She emphasized that law or no law, the issue

is whether an ordinary citizen cares for transparency. So how do we make people care, or want to engage?

If people are engaged, even ordinary people can use laws that promote transparency.

Third question: is there a deepening of democracy contributing to substantial change? A lot has been done

by this administration, but again the missing link is capacitating ordinary people to take part in governance.

There should be mechanisms for people empowerment, and the products of these mechanisms should

participate in programs of the government (like BUB) that include citizen participation. She related stories

relating to her frequent school visits, highlighting that less-than-ideal situations seem acceptable for some

citizens. Her point is: how will these citizens complain if they don’t know what they are due? Even if there

accountability measures, citizen engagement in governance is still more important. If citizens cannot

engage, mechanisms are a waste.

She relates her experience in winning by a landslide in her district. The learning is no one wants to be

treated an important person only when election time comes; when people get used to your presence, they

won’t demand much from you. The challenge for us is to change mindsets, and all of us are in a position to

change that. If mindsets will change, everything will follow.

The time of looking at voting as the only engagement between governments and citizens is long gone.

Countries who engage to understand are the countries who make things work. To many people, this is a

matter of life of death. Robredo shared her experiences as an alternative lawyer, as part of a movement that

organized communities to capacitate basic sectors through legal information. Her passion and work is now

bigger, but issues are all the same: poverty, vulnerability to disasters, but the saddest part is that people

don’t seem to care about good governance anymore.

27

Where do we go from here? The only way is to move forward. Ultimately, the metric to measure citizen

engagement should not be how sectors are organized, or how many citizens have engaged, or how active

they are—these are just means to measure are goals. We measure by asking how many of the poor have

access to basic services. Who will fix this? Tayo lang po ang pwede.

Open forum

In what ways can you empower what Sec. Robredo started in the barangay and church relationship

in UBAS (Ugnayan ng Barangay at mga Simbahan)?

Robredo: DILG helped to revive it again last year, and I am part of the core group in partnership with the

association of barangays. The rebirth of UBAS already started but the problem is the available spaces for

participation. The spaces are not enough in the barangays. What is happening now is we are organizing

many other UBASes in many other areas of the country, but the only spaces present are in BUB. We are

pushing for this to reach below the barangay level. In my experience, ‘pag barangay ang kausap, mas

kaunti ang pulitika. Barangays have a direct accountability to the people. Sometimes higher levels will not

cooperate with you because of politics.

In the church side, this cannot be imposed, the decision of the church is per diocese. Each diocese is a

kingdom of its own. There are parishes, senior citizen groups that are organized. However, there are many

other sectors which are not organized, so evidently, each sector must be organized. They have different

concerns. How can you help the sector if they are not organized?

Now that the DILG is organizing this again, some dioceses are sceptical. But hopefully, after the elections,

this will not be the case.

What can we do to push our department heads, like those in technical working groups, to do their

jobs? (Specifically, in writing project proposals?)

Robredo: This is a sad reality. A lot of things like this are too leader-centred. The passing of an

empowerment ordinance and the implementation is leader-centred. If the chief-executive is open, there

shouldn’t be a problem. If not, it is difficult. Our CPDO is in a position to give you advice.

After 2016, could BUB be institutionalized?

Robredo: I do not want to look at BUB after 2016. I hope it gets institutionalized before 2016. So that,

anyone who’ll win the elections will get to follow because it’s already institutionalized. But the sad reality

is this will be difficult in Congress since everyone’s in election mode. We can only hope for a miracle, but

I’m not losing hope. If it is not passed now, we hope that the next set of leaders pursue this opportunity.

Where do you think you could help more? As a congressman or as a vice-president?

Robredo: All this talk about the vice-presidency is just talk. I’m in that place where that is not an option.

Q

28

THIRD PANEL DISCUSSION QUESTIONING OUR ASSUMPTIONS: RESEARCH AND LEARNING ON “WHAT WORKS” IN CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Panel moderator Ms. Carmel Abao Instructor, Political Science Department Ateneo de Manila University

There are long-held assumptions about citizen participation. The general

mantra is that participation is good. This, however, misses the nuances needed

if participation is to be looked at as a means and not just an end. Participation

is a right that has to be advanced and protected at all times, but can that right

be enabled in a way that it will surely and effectively advance progressive and

democratizing agenda?

In the Philippine context, what kind of results and gains have been achieved

through citizen participation? What kind of participation led to these results

and gains? What results and gains (intended and unintended) of participation

were good? Were there kinds of participation or results of participation that

were threatening to the deepening of democracy and the achievement of

substantive development? How do we reflect on and answer questions that put

to the test key assumptions on citizen participation?

This panel looked at current research work and studies on citizen participation

and participatory governance that investigate how and what kind of

participation works in the context of the Philippines. It also reflected on the

current capacity of the country to study and critically reflect on citizen

participation and its impact and the openness of stakeholders to learn from

research and lessons from past experience.

Ms. Abao says that the panel has already started with Cong. Leni’s keynote speech. She took note that

beyond asking ‘what works,’ the panel will also discuss what does not work. She also related she was a

CSO member in the 90s (with the Institute for Popular Democracy), and fondly shared the dynamics

between CSOs and LGUs back then, which was characterized by a lack of trust. There was not much to

work with in citizen participation before. She related some lessons learned in Brazil (visited when she was

a CSO member), primarily on how to encourage citizen participation. After a few more stories about

Brazil’s practices in citizen participation, she introduced the speakers.

“Vertically-integrated initiatives in the Philippines: an ongoing research” Mr. Francis Isaac Researcher DLSU-JRIG

Isaac first discussed the objectives of the study: (1) to provide a narrative of the ongoing exploratory

research on vertical integration in the Philippines; (2) to gather evidence on monitoring and advocacy

initiatives that were able to deliver positive results; and (3) to Understand how vertical integration

1

29

contributed to the delivery of results and the overall success of these initiatives. Proceeding to the

background, he characterized civil society movements as healthy and dynamic.

One prominent approach in analysing dynamics is the bibingka strategy, as exemplified in how agrarian

reform is implemented in the Philippines. He illustrated the strategy thus: there is heat from below

(autonomous CSO) and heat from top (state reformers) thereby making reform possible. He cited other

sources which used the bibingka approach, albeit with different terminology for it, in effect emphasizing

how this particular strategy has been circulating in the academic community.

Isaac discussed another framework: the social accountability approach, which integrates civil society

monitoring to improve performance and deter corruption. Other frameworks discussed include partisan civil

society and cross-over leadership (Joel Rocamora of the Institute of Popular Democracy is an example).

Yet questions remain: how are reform initiatives sustained?

In the research, vertical integration is used as a framework. Isaac asked: why do we need CSOs to be

vertically integrated? Elites in this country are vertically-integrated: landowners own and are elected, they

are located at the ground and combine at regional levels. Thus the general research question of the study

asks: how do reform gains exactly happen? How do we establish results that are directly due to vertical

integration? Isaac reminded the audience, however, that the research questions are tentative and

exploratory. To approach the research, researchers looked at successful policy campaigns, such as agrarian

reform, reproductive health, indigenous people’s rights, and disaster risk reduction and management.

Initial observations about the research include the following: First, an integrated approach is key to

achieving positive results, that is, civil society actors must engage the State at various levels to gain attention

and multiple strength. Next, results vary according to the nature of the campaign. Policy advocacy, for

example, seek policy change, while policy monitoring demand effective policy implementation. Lastly,

different campaigns engage different levels of the state using different actions/ strategies depending on the

actors and levels.

Most CSO actors are engaged at various levels of the State, said Isaac. Agrarian reform, anti-mining, and

IP rights advocates engage the State from village to national level. Some others (Check My School and

Textbook Count) engage national and school-level actors. In addition, the study analyzes various drivers of

integration.

Initial observations also reveal challenges to vertical integration. He emphasized resources as factor in

sustainability of CSO integration. Also, that some CSOs are adept at organizing at ground, but have troubles

with allies above. He also reflected that is not easy to identify the research topic because of the language;

there exists the challenge of CSOs in owning the term vertical integration. Finally, he reminded everyone

that the study is not yet conclusive.

“What works? Scaling up social initiatives” Dr. Ma. Elissa Jayme Lao (Dr. Czarina Saloma-Akpedonu, Ms. Leslie Advincula Lopez: co-authors) Institute for Philippine Culture

The study is part of a series. Her co-authors are sociologists; Dr. Lao is a political scientist. In 2009, Fr.

Ben wanted to conduct a study that looked into the phenomenon of social change, focusing on the Ateneo

organizations who were working in that area. Dr. Lao remarked that as a political scientist, she is used to a

fast-paced atmosphere: sanay sa mabilisan. But working with sociologists is different; she tells her

colleagues, “Bagalan niyo, tingnan niyo kung ano pa ‘yung di nakikita agad.”

2

30

In terms of the framing, they looked at two views of social change: one is mabilisan, is functionalist and

evolutionary, working on the aggregate and institutional level, and the other on the microlevel, that is,

interpretative ideas on the microprocesses. Bur bridging this gap are theories that look into the relationships

between social actors and institutions. How do we interact with them? How do we work with them?

One theory looks into individual agencies’ awareness of actions. She shared a thought from the sociologist

Giddens, that individuals have the capacity to resist structures and transform society. Another is the

radicalization of rationality, where social agents rationalize practices to conform closely to social goals.

This requires autonomy and responsibility and a state of flow—when you are in the zone, what is difficult

becomes easy. All these need not to take place to reinvent the wheel; it’s just to look at new ways of working

with older rules. Small changes can also be significant in changing long-standing institutions.

Mahoney and Thelen, from which the study draws from, state that institutions are reflective of the strategies

of social actors and agents, which can be anyone with the capacity to change the rules. How are rules

changed? Through (1) displacement or total removal of existing rules and replacement with new ones (2);

conversion, when rules remain the same but are interpreted in different ways; (3) drift and changes brought

about by the shift in the environmental conditions thereby resulting in a changed impact on the existing

ones; and (4) layering or the introduction of new rules alongside existing ones.

She cited Municipality X, struck a typhoon in 2004, where the enumerated different approaches were

utilized. The municipality displaced old rules and mindsets (through financial assistance to cooperatives,

introduction of compact farming, among others). Because of this, there was more “buy in” in PhilHealth

(where there was little participation before) and services were improved. The municipality also drifted with

environmental changes, introduced new rules alongside existing ones through trust and community

organizing, which fit with personal and social aims. The middle approach was also used through enhancing

relationships (internal) and enabling interactions in different ways (external).

The study is now looking at hybridized political interactions, which takes two realities, the traditional and

the possible new rules, and how they introduce a new way of seeing what works.

“Assessment of bottom-up budgeting: FY 2015 cycle” Dr. Rosario Manasan Senior research fellow Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Dr. Manasan clarified that she will present an assessment of the implmentation of the BUB during the

preparation of the FY 2015 budget. She then discussed the two-fold objective of the BuB: (1) to promote

participation of grassroot organizations in planning and budgeting processes at local level, and (2) to

enhance identification of poverty reduction projects

The study, in turn, aims to achieve the following: (1) assess how well participatory aspects of BUB have

been implemented on the ground, and (2) examine how the key steps in the planning process and

prioritization of projects under the BUB for the FY 2015 cycle are implemented on the ground, in terms of

extent of participation in BUB, LGU-CSO engagement, and the integration of the BUB in the local planning

process, among others; (3) report on the progress and identify bottlenecks in the BUB, and (4) provide

insights on areas for future improvement. Dr. Manasan emphasized that the assessment is focused on

process, rather than results.

The summary indicator the study used is the share of CSO projects in total cost of LPRAT projects. Results

are mixed: a small number of municipalities scored between 70%-100%, a small number of other

municipalities scored between 5%-20% and the majority of municipalities scored between 30%-56% or an

3

31

average of 41%. Beyond the variety of scores, however, Dr. Manasan emphasized that what is more

important is what aspects of citizen participation in BUB influenced the scores of these LGUs.

In this regard, the study breaks down CSO participation in the BUB into three major aspects or elements:

(1) inclusiveness in the CSO assembly, (2) quality of CSO participation in the CSO assembly, and (3)

quality of output in the LPRAP workshop.

In terms of inclusiveness of CSO assembly, the study looked at who were invited, specifically whether the

invitation to the assembly was limited to LGU-accredited CSOs only and also how invitations were made.

In general, invitations were open yet restrictive (only accredited CSOs were invited), and some were semi-

open. There are different views on the inclusion of CSOs which are not accredited by the LGU.

The study also found that attendance rate of CSOs in the assembly is as low as 43%, as characterized by:

lack of interest, lack of trust, and two alignments which never meet, among others.

With respect to quality of participation in CSO assembly, the study looked at the representativeness of

CSOs who attended the assembly. It was observed, among others, that some sectors were over represented

(through federations). With respect to the more qualitative aspects of CSO participation, the study looked

at how CSOs felt, how prepared they were, and their awareness/ understanding of and ability to articulate

needs of communities. The study notes the difference in this regard between Kalahi-CIDDS (KC) and non-

KC areas. Here, it is observed that the ability to articulate, as well as the amount of social preparation prior

to CSO assembly, was an important factor. In terms of the quality of the Poverty Situation Analysis (PSA),

the PSA in all the CSO assemblies observed start with the identification of problems and move to the

identification of solutions – sometimes broadly in terms of strategies, sometimes in more specific terms

like identification of specific projects. Dr. Manasan noted that participation is more meaningful if the CSOs

in assembly are involved in actual identification of specific projects.

The quality of output of the LPRAP workshop was determined largely by (1) the provenance of the long

list of projects considered, (2) the persons who prepared the list of projects, and (3) who participated in the

prioritization process. A notable observation is that there is little evidence-based planning here.

Dr. Manasan then discussed what were the lessons learned in the study. What are its critical aspects? Her

overall assessment was that BUB was an additional space for citizen participation, and broadened fiscal

space for LGUs. Here, at least some projects were identified by CSOs. There is improvement in the regular

LGU planning process.

The adoption of the BUB mechanism is planned, but there is no evidence that CSOs are willing to do this

unless there are resources. Still, BUB provides a venue for learning-by-doing. Its approach is less

adversarial, since CSOs and LGUs here actively work together. There is also progress on the CSO sectoral

approach; more CSOs are pushing for the welfare of sectors other than their own.

Dr. Manasan thus asks: what else is there to improve aside from organizing? She mentions post-planning

and identification monitoring, and that CSOs must be made more aware of what happened to LPRAP

projects. Addressing a possible question during the open forum, she asks: do we want to institutionalize?

She says yes, but in a form na merong participation. Her personal observation is that BUB will be continued

because of its flexibility—it may be adapted to patronage politics; and it may be adapted for the reform-

minded, where there can be better implementation. The point is: madaling gamitin.

32

Open forum

Does BUB exist on a municipal or city level?

Do you propose the regulation of CSOs or the professionalizing of the work of CSOs?

Is there national study on the impact of a participatory BUB? Should the BUB be targeted or or

should it be rolled out nationally?

Should the BUB included in the national budget or in the Internal Revenue Allotment?

Manasan: BUB exists on a municipal level. Regarding the regulation of CSOs, there is a possibility that

madaling maco-opt; madaling mapaglaruan ng politicians. Rather, there should be self-regulation. There

is also a need for funds to help promote organization and social preparation, to some extent, nagagawa ng

Kalahi-CIDDs. This works at barangay level, so that’s good.

There is no study yet on the participatory impact of BUB, but that is noted. Regarding the targeting of BUB:

Yes, it should be targeted. It is true that nawala yung focus on poverty in the BUB. On the projects identified

and beneficiaries, poorer barangays were also not focused on. Despite that, with regard to the lives of people

who participated in the BUB, mayroon namang impact.

With regard to the inclusion in the national budget or IRA: this question was asked of LGUs. Ayaw nila,

they want it separate. Pag sinama mo siya sa IRA, yung empowerment aspect totally mawawala. Mababa

ang CSO participation sa LDC. If you want participation in the LGU, change local kind of participation.

Can we see possibility of National Commission of CSOs, so CSOs are not only local but also

federated and in different levels?

How about the application of national line agencies in citizen participation? There is no

participation there. How do we remedy this?

Social science research results are not accessible to citizens. How to make it available to non-

academic audience?

Isaac: With regard to the National CSO Commission: a State is realm of bureaucracy; CSO is the realm of

anarchy. In State, decisions and accountability run from top to bottom. In CSOs, small, medium, large

organizations interact; regulation depends on interactions with each other and the government.

In civil society, what should be our understanding on citizen participation? As a system, or as a group? One

sees participation should be systematic and integrated, another sees it coming from individuals. The rule in

CSOs is we should not change everything. Should CSOs share that perspective? So we can understand the

practice?

On the application of national line agencies in citizen participation: reform requires demand from below;

and openness from above. The two must exist at the same time.

With regard to accessibility of research results: there is a changing conception of knowledge in the academe.

Universities are now also embedded in communities where they are affected. It’s a responsibility of the

university to engage, because we are stakeholders in local politics. Other universities are also thinking that

way, spirit is there. Peru and Guatemala also in the same boat: academe and CSO venues are lacking where

they can interact. Avenues for discussion are needed.

Manasan: In PIDS, we are very conscious of communicating our research through layman’s language,

through our brief policy notes. These are accessible online.

Q

33

Is BUB above municipal level in other States?

Abao: Brazil has not implemented it at the national level. At the State level, there were tripartite discussions,

but not participatory. But scale was important in making this possible.

Manasan: On scaling up BUB, one can notice that there is no CSO participation in the RPRAT; these are

appointed already. That’s where we need representation, in the regional and national level. When there is

no real representativeness, we become vulnerable.

Comments on the studies

We need to define citizen participation. There’s constructive engagement; non-constructive

engagement.

On owning the term vertical integration: I don’t think CSOs need to own vertical integration

Researchers should consider using ground theory; look at concepts, halawin, then gumawa ng

teorya. Use an interdisciplinary team for research.

There are no standards for accreditation; no standard framework of relationship between

government and NGOs.

We’re grappling with how to push reforms. How do we incentivize reforms? BUB is just an

experiment; we want that later on, participatory budgeting will be the norm. Pakiusap: let us

maximize it, then come up with a sectoral agenda that is a CSO agenda, at least to those who buy-

in.

Put importance on monitoring & evaluation of BUB, since these will still boil down to procurement.

Ms. Abao wrapped up the discussion by saying that real life is messier than paper. Defining citizen

participation has been a task since the 90s, she added, and the term used was citizen struggle. The key

takeaway from the open forum is that policy is negotiated. One can have dialogue, whether constructive or

non-constructive. What we should be happy about is that Naga is no longer alone as a model in active

citizen particpation. As reflected in the panelists’ studies—Brazil has something to learn from us.

34

FOURTH PANEL DISCUSSION

EXERCISE OF RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE: HAS IT IMPROVED ALMOST THREE DECADES AFTER MARTIAL LAW? Panel moderator Ms. Joy Aceron Program Director PODER/G-Watch Citizens engage in the most basic form of participation during elections - as

voters exercising the right to suffrage. What have been the constraints and

hindrances in the exercise of the right to vote of Filipinos citizens as an

accountability mechanism? How are we linking the exercise of the right to

suffrage to civil society/ citizen participation in governance (in between

elections)? Is this interface important to address the constraints and

hindrances in making the electoral exercise an accountability

mechanism? How do we know that we are advancing in the fight to reform our

electoral system in a way that strengthens the exercise of the right to suffrage

of citizens? What haven't we tried doing yet in improving our electoral reform

efforts?

“Media-driven evolution of the Philippine electorate” Mr. Ramon Casiple Executive Director Institute of Political and Electoral Reform (IPER)

Mr. Casiple began by raising the question of whether or not anything has happened, in relation to the

exercise of the right to suffrage, over the last three decades or the post-Marcos era. The baseline is the

Marcos period, which was non-democratic. Therefore, experiences in relation to elections during that time

was not that of democracy.

More specifically, Casiple posed the question of whether or not the system is now truly democratic. His

answer was in the negative, for the reason that citizen’s voter’s education has never been done in a

systematic, widespread manner. Furthermore, there is no strong political party system. What people

remember are the crises, such as People Power 1, 2, and even 3, the coups d’état, and the “Hello Garci”

scandal.

Casiple then discussed IPER’s psychographics studies of voter behavior in 1995 and 2003, and an

assessment of the 2010 elections. The studies noted the increasing role of the media in voter choice.

IPER found that in 1995, the first voter preference was the candidate being famous and popular. This was

followed by the traditional influence of the family, church, and community leaders; the candidate’s public

servant image, which includes approachability and the appearance of helping those in need; and lastly, track

record and experience in establishing programs that bring prosperity.

In the 2003 study, however, it appeared that there were substantial shifts in voter preferences. Surfacing as

the first preference was the candidate’s public servant image, which was number three in 1995. The second

preference became political machinery, which not only includes the ability of a candidate to undertake a

1

35

more personal approach to the voters, but also a strategy to use a party where he/she belongs. In third was

candidate’s popularity, which was formerly the primary voter preference. The fourth preference was the

endorsement of traditional networks and organizations, including the family, the church, ward leaders, and

formal associations, which is similar to the second voter preference in 1995.

On the topic of vote buying, the numbers seemed to have gone down from 1995 to 2003. In 1995, 51.6%

of respondents admitted that they were offered to sell their votes, out of which 68.8% admitted that they

accepted the offer. In 2003, only 48.2% of respondents admitted that they were offered, and only 35.8%

admitted that they accepted the same.

In their assessment of the 2010 elections, IPER observed a certain level of maturity among the voters.

Specifically, those popular figures with no track record in politics failed to win. The era wherein candidates

were winnable based solely on their popularity appears to have waned. There is evidence that media and

civil society efforts on citizen-voter’s education has had an effect on a significant percentage of voters.

Casiple concluded that there is now some level of maturity among the electorate. He posited that if there is

an alternative that is correct, the voters will take it. The key is that there is an alternative to the system of

vote buying and traditional politics that has been prevalent in the past.

The right to vote and citizen participation in the context of human rights Hon. Jose Luis Martin “Chito” Gascon Chairman Commission on Human Rights

Chairman Gascon framed the topic of the right to suffrage in the perspective of human rights. Gascon

pointed out that as a set of norms by which society governs itself, human rights has always been a matter

of contestation; those in power tend to deny the rights of those out of power. As such, after the World Wars,

core norms have been agreed upon. These are embodied in international agreements, including the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political

Rights.

The right to citizen’s participation is one of the core norms provided for under the UDHR, namely, in

Article XXI, which states: (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly

or through freely chosen representatives; (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his

country; and (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be

expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be

held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

With this in mind, Gascon highlighted that in the course of contestation for human rights, a core human

right that was acknowledged and accepted from the very beginning was this right to participation in

government and democracy. In a sense, this spurred many across the world to fight for this and other rights.

The right to citizen’s participation goes beyond elections and extends to governance. What is important is

that citizens have a right to demand accountability and transparency, which are core fundamental rights.

The question now is how to operationalize these fundamental rights to citizen’s participation in the context

of suffrage. An agenda for reform must be developed. In the context of human rights, this is this is how

viable elections becomes meaningful, and includes the right of the people to associate in political

associations for purposes of participating in governance.

2

36

Gascon also highlighted the right to be free from violence or coercion, which is crucial in the Philippines,

as the country is one of the most violent in the world in relation to electoral processes. One problem in

relation to human rights in this context is the tendency to think of elections in aggregate terms, e.g. in terms

of voter turnout, or that it was “generally free and fair.” While the big picture is important, it is also

important to disaggregate and to take notice of the marginalized and vulnerable.

It is important that in a free, open democratic system, it must not only be the voice of the majority that is

heard, but of all people. This also applies to political reform, however, not just to elections. As an example,

Gascon cited the issue regarding Bangsamoro, saying that many in the majority would make the decision

that the minority Muslim community should be denied self-governance. Not many Muslims have a voice.

For instance, only 8 out of 280 representatives in the House are Muslims and the last Muslim senator was

elected in 1992.

Gascon concluded that as chair of the CHR, he must work from a non-partisan perspective, along with the

Comelec and citizen’s across the political spectrum, to pursue the reforms that are urgently needed in

Philippine society to make the right to democracy and citizen’s participation more real than imaginary.

“Exercise of the right of suffrage: has it improved in thirty years after Martial Law?” Com. Luie Tito Guia Commissioner Commission on Elections

Commissioner Guia approached citizen participation in elections through two senses: first, elections as the

formal mechanism by which citizens participate in the affairs of the state and second, citizen participation

in managing the electoral process. The first sense rests on the idea that sovereignty resides in all the people

and all government authority emanates from them. All have a right to political participation: this is a rights-

based approach to election management and as such, the marginalized and underprivileged must be

empowered. In turn, the second sense is based on the idea that public office is a public trust. Thus, Comelec

officials and employees must be accountable and transparent.

Guia then went through an overview of legal institutional reforms that occurred in the last thirty years.

The Omnibus Election Code of 1985, which was promulgated two months before the snap elections called

for by President Marcos, is still the main piece of legislation governing elections today. It has been amended

multiple times, but a lot of it remains the same. The Code recognizes the need for a Citizens’ Arm and the

role of other non-partisan socio-civic organizations watching the elections.

The 1987 Constitution strengthened the Comelec by providing for its institutional independence. It also

introduced the party list system, encouraged a multiparty system, and encouraged the legislature to enact

an anti-dynasty law.

Other electoral laws since then include the Electoral Reform Law of 1987, which intended to make the

prosecution of vote buying easier, provided for campaign rules, and became the main law with regard to

election adjudication; the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), which established a recall procedure

and local sectoral representation; the Synchronized Election Law of 1991, which provided for campaign

expenditure limits, the election gun ban, and that copies of certificates of canvass be given to citizens’ arm

watchers; the Party-List System Act (RA 7491); the Automated Election Laws of 1997 and 2007 (RA 8436

and RA 9369); and the Overseas Voting Act of 2003 (RA 9189).

In addition to this are several initiatives by the Comelec, such its Modernization and Excellence Program,

3

37

Operation Merit (2005), the creation of the Campaign Finance Unit, Comstrat 1116, mainstreaming

inclusive elections (PWDs, displaced, etc.), and the introduction of a rights based approach to election

management.

Guia said that civil society has had a big impact on these reforms. Formerly, the focus was always the

integrity of the vote count. More recently, however, there are organizations that have now involved

themselves in other aspects of elections, such as voter’s education and lobbying for electoral reform laws

in Congress. These reforms would not have had the momentum needed had it not been for the push of CSOs

actively engaging the Comelec. They recognize that elections are not solely the project of Comelec and that

they cannot successfully do it alone. For they need help from CSOs.

Guia ended with a call to make the 2016 elections successful by working together.

Challenges on the right to vote as an accountability mechanism Ms. Risa Hontiveros Chairperson Akbayan

Ms. Hontiveros started by saying that while there have been reforms in the electoral process, there is still a

lot of inertia from the past that prevents changes and participation. Citing the University of Oregon,

Hontiveros defined citizen’s participation as a process which provides private individuals the opportunity

to influence public decisions. It has long been a component of the democratic decision-making process.

Another understanding is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, or the excluded, to

be among the haves- to be included, empowered, and decisive.

At this point in time, it is fitting to assess the last half-decade of a reform-oriented administration, as we

look forward to further reforms—deeper and wider economic and social reforms. Back in Martial Law, the

tradition was to boycott any election. For Hontiveros, the first positive and eye-opening experience as to

what elections could be for citizens was the Salonga-Pimentel campaign of 1992, followed the passage of

the party list law, the founding of Akbayan, and its coalition with the ruling Liberal Party.

The right to suffrage is predicated on the theory that people who bear the burden of government should

share in the privilege of choosing the officials of that government. One could go so far as to say that there

exists not only a right, but an obligation, to vote. With a reform-oriented or progressive administration, this

“burden” can be a positive one gladly shared by citizens and taxpayers. The opposite is true when their

elected officials are corrupt or regressive.

There are several constraints and hindrances in the exercise of the right to vote of Filipino citizens as an

accountability mechanism, which in itself, is a very provocative idea:

The first hindrance is disenfranchisement. Hontiveros said that perhaps there is a correlation with political

disenfranchisement and disenfranchisement in relation to social programs (e.g. fisherfolk and IPs).

The second hindrance is the lack of a political party system. The majority of voters are dependent on

patrons. Though there is political empowerment, the economic empowerment must also follow: to vote as

they believe they should vote, based on track records and platforms, and not based on patronage politics.

The third hindrance is a lack of political culture or the idea that voting draws up a social contract. There

should be a continuing relationship, and not just one that exists every three or six years. There must be

4

38

expectations from government and a way to assess their performance, which will allow the people to exact

accountability from them.

Hontiveros then discussed the link between the exercise of the right to suffrage to citizen participation in

governance between elections. According to her, it is increasingly the case that many of those who voted

in 2010 have been the most faithful participants in the anti-corruption movement.

Hontiveros moved on to emphasize the importance of addressing the constraints and hindrances in making

the electoral exercise an accountability mechanism. This is in order to sustain citizen’s participation in good

governance even in between elections and to empower the citizens. It is possible to gauge if the fight for

electoral reform is advancing by the quality and quantity of participation in elections.

Lastly, Hontiveros mentioned campaign finance reform and its importance, as excessive spending skews

results and tends to limit the transformative effect that elections and citizen’s engagement in elections can

have in pushing actual reforms in society, and raising our consciousness and developing our political

culture.

“In search of the thinking vote” Dr. Ronald Mendoza Executive Director Asian Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Center

Dr. Mendoza began his talk by positing that the Filipino poor is actually a thinking vote. This raises the

question of why, if it is indeed a thinking vote, they keep voting for corrupt officials and families. In

answering this, Mendoza put forth his thesis: “[the poor] cannot stop, because they do not have a choice

anymore.”

In “Scarcity” by Mullainathan and Shafir, it was argued that being poor changes one’s thinking about

everything. When there are things that the poor desperately need, their focus is on short-term and what they

can receive, that is, immediate help. Thus, the message of the reformist, which is by its nature of the longer-

term, becomes more and more difficult as we increase in poverty and inequality.

According to a study conducted by the AIM Policy Center in 2013 on vote buying incidents in 17 MM

cities, 18.9% answered directly answered that they received compensation in exchange for their votes,

whereas 38.9% answered yes indirectly, in that they saw vote buying take place. Mendoza said that to solve

this, and to convince people not to vote for a certain dynasty who helped them, is going to be an uphill

battle.

The good news, however, is reforms will change the landscape. Release of data and openness of government

has proven to be a powerful device for ramping up expectations for good governance, because people can

see what is allocated for them. Improving transparency and participatory governance is powerful. The key

is to strengthen alternatives to patronage politics, such as with bottom-up budgeting (BUB) and the

Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program (4Ps) or Conditional Cash Transfer (4Ps) program.

Further discussing the 4Ps program, Mendoza theorized that the bulk of the payoff will be in the end; the

hunger and demand for this information and the participation is forthcoming. This will happen around 18

years (or 3 presidents) later, as the beneficiary students graduate high school. They will be the ones who

will “make noise” in the future.

5

39

The power of the 4Ps program is that it is different from patronage politics; it is not a dole-out program.

The depth of the cash transfer is enough to make a difference in child investments, but small enough to

mitigate dependency. This is opposed to the traditional patron-client, which creates a situation wherein the

poor becomes dependent on the politicians, but it is never enough to bring about long-term change. The

conditions for access are also different. With the former, the conditions are school attendance, deworming,

regular health checkups, and the like, whereas with the latter, the condition is to vote for the patron. In

addition to this, with the 4Ps, it is actually the poor being helped by their fellow taxpayers, rather than a

patron who wishes to promote and maintain dependency.

This CCT program can be a solution to the “scarcity thinking”. It will take 18 years to free the poor from

this kind of thinking. Their only chance at breaking free from the traditional way of thinking comes when

they get into, and graduate, from high school, and the jobs are waiting for them with the structural reforms.

In conclusion, Mendoza said that strengthening the alternatives to patronage, such as with bottom-up

budgeting and 4Ps is the hope to end this way of short-term thinking.

Open forum

Why are there favored politicians in the media? How do we solve this problem?

Casiple: The media has three components: (1) commercial media (most influential), (2) government media

(incumbent machinery), and (3) citizen media (e.g. Radio Veritas, community radios). Commercial media

is subjected to two influences: (1) who owns it and (2) who pays for it. Politicians want to own media. The

question of money is a question of campaign spending. The problem is not that there are no limits, but that

they are often ignored, because it is not practical.

Hontiveros: Mainstream media institutions have not yet admitted that there is a problem with

sensationalism. They have, however, admitted a problem with corruption amongst their ranksThe remedy

might be in public broadcasting where the viewers and listeners are the investors, with the power to evaluate

the system and make changes at the managerial level.

Mendoza: Social media will be an important platform for accountability: challenge is in sorting out the

truths from the non-truths.

Gascon: What is important is freedom of speech and of expression. While there is a free media in the

Philippines, but it is also for sale. So how do we respond? Pluralism of media sources, e.g. social media,

community media. Also, integration with all sources, so that the truth gets out there. Then, the role of

education so that the recipients can sort it out. The solution is not with the government censoring or filing

charges against critiques.

Can CCT/4Ps be a decisive factor in the elections?

Casiple: On 4Ps, can it be done in a situation where political clans and dynasties control the structures?

Will political players allow for their influence to be decreased by 4Ps?

Mendoza: The politicians are not stupid, they know it’s coming. Many want to capture the CCT program,

such as in Latin America. If the LGUs capture it, it will become a system of patronage, much like pork

barrel. The difference with CCT is that, it is supposed to be that the poor will get help from their fellow

Q

40

taxpayers, not patrons. The effect won’t be immediate, but as they attend high school. The program may be

attacked in the 2016 elections, because they still sold their votes, etc.

How can elections, which is majoritarian, protect the minority? Maybe it is too limited.

Gascon: While essentially majoritarian, the minorities will often be drowned out by the majority, but this

does not mean that we should drop the system altogether. The challenge is political reform—the rights of

citizen participation in relation to political reform.

In the current system, they will always be limited or powerless, unless power structures that empower them

are established. This is the importance of BBL for example; it does not only a voice in the elections, but

gives them capacity and power and autonomy, authority. Not just the right to be heard, but the right to self-

determination.

Reform in the political system is important to give empower those without a voice in governance. We can

do this by reserved seats, regionalization.

What is the key role of CSOs in the suffrage system?

Casiple: Civil society actually has no role in elections (outside of the state); citizens do. IPER has always

been for a parliamentary system.

Main problems in suffrage are vote buying, violence—how can we resolve this?

Guia: Buying and selling are both crimes. The problem is proving the transaction, since it is done by two

criminals.

How do we engage electric cooperatives? They control the data, are captured by political elites.

Debt condonation as vote buying happens.

Gascon: This is just one of many issues. Ultimately, we need to work on all electoral reforms.

Hontiveros: Cooperatives in general need to be strengthened as we up the ante on economic reform.

What is the opinion of the panelists regarding the Atong Paglaum case (which decided that parties

can actually field party lists)?

Guia: The new Supreme Court interpretation is that there is proportional representation, not a reserved

representation system. This is how Comelec will look at petitions for accreditation from now on. However,

big parties cannot automatically participate; if they field in candidates in the district system, they will not

be allowed to participate in the party list system of representation.

In human rights, is it illegal to campaign against a candidate for being corrupt?

Is vote buying a violation of Art. XXI human rights?

Gascon: A campaign allows you to freely express who to vote for and not to vote for. But there is also a

freedom of reply.

41

Vote buying is a violation of human rights. Human rights in the context of citizen’s participation assumes

freedom of choice. Essentially, vote buying undermines this. The CHR merely speaks on this, that it is

wrong, but it is the Comelec that more directly addresses this.

Comments

Hontiveros: For the CSO groups, the next step is to engage the private sector. With the growing economy,

trickle-down effect won’t lead to inclusive growth. CSR, social protection, are important: what can they

contribute to agrarian reform? We need to discuss democratizing access to capital, rural banks, etc. Can

they meet labor a little more? We need to discuss security of tenure, non-wage benefits.

Should we still hope? We have no choice but to hope. It is our responsibility to fight, for the next generation.

Mendoza: The poor do think just like everyone. The difference is that everything is constrained. In this

context, the poor almost did not have a choice anymore. When we are thinking for ourselves and our family,

but not about the country (e.g. not honoring the decisions of the court that a certain candidate is corrupt), it

is harmful to society. It is still a thinking about, just not thinking about the country. This is where concerned

civil society groups, academia, and concerned citizens can contribute in forming the reformist message that

if we stay in a community and have a program that is inclusive for all children, that we can keep the faith

and stay with that trajectory. That is what corrupt politicians are able to break up so easily right now.

Ms. Aceron wrapped up the panel discussion and proceeded to the closing program.

42

CLOSING KEYNOTE

Sec. Jose Eliseo “Joel” Rocamora Chairman

National Anti-Poverty Commission

Sec. Rocamora was whimsical in the introduction of his remarks. He told the audience that he will not be

burdening them anymore with more insights. For two days of listening, he knew that they have already had

enough leading to information overload. He merely reiterated one of the bottomline issues of the

conference-workshop: what kind of citizen participation truly makes a difference. This points to two things:

one, it reaffirms that there is a certain kind of citizen participation that is transformative; and two, such kind

of citizen participation, according to Sec. Rocamora, is the participation of citizens that dares to deal with

the issue of political power, that challenges it and aims to ultimately change its configuration.

Highlights

He started with he has problem with citizen participation. This has led to the question of power. For him, it

does not help with politics. He pointed out that millions of pesos are spent in voter’s education and it’s a

waste of money. The reason for this, in his opinion, is voter’s education has not much impact on the results

of election. Then he proposed a framework on citizen participation relating to issues of power and policy.

His take on citizen participation sounds like sustainable development, inquistic growth – which are all

competitors at the whole of the apple pie. At the same time, this can be interrelated in a specific context.

His point here is citizen participation is generalized. He coined that a successful advocacy has to undertake

a very careful analogy of the balance of power within the government. In the case of the Pnoy

administration, several people who come out of civil society means that you have advocate within the

administration with significant power.

In order to be able to analyze reforms, effectiveness and sustainability of this reform, one also has to locate

citizen advocacy for reform on the context of state formation. We have to act out that specific reform in

building a stronger and more capable state, taking, for example, the capacity of the government to have a

monopoly on the legitimate uses of dialect. If we talk about the rationalization of incentives, past incentives.

If talking on the past sabotage law, one is looking at the capacity of the state to regulate business.

He deemed important the analysis of state formation. “Marami ang estudyante sa Pilipinas na

nagkakasundo na isa sa problema sa politika natin sa Pilipinas na pagkuwestiyon na kulang sa citizen

participation. Karamihan nga sobra eh, matunog ang mga civil society. Minsan nag-a-agree naman ako

sa kanila,” he kidded.

According to him, most Philippine political analysts say that one of the problems of Philippine democracy

is we have a weak State, a State which is subject to penetration and many areas of politics controlled by the

oligarchy, private business, to the extent of strengthening the state by lessening the activity of the oligarchy

to control the government. In the end, he said that one has to relate in problem of political power to issues

of inequality and poverty in our country. For him, there is a big chance the 6.3% GDP growth in the last

two years will be sustained.

43

CLOSING REMARKS

Atty. Antonio La Viña Dean

Ateneo School of Government

Dean La Viña shared what he thought were three threats to our democracy: (1) an electoral system which

is perceived to be flawed by significant sectors of society ensuring that close elections will result in chaos;

(2) the use of law to prevail in politics by those who cannot win elections fair and square, the Poe citizenship

charges and the Binay corruption charges being examples of this misuse; (3) the need for constitutional

change, where he agreed with CJ Puno that the system is broken and even honest and credible elections

will not fix that; only constitutional change can.

Highlights

La Viña delivered his speech very briefly. To begin with, he shared his gratitude. He gave a little

background on the beginnings of PODER. With Program director Joy Aceron, he has not doubted that G-

Watch will continue striving for good governance. This proves that it carries its mission, in such a way,

illustrating the power of ASoG to become the primary institution on democracy in action. He was proud

that the conference was made possible.

Still, even though this is the case, he announced that he will be leaving the office as Dean in June next year,

no extensions.

He moved on to comment on the SONA. When PNoy had his final SONA, he was asked many times what

his side on it was. In the buzzing of the upcoming elections, he remarked three threats to our democracy:

(1) an electoral system that is in chaos, (2) misuse of law to prevail in politics, giving example of Poe’s

citizenship and the Binay’s alleged corruption, (3) a need for constitutional change. Here, he agreed with

CJ Puno that even if there have been honest and credible elections, only constitutional can change our

democracy. He emphasized the need to make society more inclusive. His last piece of advice was: Focus

on issues, on the problem, so you can solve issues one by one.

44

PARTICIPANTS Civil society organizations Action for Economic Reform Active Citizenship Foundation Alternative Law Group Asian Federation against Involuntary Disappearances Center for Youth Advocacy and Networking Central Visayas Network of NGOs Centrist Democracy Political Institute Center for Disaster Preparedness Citizens for Philippine Environmental Sustainability Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Governance Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats DAKILA Damayan ng Maralitang Pilipinong Api GZO Peace Institute Greenresearch Institute of Politics and Governance La Sallian Justice and Peace Commission Likhaan Loyola School of Theology NAPC Youth and Students Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting Project Laya Pondo ng Pinoy Community Foundation Public Services Labor Independent Confederation Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan Union of Local Authorities in the Philippines UP Third World Studies Center Urban Rights Initiative Womenhealth Philippines Worldwide Philippine Jury Initiative Yes to Mar Young Moro Professionals Network Youth for Good Governance G-Watch core groups and CSO partners G-Watch Naga

City Planning and Development Office

Jesse Robredo Institute for Governance

Naga City School Board G-Watch Dumaguete

Tuburan

Visayan Forum G-Watch Puerto Princesa

Local government officials

Palawan Network of NGOs

Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park

G-Watch IGACOS

Local government officials

Samal Evangelical Ministerial Fellowship G-Watch Sibagat

Integrity Watch for Accountable Governance G-Watch San Miguel

Local government officials

Cambangay Norte Women’s Association

United Farmers of San Miguel Boy Scouts of the Phils. Eastern Samar Eastern Visayas Network of NGOs Koalisyon ng Mamamayan para sa Reporma - Cebu Naga City People’s Council Naga City Urban Poor Federation Parent Teachers’ Association - Calbayog Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (Visayas Regional Council) Government agencies Commission on Elections Department of Budget and Management Department of Education Department of Interior and Local Government Department of Justice House Committee on People’s Participation Office of the Ombudsman Office of Sen. Pimentel III Presidential Management Staff International organizations Australian AID Public Financial Management Programme

Local government officials