Cso Mapping Assessment

Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines,A Mapping and Strategic Assessment

Edited by:Lydia N. Yu Jose

Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI)

2011

Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment

ii


Copyright ©2011 Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI)

All Rights Reserved

This publication was produced by the Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI), and supported by fundingfrom the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), the Australian Government’soverseas aid agency. CSRI encourages the use, translation, adaptation and copying of this material fornoncommercial use, with appropriate credit given to CSRI and AusAID.

ISBN No. 978-971-95145-0-3

Printed and bound in Quezon City, Philippines

Published by:

Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI)c/o Kasagana-Ka Development Center, No. 5 Don Francisco St.,Don Enrique Heights, Barangay Holy Spirit, Commonwealth, Quezon Citytel. (632) 382-1827

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the AustralianAgency for International Development (AusAID)

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement iv

Foreword v

List of Acronyms vi

Introduction Mapping and Analyzing Philippine Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) 1By Carmel Veloso Abao

Chapter 1 Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): 9Contributions, Capacities, ChallengesBy Philip Tuaño

Chapter 2 People’s Organizations (POs) in the Philippines

A Review of the People’s Organizations Sector: The Necessity 47of Strengthening Partnerships and ExchangesBy Philip Tuaño

People’s Organizations in the Agriculture SectorBy Maria Dolores Bernabe 57

The Urban Poor Movement: Past Gains and Future Challenges 69By Ana Teresa de Leon Yuson and Maria Tanya Gaurano

Waning in Power? Workers’ Organizations in the Formal 87and Informal Labor SectorsBy Jeremaiah M. Opiniano

Philippine Social Sector Organizations: Opportunities and 105Imperatives for GrowthBy Philip Tuaño

The Philippine Women’s Movement: Asserting Rights, Claiming Space 119By Elizabeth Yang and Elena Masilungan

Chapter 3 Philippine Cooperatives: Exploring New Frontiers 151By Roberto Mina

Chapter 4 Research Institutions and Think Tanks 187By Jennifer Santiago Oreta and Carmel Veloso Abao

Chapter 5 Media as Civil Society: Assessing News Media Non-Profits and their 205Work for DemocratizationBy: Jeremaiah M. Opiniano

Chapter 6 The Growing Force of Civil Society Disability Stakeholders 229in the PhilippinesBy: Eva Marie F. Famador

Research Team 246

Civil Society Resource Institute 247

Australian Agency for the International Development 248


iv

Acknowledgements

AusAid and CSRI would like the acknowledge with gratitude, the time and dedicationimparted in this process of coming up with an honest and updated Philippine CivilSociety Organization’s mapping and assessment publication. Our deepest thanks tothe following:

The CSO sub-sector research team: Randy Tuano, Litit Mina, Apple Oreta-Santiago,Jeremaiah Opiniano, Melay Abao, Beth Yang, Elena Masilungan, Riza Bernabe, Anniede Leon-Yuson, Tanya Gaurano and Eva Marie Famador, for their dedication andprofessionalism in coming up with well researched and thought-out studies of theirassigned CSO sub-sectors.

The numerous key informants and round table discussion participants fromcolleagues and leaders in the CSO subsectors of NGOs, Cooperatives, Non-ProfitMedia, Think Tanks, Women, Agriculture, Labor, Urban Poor, Socially VulnerableSectors and Disabilities Stakeholders. The opinions and expertise they gave to thisstudy were valuable inputs in putting together an honest understanding andappreciation of the Philippine CSOs. Their names are listed at the back of each CSOchapter of this publication.

The technical support team from AusAID, Sam Chittick, Joji Abot-Camelon, Lea Neri andBernadette Cariaga for going the extra mile to share their appreciation andperspectives on the Philippine CSOs ;

The CSO sub-sector secretariat support staff, Annie de Leon-Yuson, Mel Romero and JaySimon King for efficiently providing for the technical, administrative and logisticalrequirements needed for the mapping and assessment process of this CSO publication.

To our NGO colleagues in Code-NGO, Saligan, PHILSSA, PHILDHRRA and Pilipina, whohave shared some pictures of their partner CSOs and POs in action;

v

Foreword

At present owing to long-standing economic and social inequalities over twelvemillion people in the Philippines are considered to be food-poor, and forty-five millionpeople struggle on less than US$2 per day. Vested interests constrain policies andprograms that could tackle the real impediments to a more equitable society. Inaddition weak accountability of the state to its citizens results in unsatisfactorydevelopment outcomes.

There is now an unprecedented opportunity for civil society to work with governmentto achieve greater transparency, accountability and effectiveness in policy andprograms. The Aquino Administration has coupled a commitment to reducing povertywith creation of many opportunities for Government-civil society cooperation, fromnational to barangay level. The challenge remains for civil society organisations(CSOs) to capitalise on these opportunities for effective participation in decision-making, and influencing at scale.

This research publication from the Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI) thereforeprovides a useful reference point as to the current state of Philippine civil societyorganisations, at this time of opportunity. The publication is particularly timely forAusAID as we look forward to the next five years of assistance to the Philippines. Wehope the analysis presented is also useful for CSOs, government and otherdevelopment partners.

Australia has a long history of involvement with civil society in the Philippines,largely in aid of critical service delivery functions. We have partnered with CSOs inover 60 provinces across the country over the last 30 years. We have enormousrespect for the critical work that CSOs undertake, and Australia is committed tocontinuing those relationships.

We welcome this timely publication from CSRI, and we are pleased to be able tocontribute in a small way to increasing understanding of the present strengths andweaknesses of civil society, to help position CSOs to address the critical developmentchallenges for the Philippines.

Titon MitraMinister CounsellorAusAID, Australian Embassy Manila


vi

Foreword

In 2000, the Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs where I was ExecutiveDirector published a comprehensive assessment of Philippine Non-governmentOrganizations (NGO) entitled “Trends and Traditions , Challenges and Choices: AStrategic Study of Philippine NGOs”. Many civil society leaders appreciated thefrank analysis of the sector while researchers welcomed this contribution to thescant literature. After more than a decade, another research NGO where I aminvolved with, the Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI), in partnership with theAustralian Agency for International Development (AusAID) embarked on a series ofstudies and strategic assessments of various types of civil society organizations.AusAID has always been supportive of the sector, assisting various NGOs andpeople’s organizations (POs) by providing grants and facilitating links with theircounterparts in Australia.

These various studies have been compiled and now published in this book.Development NGOs, cooperatives, media NGOs and research NGOs and think tankswere analyzed in terms of their institutional strengths and weaknesses, opportunitiesand threats given the current political and socio-economic environment. Varioustypes of people’s organizations were also examined – peasant and fisher folkorganizations, labour unions, urban poor groups, women’s organizations andorganizations of people with disabilities (PWDs). The chapters that discuss theseorganizations also put forward recommendations on how they can be strengthenedso that they can continue playing important roles in the maturing process ofPhilippine democracy.

The country is still beset with high poverty incidence and inequality. Whilegovernment is currently implementing various programs like the Pantawid PamilyangPilipino Program and Kalahi-CIDSS (Linking Arms Against Poverty - Comprehensiveand Integrated Delivery of Social Services), these are certainly not enough. There isstill need for civil society organizations to continue augmenting the work ofgovernment and sustaining their advocacy for more government intervention inpoverty reduction and asset reform. It is our hope that these studies may be able tohumbly contribute towards a more dynamic and responsive civil society sector.

Fernando T. AldabaPresident, CSRIMay 2011

vii

List of Acronyms

3CPNet Cut the Cost, Cut the Pain Network3RG Reproductive Rights Resource GroupABA Alyansang Bayanihan ng Magsasaka, Manggagawang Bukid at MangingisdaACIW Association of Construction and Informal WorkersADB Asian Development BankADHD Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity DisorderAF Association of FoundationsAFF Asociacion Feminista FilipinaAFI Asociacion Feminista IlonggaAFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization ActAFTA-CEPT Association of Southeast Asian Nations Free Trade Area-Common Effective Preferential TariffAGAP Agriculture Sector Alliance of the PhilippinesAKAP-Pinoy Alyansa ng may Kapansanang PinoyAKBAYAN Citizens Action PartyAKO-Bahay Adhikain at Kilusan ng Ordinaryong-Tao, para sa Lupa, Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at KaunlaranAksyon Kababaihan Aksyon ng Kilusang Kababaihan sa Informal SectorALLWIES Alliance of Workers in the Informal Economy SectorALMA Alyansa ng mga Maralita Laban sa DemolisyonALMANA Alyansa ng Mamamayang NaghihirapAMA Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa AgrikulturaAMDF Al Mujadillah Development FoundationAP Associated PressAPEC Association of Philippine Electric CooperativesAPL Alliance of Progressive LaborAPL-NUWDECO Alliance of Progressive Labor-NUWHRAIN Development CooperativeAPSED Assumption Parish of Davao Socio-Economic Development Foundation, Inc.ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim MindanaoASEAN Association of Southeast Asian NationsASEAN ISIS Association of Southeast Asian Nations Institute of Strategic and International StudiesASIA PRO Asia Pro CooperativeASP Autism Society of the PhilippinesATIN Access to Information NetworkAtingKoop Adhikaing Tinataguyod ng KooperatibaATPCOOP AMKOR Technology Philippines CooperativeATS Alliance of Transport SectorAusAID Australian Agency for International DevelopmentAWARE Alliance of Concerned Women for ReformBANGKOOP Cooperative Banks Federation of the PhilippinesBAYAN Bagong Alyansang MakabayanBBCCCI Baguio-Benguet Community Credit Cooperative, Inc.BCPC Barangay Councils for Protection of ChildrenBIR Bureau of Internal RevenueBISIG Bukluran ng Independenteng Samahan na Itinatag ng GoldilocksBLES Bureau of Labor and Employment StatisticsBLR Bureau of Labor RelationsBPFA Beijing Platform for ActionBPI Bank of the Philippine Islands


viii

BSK Balikatan sa KaunlaranBSK/RISC Balikatan sa Kaunlaran/Rizal Informal Sector CoalitionBSP Bangko Sentral ng PilipinasBUPC Bicol Urban Poor ColloquiumBUPCC Bicol Urban Poor Coordinating CouncilBUTIL Luzon Farmers PartyCA Community AssociationCAFEDPWD Cagayan Federation of Persons With DisabilitiesCALABARZON Calamba, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon, otherwise known as Region IV-ACAPR Comprehensive Annual Performance ReportsCAR Capital Adequacy RatioCAR Cordillera Administrative RegionCARAGA Region XIII, comprised of the provinces of Agusan, Surigao and Dinagat IslandsCARD Center for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentCARHRIHL Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian LawCARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform LawCARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Implementation ProgramCARPER Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with ReformsCATW-AP Coalition Against Trafficking in Women–Asia PacificCAVALCO Cagayan Valley Confederation of Cooperatives and Development CenterCBAs Collective Bargaining AgreementsCBD Coalition for Bicol DevelopmentCBOs Community-Based OrganizationsCBR Community-Based RehabilitationCCJD Center for Community Journalism and DevelopmentCCT Conditional Cash TransfersCDA Cooperative Development AuthorityCDC Cooperative Development CouncilCEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against WomenCEDCI Cooperative Education and Development CenterCENVISNET Central Visayas Network of NGOs and POsCFPI Cooperative Foundation of the Philippines Inc.CHR Commission on Human RightsCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCISFA Comprehensive Integrated Shelter Finance ActCISP Cooperative Insurance System of the PhilippinesCLIMBS Coop-Life Mutual Benefit Services AssociationCMFR Center for Media Freedom and ResponsibilityCMN Catholic Media NetworkCMP Community Mortgage ProgramCMP-PO Network The PO counterpart of the CMP CongressCNDR Corporate Network for Disaster ResponseCO Community organizingCODE-NGO Caucus of Development NGO NetworksCODIS Cooperative Deposit Insurance SystemCOM Community Organizing MultiversityCOMELEC Commission on ElectionsCoopNATCCO Cooperative NATCCO Network PartyCOPAP Confederation of Older Persons Associations of the PhilippinesCOPC Cagayan de Oro Press ClubCOPE Community Organization of the Philippine Enterprise Foundation, Inc.

ix

CORDNET Cordillera Network of Development NGOsCOSE Coalition for Services to the ElderlyCPAI Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc.CPCs Citizens’ Press CouncilsCPP Communist Party of the PhilippinesCPP-NDF-NPA Communist Party of the Philippines – National Democratic Front – New Peoples’ ArmyCRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesCSC Cooperative Sector CouncilCSO Civil Society OrganizationsCSR Corporate Social ResponsibilityCSRI Civil Society Resource InstituteCSWCD College of Social Work and Community DevelopmentCTFCO Council of Tondo Foreshoreland Community OrganizationsCUES Credit Union Empowerment and StrengtheningCUP Cooperative Union of the PhilippinesCWC Council for the Welfare of ChildrenCWD Children With DisabilitiesCWERC Cordillera Women’s Education and Resource CenterDA Department of AgricultureDAMAYAN Damayan San FranciscoDAMPA Damayan ng Maralitang Pilipinong ApiDAWN Development Action for Women NetworkDAWN Development through Active Women Networking Foundation, Inc.DepEd Department of EducationDEPTHNews Development Economic and Population Themes NewsDFA Department of Foreign AffairsDILG Department of the Interior and Local GovernmentDIWATA Development Initiatives for Women and Transformative ActionDOF Department of FinanceDOH Department of HealthDOJ Department of JusticeDOLE Department of Labor and EmploymentDOST Department of Science and TechnologyDOTC Department of Transportation and CommunicationsDPO Disabled People’s OrganizationsDPWH Department of Public Works and HighwaysDRPI Disability Rights Promotion InternationalDRRM Disaster Risk Reduction and ManagementDSP Down Syndrome of the PhilippinesDSWD Department of Social Welfare and DevelopmentDSWP Democratic Socialist Women of the PhilippinesECFL Episcopal Commission on Family and LifeEDSA Epifanio de Los Santos AvenueEJAP Economic Journalists Association of the PhilippinesE-Net Philippines Civil Society Network for Education ReformsEO Executive OrderERDA Educational Research and Development AssistanceEU European UnionEVNet Eastern Visayas Network of NGOs and POsFDA Foundation for Development AlternativesFDC Freedom from Debt Coalition


x

FDUP Foundation for the Development of the Urban PoorFFF Federation of Free FarmersFFFCI Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc.FFFJ Freedom Fund for Filipino JournalistsFFW Federation of Free WorkersFGD Focus-Group DiscussionFICCO First Integrated Community CooperativeFIES Family Income and Expenditure SurveyFLEMMS Functional Literacy and Mass Media SurveyFOA Freedom for Information ActFPE Foundation for Philippine EnvironmentFPSDC Federation of People’s Sustainable Development CooperativeFPW Framework Plan for WomenFREE-Mindanao Forum of Reporters for Empowerment and Equality-MindanaoFSCAP Federation of Senior Citizens Association of the PhilippinesFSSI Foundation for Sustainable Society Inc.FTA Free Trade AreaFTC Federation of Teachers CooperativeFTD First to Deliver Media Services Inc.FUMBWMPC Federation of United Mindanawan Bangsamoro Women’s Multi-Purpose CooperativeGA General AssemblyGABRIELA General Assembly Binding Women for Reform, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and ActionGAD Gender and DevelopmentGDP Gross Domestic ProductGerman-GTZ Deutsche Geselleschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeist (Now: German Corporation for

International Cooperation or GIZ)GPI Gawasnong Pagbalay, Inc.GRRB Gender-Responsive and Results-Based BudgetingGWP GABRIELA Women’s PartyGZOPI Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace InstituteHDMF Home Development Mutual FundHLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory BoardHOA Homeowners’ AssociationHPFPI Homeless People’s FederationHUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating CouncilICA International Co-operative AllianceICSI Institute on Church and Social IssuesICT Information and Communications TechnologyIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFI Igorota Foundation Inc.IFJ International Federation of JournalistsIHPDS Institute of Health Policy and Development StudiesILO International Labor OrganizationIMC Investment Management ContractINSI International News Safety InstituteIPC Institute of Philippine CultureIPD Institute for Popular DemocracyIPS Inter Press ServiceIRR Implementing Rules and RegulationsISDS Institute for Strategic and Development StudiesISP Informal Sector Coalition of the Philippines

xi

ISSA Institute for Social Studies and ActionIWPR Institute for War and Peace ReportingJVOAEJ Jaime V. Ongpin Awards for Excellence in JournalismKABAPA Katipunan ng Bagong PilipinaKADAMAY Kalipunan ng Damayang MahihirapKAKASAHA Kababihan Kaagapay sa HanapbuhayKALAHI-CIDSS Kapit Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social ServicesKALAKASAN Kababaihan Laban sa KarahasanKalayaan Katipunan ng Kababaihan para sa KalayaanKAMI Kahugpungan sa MindanaoKAMMMPI–KM Kapatiran ng Malayang Maliliit na MangingisdaKAMPI Katipunan ng Maykapansanan sa Pilipinas, Inc.KASAMA-KA Katipunan ng mga Maralitang Magsasaka sa KanayunanKAS-Philippines Konrad Adenauer Stiftung-PhilippinesKATINIG Kalipunang Maraming Tinig ng mga Manggagawang ImpormalKBP Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng PilipinasKKPPI Katipunan ng mga Kooperatibang Pansasakyan ng Pilipinas, Ink.KM Kilusang MangingisdaKMP Kilusan ng Magbubukid sa PilipinasKMU Kilusang Mayo Uno (May One Coalition)KPML Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang LungsodKPS Katotohan, Pagkakaisa at SerbisyoLAC Labor Advisory CommitteeLAD Land Acquisition and DistributionLCF League of Corporate FoundationsLCW Local Councils of WomenLDC Local Development CouncilLFPR Labor Force Participation RateLGUs Local Government UnitsLHBs Local Housing BoardsLIMCOMA LIMCOMA Credit CooperativeLINGAP LINGAP Credit CooperativeLLANO MPC Llano Multi-purpose CooperativeLMC Labor-Management CooperationLPFI Lihok-Pilipina Foundation, Inc.MAGCAISA Magna Carta for the Informal Sector AllianceMAGISSI Marketing Association of Groups and Individuals in the Small-Scale IndustriesMAKABAYAN Makabayang Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid ng PilipinasMAKALAYA Mangagawang Kababaihang Mithi ay PaglayaMAKIBAKA Malayang Kilusan ng Bagong KababaihanMASS-SPECC Mindanao Alliance of Self-Help Societies – Southern Philippines Education Cooperative CenterMBN Minimum Basic NeedsMBOP Membership-based Organization of the PoorMCW Magna Carta of WomenMDF Muntinlupa Development FoundationMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMEDDIA Media, Democracy and Development InitiativesMFI Micro-finance InstitutionMINCODE Mindanao Caucus of Development NGO NetworksMMIAC Metro Manila Interagency CommitteeMNLF Moro National Liberation Front


xii

MSCB Metro South Cooperative BankMSWDO Municipal Social Worker and Development OfficerMTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development PlanMWSS Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage SystemNACUPO National Coalition of Urban Poor OrganizationsNAMVESCCO National Market Vendors Confederation of CooperativesNAPC National Anti-Poverty CommissionNASSA National Secretariat for Social ActionNATCCO National Confederation of CooperativesNCCP National Council of Churches in the PhilippinesNCDA National Council for Disability AffairsNCM National Cooperative MovementNCMF National Cooperative Marketing FederationNCR National Capital RegionNCRFW National Commission on the Role of Filipino WomenNCRL-PFCCO National Capital Region League- Philippine Federation of Credit CooperativesNCSD National Council for Social DevelopmentNCWP National Council of Women in the PhilippinesNEA National Electrification AdministrationNEDA National Economic Development AuthorityNFCPWD National Federation of Cooperatives for Persons With DisabilitiesNFL National Federation of LaborNGO Non-Government OrganizationNHMFC National Home Mortgage Finance CorporationNIC Newly Industrialized CountryNIPAS National Integrated Protected AreasNIPS National Institute for Policy StudiesNIUGAN Nagkakaisang Ugnayan ng mga Magsasaka at Mangagawa sa NiuganNKPK Nagkakaisang Kabataan para sa KaunlaranNORLUCEDEC Northern Luzon Federation of Cooperatives and Development CenterNOVADECI Novaliches Development CooperativeNPC National Press ClubNPO Non-Profit OrganizationNRCP National Research Council of the PhilippinesNSCB National Statistical Coordination BoardNSO National Statistics OfficeNSP National Shelter ProgramNUBC National Union of Building and Construction WorkersNUJP National Union of Journalists in the PhilippinesNUPSC National Urban Poor Sectoral CouncilNUWDECO NUWHRAIN Development CooperativeNUWHRAIN National Union of Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied IndustriesNYC National Youth CommissionOASE Object Aided Software EngineeringODA Official Development AssistanceODA-GAD Official Development Assistance-Gender and DevelopmentOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOFW Overseas Filipino WorkerOWWA Overseas Workers Welfare AdministrationOxfam Novib Oxfam-Netherlands Organization for International AssistanceP4DC Project 4 Development Cooperative

xiii

PACSII Philippine Action for Community-led Shelter Initiatives, Inc.PAFCIPIC Philippine Army Finance Center Producers Integrated CooperativePAKISAMA Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang MagsasakaPAKSA-LUPA Pambansang Kilusan ng Maralitang Tagalunsod para sa Panlunsod na Reporma sa LupaPAMAKO Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa sa Konstruksiyon sa PilipinasPAMALU Pagkakaisa ng mga Maralita sa LungsodPANGISDA-KM Progresibong Alyansa ng Mangingisda ng PilipinasPAPI Publishers’ Association of the Philippines, Inc.PARAGOS-Pilipinas Pagkakaisa Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo at Kaunlarang PangkanayunanPATAMABA Pambansang Kalipunan ng mga Manggagawang Impormal sa PilipinasPBE Philippine Business for EnvironmentPBEd Philippine Business for EducationPBSP Philippine Business for Social ProgressPBU Philippine Blind UnionPCAS Philippine Center for Asian StudiesPCC Paco Credit CooperativePCC Philippine Cooperative CenterPCIJ Philippine Center for Investigative JournalismPCNC Philippine Council for NGO CertificationPCUP Presidential Commission for the Urban PoorPCW Philippine Commission on WomenPDPW Philippine Development Plan for WomenPECCO Philippine Ecumenical Council for Community OrganizationPECOJON Peace and Conflict Journalism NetworkPEF Peace and Equity FoundationPFA Press Foundation of AsiaPFCCO Philippine Federation of Credit CooperativesPFRDP Philippine Foundation for the Rehabilitation for Disabled PersonsPFWC Philippine Federation of Women In CooperativesPHIC Philippine Health Insurance CorporationPhilCOCHED Philippine Council of Cheshire Homes for the DisabledPhilDHRRA Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural AreasPHILNET-RDI Philippine Network of Rural Development InstitutesPHILRECA Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc.PHILSSA Philippine Support Service AgenciesPHRC Presidential Human Rights CommitteePHRRP Philippine Human Rights Reporting ProjectPIDS Philippine Institute of Development StudiesPISTON Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at Operator NationwidePKKB Panlalawigang Komisyon para sa Kababaihan ng BulakanPKKK Pambansang Koalisyon ng mga Kababaihan sa KanayunanPKMM Pambansang Katipunan ng Makabayang MagbubukidPKSK Pambansang Katipunan ng Samahan sa KanayunanPLCPD Philippine Legislators Council on Population and DevelopmentPMBA Partnership for Mutual Benefit AssociationPMES Project Monitoring and Evaluation SystemPMP Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawang PilipinoPOs People’s OrganizationsPPCRV Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible VotingPPGD Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive DevelopmentPPI Philippine Press Institute


xiv

PPTRP Philippine Public Transparency Reporting ProjectPRESCO Philippine Resort – Travel and Education Service CooperativePSciJourn Philippine Science Journalists, Inc.PSPDC Paco-Soriano-Pandacan Development Producers CooperativePTFCF Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation FundPWD Persons With DisabilitiesPWNPS Philippine Women’s Network for Peace and SecurityQRs Quantitative RestrictionsQRT Quick Response TeamsRA Republic ActRCBC Rizal Commercial Banking CorporationRCDA Regional Council on Disability AffairsRCWC Regional Council for the Welfare of ChildrenRCWDP Regional Committees for the Welfare of Disabled PersonsRH Reproductive HealthRHAN Reproductive Health Advocacy NetworkRTD Round Table DiscussionRVM Religious of the Virgin MarySALIGAN Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap PanlegalSALORSEDFI San Lorenzo Ruiz Socio-Economic Development Foundation, Inc.SAMAKANA Samahan ng Maralitang Kababaihang NagkakaisaSAMA-SAMA Samahang Maralita para sa Makatao at Makatarungang PaninirahanSANGKAMAY Samahang Pangkabuhayan sa KamaynilaanSANLAKAS Pinagkaisang Lakas ng MamamayanSarilaya Kasarian-KalayaanSDCC San Dionisio Credit CooperativeSEC Securities and Exchange CommissionSEWA Self-Employed Women AssociationSHFC Social Housing Finance CorporationSHG Self-Help GroupsSKK Sangguniang Kristiyanong KomunidadSN Samahang NayonSOCCSKSARGEN Region XII, composed of the following provinces: South Cotabato, Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat,

Sarangani and General Santos CitySPED Special EducationSRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health and RightsSRRC San Roque Consultative CouncilSSS Social Security SystemSSU Shelter Security UnitsSWOT Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-ThreatsTAGCODEC Tagalog Cooperative Development CenterTAYO Ten Outstanding Youth AwardsTELESCOOP Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company Employees’ Service CooperativeTESDA Technical Education and Skills Development AuthorityTF-AE Task Force-Anti EvictionTFSR Task Force Subic RapeTLWO Teduray Lambangian Women’s OrganizationTOUCH Foundation Technology Outreach and Community Help FoundationTri-Corp Composed of the following NGOs: Community Organizing Multiversity (COM), Community

Organization of the Philippine Enterprise Foundation, Inc. (COPE) and the Urban PoorAssociates (UPA).

xv

TUCP Trade Union Congress of the PhilippinesTW-MAE-W Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of WomenUCANews Union of Catholic Asian NewsUDHA Urban Development and Housing ActULAP Ugnayang Lakas ng mga Apektadong Pamilya sa Baybayin ng Ilog PasigULRTF Urban Land Reform Task ForceUMCMCI United Methodist Church MPCUMT Ugnayan ng Maralitang TagalunsodUN United NationsUNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesUNCSW United Nations Commission on the Status of WomenUNDEF United Nations Democracy FundUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural OrganizationUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for WomenUNIFEM-CEDAW-SEAP United Nations Development Fund for Women-Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against Women-Southeast Asia ProgramUP University of the PhilippinesUPA Urban Poor AssociatesUP-ALL Urban Poor AllianceUPCWS University of the Philippines Center for Women’s StudiesUPEHCO University of the Philippines Employees’ Housing CooperativeUP-SOLAIR University of the Philippines School of Labor and Industrial RelationsUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVALDECO Valenzuela Development CooperativeVASPHI Visayas Alliance for Social and Poverty HousingVAW Violence against womenVICTO Visayas Cooperative Development CenterVSO Volunteer Services OverseasWAGI Women and Gender InstituteWAND Women’s Action Network for DevelopmentWCC Women’s Crisis CenterWEB Women’s Empowerment in the BarangayWEDPRO Women’s Education, Development, Productivity and Research OrganizationWEvNet Western Visayas Network of Social Development NGOsWFS Women’s Feature ServiceWHCF Woman’s Health Care FoundationWHO World Health OrganizationWID Women in DevelopmentWIEGO Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and OrganizingWIN Women Involved in Nation-buildingWIS Workers in the Informal SectorWISE Workers in the Informal Sector EnterpriseWISE ACT Women’s Institute for Sustainable Economic Action, Inc.WLB Women’s Legal BureauWMC Women’s Media CircleWoMedia Women’s Media Circle FoundationWSAP Women Studies Association of the PhilippinesZOTO Zone One Tondo OrganizationZUPI Zamboanga Urban Poor, Inc.

Mapping and Analyzing Philippine Civil Society Organizations

Intr

oduc

tion

1Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment

Introduction

Carmel Veloso AbaoCarmel Veloso AbaoCarmel Veloso AbaoCarmel Veloso AbaoCarmel Veloso Abao

Mapping and AnalyzingMapping and AnalyzingMapping and AnalyzingMapping and AnalyzingMapping and AnalyzingPhilippine Civil Society OrganizationsPhilippine Civil Society OrganizationsPhilippine Civil Society OrganizationsPhilippine Civil Society OrganizationsPhilippine Civil Society Organizations

The Philippines has always been characterized as ademocracy with a very dynamic and active civil society.Years after the dismantling of the Marcos dictatorship,the civil society sector has expanded and continued toparticipate in the development processes of the country.This volume maps and gives an overview and analysis ofthese civil society organizations and this introductorychapter summarizes and synthesizes the major findingsof the next five chapters representing various studies onthe current state of the following civil society sub-sectorsin the Philippines: (i) development non-governmentorganizations (NGOs), (ii) think tanks, (iii) cooperatives,(iv) media civil society organizations (CSOs), (v) people’sorganizations (POs), and (vi) CSOs dealing with Personswith Disability (PWD). The studies, which contain amapping and a S-W-O-T (strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats) analysis of each of the sub-sectors, were done by fellows and researchers of the CivilSociety Resource Institute (CSRI). AusAID sponsored thestudy as part of its initiative to engage Philippine civilsociety in the pursuit of shared development objectives.

Philip Tuaño did the study on NGOs and PO socialsectors; Jennifer Santiago-Oreta and Carmel Veloso Abaoon think tanks; Roberto Mina on cooperatives, JeremaiahM. Opiniano on media CSOs, and Eva Marie F. Famadoron CSOs dealing with PWD. There are sub-chaptersdealing specifically with people’s organizations. The sub-chapter on the informal sector and trade unions waswritten by Jeremaiah M. Opiniano; the urban poorsector by Ana Teresa De Leon-Yuson and Maria TanyaGaurano; the agricultural sector by Maria Dolores

Bernabe; the women sector by Elizabeth Yang and ElenaMasilungan; and CSOs dealing with PWD by Eva Marie F.Famador. Tuaño wrote the chapter consolidating thesespecific sub-chapters on people’s organizations.

Framing “Civil Society” and the RoleFraming “Civil Society” and the RoleFraming “Civil Society” and the RoleFraming “Civil Society” and the RoleFraming “Civil Society” and the Roleof Philippine CSOsof Philippine CSOsof Philippine CSOsof Philippine CSOsof Philippine CSOs

Although “civil society” is a highly contested politicalconcept, it is often broadly defined as the space or arenaor sector that is between the state and the market. Civilsociety organizations (CSOs) are thus defined as groupsthat are organized independently of and operate outsideof but interact with the state and the market. The mostfundamental attributes of CSOs are, they are voluntary,non-governmental, and non-profit. Their raison d’etre isto make claims and demands on government based oncertain organizational principles and interests which aresometimes couched in ideological terms or sometimesframed as developmental-political objectives andhumanitarian aims. In operational terms, this broaddefinition means that civil society engagements areborne out of internal, organizational thought-and-decision-making processes that are —ideally —autonomous or free from external impositions. CSOs,framed in this way, encompasses a variety of non-government and non-profit groups that interact withgovernment and business: socio-civic organizations,professional organizations, academe, media, churches,people’s organizations (POs), non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and cooperatives.

Intr

oduc

tion


2 Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment

It is this “autonomy-interaction dynamics,” often calledembeddedness, that is often examined in the manydebates and studies on civil society (this study included).It is also within this dynamics that the diversity of typesand roles of CSOs – as well as the varying degrees ofinteraction with each other, with government and withbusiness — become discernible.

Regarding autonomy, several issues often come to thefore. Firstly, while CSOs are not supposed to beorganized, much less run by government, they fall withinthe ambit of social regulation. What then, is acceptablegovernmental regulation? Shouldn’t CSOs be self-regulating? Secondly, the internal governance of CSOs isoften held into account, and this is the interaction part ofthe “autonomy-interaction dynamics”: The issue ofcooptation is often deemed crucial. Where is the linebetween pressure politics, negotiation and cooptation?What is the role of CSOs in partisan politics, particularly inelections?

In the Philippines, CSOs became most visible in thecountry’s democratization process post-Marcos. Whilemany social and political groups were instrumental inending the Marcos dictatorship in 1986, similar groupscame to be popularly identified as CSOs only in theaftermath of this dark side of Philippine history – whenthere was space to recognize the legitimacy of groups thatwere outside and beyond state control. Philippine civilsociety thus reflects the multiplicity and contestation ofideas often associated with the process of consolidating ademocracy. Most, if not all Philippine CSOs – regardlessof definition, size, interests, ideology, physical base, areasof operation and other such particularities — are involvedin the diffusion or redistribution of power and wealth inPhilippine society. They are key non-state stakeholders inPhilippine democracy and development.

As mentioned earlier, the overarching goal of CSOs is tomake claims and demands on government based oncertain organizational principles and interests. In thePhilippine setting, two important additions to thisproposition have to be made: (i) CSOs often serve as analternative to government in terms of service provisionthat the latter fails to deliver sufficiently or effectively;claim-making thus becomes a matter of alternativemodel-building, and (ii) CSOs also serve as self-helporganizations where members engage in mutual aidregardless of the absence or presence of assistance fromthe government or the private sector. In other words, in

terms of the delivery of certain services and theinstitution of particular reforms, the presence ofPhilippine CSOs can be felt on both the demand and thesupply side of the equation.

Furthermore, it must be noted that in the Philippinesetting, the boundaries of CSO organizational and politicalaction are defined by a policy or legal environment thatrecognizes the validity and significance of non-state actorsin democracy and development. Underpinning this formalrecognition are the provisions in the 1987 PhilippineConstitution: freedom of assembly and association,freedom of the press, social justice, rights of the youth,rights of women, right to suffrage, private sector aspartners in development, recognition of cooperatives.The Philippine Congress has also produced a good numberof pertinent laws, including the Local Government Code of1991 which stipulates the participation of NGOs andsectoral groups in local development planning. It iscommonly held that the Philippine legal system, to a largemeasure, has created a policy environment – at thenational and local levels — that encourages rather thanrestricts the flourishing of CSOs in the country. Thisconclusion can be easily gleaned from the sub-sectoralpapers in this volume.

Notwithstanding the presence of a friendly legal or policyenvironment, CSOs have struggled to fully occupy thespace provided by law and existing policies.In the recent past, particularly in the nine years (2001-2010) that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was at the helm ofthe Philippine government, Philippine civil society has hadto wrestle with anti-democratic forces that dominated thecountry’s polity. Important policy reform issues had totake a back seat to the legitimacy issues leveled at then-President Arroyo especially after taped conversationsbetween the latter and a commissioner of the Commissionon Elections — allegedly an attempt at collusion to rig the2004 elections in favor of Arroyo — surfaced in 2006.However, the election in May 2010 of a new President,Benigno Aquino III, who had campaigned under an anti-corruption platform, has brought some optimism, asshown by several surveys conducted by surveyorganizations such as the Social Weather Station andPulse Asia. Among the general citizenry and mostespecially the CSOs, there is hope that the downwardspiral towards authoritarianism would be reversed andthat spaces for reform that CSOs could maximize wouldagain be created and enhanced.


Intr

oduc

tion


Indeed, a revisit of the state of civil society in thePhilippines is in order. At this current conjuncture, atleast two key questions need to be asked – given theirlevel of organizational level: What can CSOs do to expandpositive, democratization gains made in the past? Howcan CSOs arrest the further erosion of an already fragiledemocracy?

The Five Sub Sectors and theirThe Five Sub Sectors and theirThe Five Sub Sectors and theirThe Five Sub Sectors and theirThe Five Sub Sectors and theirPPPPParararararticular Rolesticular Rolesticular Rolesticular Rolesticular Roles

In this volume, Philippine CSOs are categorized into fivesub-sectors that can be divided further into a number ofsubgroups. Such categorization is not exclusive, butallows for a better understanding of the diversity of rolesthat CSOs play in Philippine politics and society.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

More often than not, Philippine NGOs are inadvertentlylumped with people’s organizations (POs). This is becauseNGOs usually work in tandem with POs and this alliance iscommonly labeled as NGO-PO partnership. Institutionallyspeaking, however, there is a clear demarcation betweenthese two types of organizations. Tuaño adopts thisdefinition of NGOs: they are “intermediate agencies andinstitutions that tend to operate with a full-time staffcomplement and provide a wide-range of services toprimary organizations, communities and individuals…NGOs are also typically ‘middle class-led and/or managed’because of the attraction of the class to an alternativesocial vision that the business and the government sectorsdo not provide”. Tuaño continues, POs, meanwhile, “aremembership-based organizations formed largely on avoluntary basis that function as community-sector, orissue- based primary groups at the grassroots; they arebonafide associations of citizens with demonstratedcapacity to promote the public interest, and they haveidentifiable leadership, membership and structure.”

According to Tuaño, the role of Philippine NGOs – often, inpartnership with POs – is best revealed by the manyactivities that these groups undertake: “education,training and human resource development andcommunity development, sustainable development andenvironmental protection activities, health and nutrition,enterprise and livelihood development, general anddevelopment, social services, microfinance andcooperative development”. Because of the myriad of

functions that NGOs fulfill, they can be categorized intoseveral typologies. The other sub-sectors discussed inTuaño’s chapter, in fact, can be identified, to somemeasure, as NGOs.

Peoples’ Organizations (POs)

Tuaño writes: People’s organizations, like NGOs, performvarious activities related to some public good or publicservice. Examples include “provision of basic services,such as health, education and nutrition, water andsanitation, to environmental services, includingprotection and conservation activities, to participationin local government affairs.” Unlike NGOs, however, POsare “membership-based organizations formed largely ona voluntary basis” and often organized along sectoral orissue-based lines. Because they are membership-based,POs are often organized based on the demands of theirmembers and constituencies of which most, if not all,are part of the marginalized socio-economic sectors ofthe country. The public goods and services beingdemanded by these POs are expected, first andforemost, to redound to benefits for their members.Some of these POs may be organized or assisted bypartner NGOs but because they are membership-driven,they deem themselves autonomous from such partnerorganizations.

Focusing on the Philippines, Tuaño says POs areorganized based on their primary demands, most ofwhich are associated with their need to break out ofeconomic, social and political marginalization. Thus, themore visible and active organizations are sectoral groupssuch as trade unions/labor organizations, peasantorganizations, urban poor associations, and women’sgroups. A number of POs have also been organizedalong cross sectoral issues such as environmentalprotection and public debt. Moreover, POs areorganized on various levels often following the political-administrative levels of government (which POs engagewith): village/barangay, municipality, city, province, andnational level. One can thus talk of POs at the primary,secondary or tertiary levels.

Tuaño observes that the Philippines’ policy environmenthas provided more spaces for broader participation ofPOs. In particular, POs have been quick to maximizeopportunities under the Local Government Code of 1991and the Party List Law of 1996. The former has providedfor more structured spaces for POs to engage local

Intr

oduc

tion



government units while the latter has presented POs withpossibilities for formal participation – throughproportional representation — in the Lower House ofCongress.

Think Tanks and Policy Research Institutes

Abao and Oreta write about think tanks and policyresearch institutes, which are CSOs engaged in researchand policy advocacy. These types of CSOs proliferated inpost-1986 when space for the development of proposalson how to rebuild Philippine democracy opened up.Today, Philippine think tanks not only contribute topolicy development, some delve into the intricacies ofpolicy implementation, both at the national and locallevels. Some of these think tanks are unabashedlyideological while others attempt to focus more on thetechnical requirements of policy development. Themultiplicity of ideas has, at the very least, articulated thevarious facets of social and political concerns that besetPhilippine governance and politics.

The various types of think tanks and policy researchinstitutes in the country are separated by the extent towhich their intended publics are identified. Those witha target constituency and clear ideological and politicalstarting points are often called “advocacy think tanks”.Resource-based think tanks and research institutes,meanwhile, usually cater to a more general politicalpublic and do not identify themselves with anyparticular group or sector. Most of these institutes arefound in major universities in the country.

Different think tanks and policy research institutes holddifferent expertise but all share one common feature:they are all in the business of knowledge production anddissemination. As such, think tanks have played a majorrole in generating ideas that have been translated intopublic opinion or public policy or political action. Inmost cases, these ideas have served to challenge thoseforwarded by governments (and other social entitiessuch as the business sector and the churches). In otherinstances, they have served to advise and directlyinfluence decisions of the executive and legislativebranches of government.

Cooperatives

The chapter on cooperatives, written by Mina may besummarized as follows: Cooperatives are not entirely

“non-profit” since they generate incomes and distributedividends to their members. Unlike corporations orother such profit-oriented enterprises, however,cooperatives are, fundamentally, organizations of thepoor aimed at self-help and economic empowerment. Assuch, cooperatives are well within the definition of “civilsociety”.

Cooperatives are classified into “primary” (members areindividual persons), “federations”, which may benational or regional (members are three or more primarycooperatives engaged in the same line of business orcooperative enterprise), “union” (members are primarycooperatives or federations engaged in non-businessactivities, such as representation, or analyzing sharedinformation such as economic and statistical data), and“apex” (members are federations or unions).

In the Philippines where almost thirty percent of thepopulation lives below the poverty line, cooperativeshave made crucial contributions. While there are manycontentious issues surrounding the creation andmaintenance of cooperatives, there is ample evidencethat these groups have served as safety valves for thepoor particularly by making credit available and byproducing goods and services that are easily accessibleand affordable. Even the 1987 Philippine Constitutionexplicitly recognizes the role of cooperatives as partnersin Philippine development. Further studies, however,concludes Mina need to be conducted as to whetherPhilippine cooperatives have reached and effectedpositive impact on the lives of the poorest of the poor.

Media Nonprofits

Opiniano recognizes the ever-present argument thatmedia cannot be identified as part of civil societybecause it occupies a “space” oftentimes larger than thatof the latter and should therefore possess a non-partisan position on pressing issues. Despite thisargument, the interface between media and civil societyin the Philippine context is indisputable, says Opiniano.This interface, according to him, was highly visible in theyears leading up to the fall of the Marcos dictatorshipand in the transition that took place thereafter. Believingthat media is part of civil society, Opiniano writes thattoday, the “unwritten alliance” between media workers/journalists and civil society organizations has beensustained and has, in fact, been consolidated to somedegree by the presence of media CSOs that train CSO


Intr

oduc

tion


advocates on media relations and monitoring ofelections, corruption, transparency, accountability, andother issues.

Media CSOs are known as “media non-profits” or “mediadevelopment organizations”. As such, they areunencumbered by demands and pressures of privatesector groups or politicians/governments that oftenshape mainstream, profit-oriented media outfits. Thesemedia CSOs thus operate in a way that allows theirpractitioners to pursue credible news stories withoutregard of lost profits. This is not to say that these mediaCSOs report the news for free although they do cater toboth paying and non-paying publics. Evidently, profit isnot the central aim of these media organizations and thisis why, Opiniano asserts, they are, fundamentally andessentially, identified with “civil society”.

Opiniano further writes, the contribution of these mediaCSOs to Philippine democracy cannot be understated,especially in the wake of serious threats to press freedomand assaults on the lives of Filipino journalists.

CSOs Dealing with People with Disabilities(PWD)

While there is no official, comprehensive databaseregarding the number of PWD in the Philippines, Famadorwrites that 70% of PWDs in the Philippines live in ruralareas. The “medical model” defines PWD based on theirconditions and impairment while others present PWD as“holders of rights”. Despite differences in views, CSOsdealing with PWD generally assist the sector by organizingself-help groups of PWD and parents of PWD, providingtraining and referrals to aid PWD in their search foremployment, building partnerships with other groupssuch as faith-based groups for awareness raising on PWDconcerns, and influencing government policies on PWD.

Famador classifies CSOs dealing with PWD into (i) self-help groups or people’s organizations with PWD and/orparents of PWD as members and leaders, (ii) NGOs thatprovide service to PWD particularly through publicawareness raising and information dissemination, jobreferrals and trainings, (iii) professional associations suchas those of medical practitioners that assist in therehabilitation of PWD, (iv) cooperatives that provideincome and employment for PWD, (v) corporatefoundations that design and implement programs for

PWD, and (vi) other social groups such as those fromthe academe and faith-based groups that lend support invaried ways to PWD.

Famador points out that while there are internationaland national laws that support PWD, it is these CSOs thathave made the issues and concerns of PWD visible inPhilippine society.

On the Current State of PhilippineOn the Current State of PhilippineOn the Current State of PhilippineOn the Current State of PhilippineOn the Current State of PhilippineCSOs: Presence and Location, IssuesCSOs: Presence and Location, IssuesCSOs: Presence and Location, IssuesCSOs: Presence and Location, IssuesCSOs: Presence and Location, Issuesand Challengesand Challengesand Challengesand Challengesand Challenges

This section presents a synthesis of the various S-W-O-T(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysesdone by the authors of the succeeding chapters. Thesynthesis is presented along three main themes (i) thepresence and location of CSOs, (ii) the externalenvironment: interplay of CSOs with government,interplay with business and inter-civil society dynamics,and (iii) internal development and organizationalcapacities: community organizing, financial resources,human resources, and internal governance. Common orcross sectoral trends and issues are also presented.Findings, observations, and comments in this section areculled largely from the works of the authors in thisvolume. Space consideration and the synthetic processdo not allow mention of each author for the compositefindings or comments, but the readers are invited to readthe relevant chapters for particular findings andcomments.

Presence and Location of CSOs

All the writers for this volume did a mapping of Philippinecivil society organizations and found out that they arefound in almost all parts of the country. Most are basedin the centers or capital towns but many operate even inthe most far-flung of rural barangays (villages). There isalso some anecdotal evidence that these CSOs areorganized mainly by the middle/professional class.Moreover, local CSOs, particularly NGOs andcooperatives, have been aggregated into provincial andnational networks, Think tanks often operate as separateentities and some network with each other only on thebasis of common conjuncture issues. Media CSOs,meanwhile, have yet to institutionalize what today arelargely informal networks of journalists working for non-

Intr

oduc

tion



profit groups. Furthermore, some of the CSOs are supra-national (e.g Southeast Asian) organizations that focuson global or regional issues.

The writers point out obvious data gaps about CSOs and,CSOs often raise concerns about the credibility ofofficial data. Nevertheless, official data serve as somesort of baseline that CSOs can and do utilize. There isalso an array of studies – particularly on NGOs andcooperatives — that can be used for purposes ofanalyzing the presence of CSOs. The writers, however,feel that these studies are clearly wanting in terms ofinformation and analysis on CSO sub- types, such asthink tanks and media civil society organizations, andhave to be updated.

There is no singular estimate on the number of CSOs inthe Philippines. Some studies claim that there are around34,000 to 68,000 NGOs while others show a significantlylower figure, between 15,000 and 30,000. As for POs, it isestimated that there are more than 100,000 primaryorganizations and 300 secondary and tertiary-levelorganizations. Meanwhile, data from the CooperativeDevelopment Authority (CDA) reveals that there are morethan 78,600 registered cooperatives as of 2009, only 25%of which are actually operating. As for the think tanks andmedia CSOs, the authors of the chapters on them canonly name the pertinent groups but cannot estimate howmany they are. Likewise, there is no official governmentdata regarding PWD, much less on PWD CSOs, but somereports from CSOs count 241 self-help groups belongingto one national federation of PWD, and 1,474 individualPWD coming from 15 primary cooperatives belonging to asecondary-level cooperative.

Interplay with Government

Government Regulation. Most members of CSOs agreethat government regulation is necessary to prevent theproliferation of “fly-by-night organizations”. Beyond this,however, the authors observe that there is tension amongCSOs (especially NGOs) and between CSOs andgovernment, regarding the extent of governmentalregulation. In the first place, they are supposed to bevoluntary and non-governmental. Some CSOs argue thatthey should be self-regulating and, there are a few CSOsthat have already installed self-imposed regulatorymechanisms. Several development NGOs have establishedthe Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC).Other CSOs insist that more, not less regulation fromgovernment is needed. In the cooperative sector,

meanwhile, Mina finds out that the government, throughCDA, sometimes duplicates or replaces what cooperativefederations should be doing.

Policy Development and Implementation. Formal spacesfor participation of CSOs in policy making have beencontingent on the level of openness of government onsuch kind of citizen political participation. Themaximization and expansion of such spaces, however,have depended largely on (i) the capacities of CSOs todemand and propose alternative policies, and (ii) thestrength of alliances built for pressure politics,negotiations or lobbying — particularly with other CSOs,media outfits and allies in government.

In the past decade, some crucial reforms were successfullyinstituted with CSOs as the main drivers and stakeholders.These include: (i) Law on Violence Against Women andChildren, (ii) Magna Carta on Women, (iii) extension of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform, (iv) Fisheries Code, (v)Urban Development and Housing Act, (vi) RenewableEnergy Bill, (vii) Juvenile Justice Law, (viii) OverseasAbsentee Voting Act, (ix) Law Against Torture, (x)Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008, and (xi) Magna Cartafor Disabled Persons. Other important policies such as theFreedom to Information Bill and the Reproductive HealthBill are currently being pushed by several CSOs.

Most of the success stories mentioned above involved ahigh level of unity and organization of CSOs and a highlevel of media projection. Policy reform, thus, is clearlyshaped when power relations tip in favor of civil societydemand because of a variety of internal capabilities andexternal opportunities. It also helps when spaces forparticipation and contestation are institutionalized such asthe case of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC)and the local special bodies (as stipulated in the LocalGovernment Code of 1991).

Success in pushing and negotiating for reform policies alsodepends on the capacity of CSOs to match the resourcesand capabilities of government counterparts, particularlythe availability of trained and well-equipped negotiatorsor representatives and the availability of information thatCSOs can use in negotiating. Leadership training andprogrammatic research are thus essential requirements inCSOs’ work of influencing policy. For CSOs, there isalways a continuing need to produce crediblerepresentatives and negotiators as well as credibleresearch to justify CSO demands.Allies in government, the authors point out, have also


Intr

oduc

tion


been crucial in determining the success of CSOs in policyengagements. Some of these allies, in fact, wereerstwhile key civil society leaders, and some governmentofficers also migrate to CSOs post-government employ-ment. Given the highly volatile political system of thecountry, however, allies often come and go. PhilippineCSOs thus have learned to deal with the bureaucracy andthe political process with or without these allies.

The authors note that in some instances, it is the CSOsthemselves that cross over to electoral politics. This istrue particularly for cooperatives and “sectoral” groupsthat have participated in the party list system and havegained seats in the Lower House of Congress. Thepositive impact of such participation is often debatablebut there is anecdotal evidence that some sectors — byway of proximity to government processes and resources– have benefited from this type of political engagement.The party list system, however, the authors point out, hastended to divide rather than unite civil societyorganizations.

Dealing with Impunity. Gloria Arroyo’s presidency hasbeen known, justifiably, to instigate a culture of impunitywhere those who commit grave abuses of authority areallowed to go unpunished. In the case of extra judicialkillings of political activists and journalists, theperpetrators are hardly even identified. It is the cultureof impunity and the presence of political-criminal actsthat are rendered free from consequences that now serveas the biggest threats to CSO action.

Interplay with Business

Of late, the number of corporate foundations has risenand this in itself signifies a major interface betweenbusiness and civil society. These foundations are ofteninvolved in alternative service delivery and humanitariancauses. At times, business groups also align with civilsociety groups to advocate for social and politicaldemands. At other times, however, civil society has tocompete or challenge business. Cooperatives, forexample, have to compete with banking and financialinstitutions in the provision of financial products. MediaCSOs also have to contend with for-profit, mainstreammedia outfits whose profit orientation often underminecredible, independent journalism. The PWD sector,meanwhile, has a particular stake in relating withbusiness because of the distinct need of PWD to beintegrated into workforces. This need is often addressedeither by cooperatives generating jobs for PWD or byPWD networking with corporate foundations.

Inter-Civil Society Interaction

Inter-civil society cooperation is most visible amongdevelopment NGOs, people’s organizations, andcooperatives. This is evident in the number offederations and coalitions that have been built for thevery purpose of fostering cooperation. POs, in particular,form alliances with various groups, including politicalmovements or parties, to push further their demands.Among media practitioners, those in the mainstreammedia have more institutions for cooperation (such asnational associations) but among media CSOs thenetwork is more informal than institutional. As for thethink tanks, there are very few spaces and venues forcooperation and to date, there is no provincial ornational network of think tanks or even of researchers.There are only associations of academics that areorganized along the lines of scholarly disciplines. In thePWD sector, some networks have been formed amongCSOs dealing with PWD, either on the basis of ageographic issue or a common sectoral concern. ThePWD CSOs, however, do not relate much with other CSOsand because of this, PWD issues have not beenmainstreamed in Philippine CSOs.

The Need for Community Organizing andGrassroots-level Capacity Building

Because of their nature and location, people’sorganizations are the main vehicles to buildconstituencies for reform at the grassroots level, but theyhave declined sharply both in number and ininstitutional strength. Among the cooperatives, there isthe “rich coop-poor members” phenomenon, indicatingthe reality that whether intentionally or unintentionally,those at the grassroots are sometimes left behind.Moreover, there is a need to sustain the leadershipwithin these organizations. POs, for instance, are often asource of effective and highly visible leaders butcapacity-building for sustained work by these leaders aswell as programs for their successor generation needfurther attention.

Financial Resources

External funding for most CSOs is clearly on the decline.Funding agencies, in fact, have been requiring partnerCSOs to develop and institute sustainability measures.Many CSOs, however, have not been equipped towardthis end and financial insecurity remains a centralproblem. This is true especially for NGOs, think tanks

Intr

oduc

tion



and media nonprofits that are not membership based(and therefore cannot easily generate funds internally)and whose partner-clients mostly come frommarginalized sectors that can ill-afford to pay fees forNGO services. Many POs also face financial problemsdue to their limited capacities at internal resourcegeneration and the declining support from internationalaid organizations.

Human Resources

While most CSOs still rely heavily on the spirit ofvoluntarism, many have lost staff and secretariatmembers to better-paying institutions. Moreover, CSOshave to contend with a variety of personnel issues, mostof which are welfare-related. At the same time, andperhaps partly for the same reason, recruiting newmembers and attracting the youth have become a moredifficult endeavor for most CSOs. The question of“succession” thus comes into play.

Internal Governance

CSOs that advocate for transparency and accountabilityin governance also have to look into their own practicesof internal governance. Most CSOs, particularly theNGOs, think tanks and media CSOs have governingboards that consist of elected members. The presenceof these boards, however, does not automaticallytranslate into good internal governance. Some NGOs are“executive director-led”, and the position of boardmembers is merely titular. For membership-basedorganizations such as cooperatives and people’sorganizations, structures for internal governance aremore complex and functionally differentiated. Moreoften than not, ineffective internal governance leads toorganizational fragmentation and/or decay.Leadership succession is often also a problemespecially among PWD groups where members often shyaway from positions of leadership.

The Need for Capacity Building

The abovementioned issues and concerns indicate thatthere is a great need for CSOs — from all the fivesubsectors — to be equipped with many different skills.In dealing with the external environment, CSOs needcontinuing skills development in advocacy, lobbying,media relations, communicating to various publics, andresearch. In terms of internal development, CSOs have

to learn to deal with fundraising, personnel andinternal governance issues.

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

CSOs have been quick to respond to communitiesravaged by environmental disasters such as the floodsbrought by Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng in 2009.Needless to say, the presence of CSOs can be felt intrade union strikes, urban poor settlement demolitions,and, struggles of rural workers and farmers such as thefasting and long walk of Sumilao farmers fromBukidnon, Mindanao all the way to Malacanang inMetro Manila. CSOs have also been at the forefront ofthe advocacy to reduce social inequities, particularlygender inequality between Filipino men and women,and, discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Crisis moments are not unfamiliar episodes forPhilippine CSOs. These groups have survived majorpolitical moments such as Edsa 1, Edsa 2, and the manycoup attempts launched against practically all of thePhilippine governments since 1986. A significantnumber of CSOs, in fact, have challenged and therebymitigated the ill effects of dramatic displays of abuse ofauthority such as Marcos’ dictatorship, Estrada’splunder, and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s instigation of aculture of impunity.

The change of leadership from Arroyo to Benigno AquinoIII brings a particular challenge to CSOs, especiallywith respect to ensuring that the grave mistakes of thepast administrations are not repeated. Under the newadministration, CSOs are likely to find themselvesstraddling between cooperating with a seeminglyreform-oriented government and insisting on long-standing demands particularly those pertaining topoverty and other socio-economic issues of themarginalized groups of Philippine society. In otherwords, Philippine civil society can now go back to its“nature” – that of interacting and engaging government.This will not be an easy task since there are manypolitical and social forces in society that continuallyresist reforms meant to alleviate poverty and increasesocial equality in the country. To achievebreakthroughs in the reform process, both the newgovernment and Philippine civil society cannot affordto employ the “business-as-usual” attitude and methodsof work.

Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges

Chap

ter

1


Chapter 1

Philip TuañoPhilip TuañoPhilip TuañoPhilip TuañoPhilip Tuaño

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

The non-government organization sector in thePhilippines is said to be one of the most dynamic in theregion (Aldaba, Atenaza, Valderama and Fowler, 2000),and thus it is a given that any analysis of the civil societyin the country should include an analysis of the non-government organization (NGO) sector. This chapterprovides a preview of the NGOs in the Philippines. Thedata presented in this chapter was derived fromsecondary literature and from key informant interviewsof leaders belonging to the NGO sector undertakenduring the February to March 2010 period. A briefdefinition of the NGO sector is made, and then a reviewof the characteristics is provided. Then the major NGOcoalitions and networks are described, followed by ananalysis of the internal strengths and weaknesses andthe external opportunities and threats. A list of areas forfurther investigation is provided.

DefinitionsDefinitionsDefinitionsDefinitionsDefinitions

Non-government organizations (NGOs) are a part of thePhilippine civil society. Civil society refers to “theaggregate of civil institutions and citizen’s organizationsthat is distinct and autonomous from both Statestructures and private business” (Serrano, 1994). Thereare three distinguishing characteristics of ‘civil society’:a) an institutional space composed of organizationsdistinct but overlapping with the state and market thatadvance the collective interests of its members andprovide goods and services to the general public on a

non-profit basis; b) a distinct realm of values thatdeepen democracy; and c) an institutional mechanismthat mediates competing demands through political,economic and social participation (Clarke, 2008).

Civil society organizations refer to the whole range ofnon-state, non-profit organizations and groups,including socio-civic organizations, professionalorganizations, academe, media, churches, people’sorganizations (POs), non-government organizations(NGOs), and cooperatives (Aldaba, 1993; Alegre, 1996).

NGOs are usually defined in the literature as“intermediate agencies and institutions that tend tooperate with a full-time staff complement and provide awide-range of services to primary organizations,communities and individuals” (Aldaba, 1993; Sillimanand Noble, 1998). NGOs support or work with directly orindirectly grassroots organizations or other sectors ofthe society. Several studies tend to note that NGOs aretypically ‘middle class-led and/or managed’ because ofthe attraction of this particular class to an ‘alternative’social vision that the business and the governmentsectors do not provide.

POs are membership-based organizations formed largelyon a voluntary basis (occasionally having full-time staff)that function as issue-based primary groups at thegrassroots (e.g., trade unions, environmental advocacygroups, peasant groups, etc.). They are bona fideassociations of citizens with demonstrated capacity topromote the public interest and with identifiableleadership, membership and structure.

Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs):Contributions, Capacities, Challenges

Chap

ter

1Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges


Cooperatives are autonomous organizations that areorganized to meet their common economic and socialneeds through the operation of a jointly-owned anddemocratically controlled enterprise.

In terms of legal definition, non-government organizationslargely belong to a class of groups defined as “non-stock,non-profit corporations.” A non-stock corporation is anorganization or association where no part of its income isdistributed as dividends to its members, trustees, orofficers and where profits incidental to operations areused only in furtherance of the organization’s purpose.Under the Philippine Corporation Code, non-stockorganizations are formed for charitable, religious,educational, professional, cultural, literary, scientific,social, civic service or similar services. Examples would bechambers of trade, of industry, or agriculture and thelikes, or any combination of these services. To berecognized as a non-stock corporation, an organizationmust register with the Philippine Securities and ExchangeCommission. On the other hand, non-profit institutionsare legal entities created for the purpose of producinggoods and services. Their status does not permit them tobe a source of income, profit, or other financial gain forthe units that establish, control or finance them.

Cariño (2002) identifies other types of non-stock, non-profit organizations, such as: religious orders/congregations, political parties, foundations, civicorganizations, trade/industry associations, mutual benefitassociations, churches, business/professionalorganizations and some international groups operating inthe country, housing associations and charitableorganizations.

A historical sketch of the NGO movement in thePhilippines can be found in several sources (Alegre, 1996;Clarke, 1998; Cariño, 2002). The antecedents of NGOsincluded the cooperative organizations set up by Filipinoilustrados who were influenced by the concepts and

Code of 1906 recognized the right to create private non-profit organizations. By the late 1940s and early 1950s,the first generation of NGOs were created; this includedthe Council of Welfare Agencies of the Philippines (anumbrella of various welfare agencies), the PhilippineRural Reconstruction Movement (which promoted theimplementation of health, education and socioeconomicservices in the agricultural sector), and the Institute ofSocial Order (a Catholic run institution which helpedorganize farmers’ and workers’ movements around thecountry).

NumberNumberNumberNumberNumber, Characteristics and Activities, Characteristics and Activities, Characteristics and Activities, Characteristics and Activities, Characteristics and Activitiesof Non-Government Organizationsof Non-Government Organizationsof Non-Government Organizationsof Non-Government Organizationsof Non-Government Organizations

The data utilized in this survey originate from differentstudies on the NGO sector in the Philippines. There is nosingle study that provides a comprehensive assessmentof the NGO sector. Moreover, the various studies usedifferent analytical frames. Some examine non-government organizations (Aldaba, 1993; Alegre, 1996;Gonzales, 2005), others, non-stock, non-profitorganizations (Clarke, 2008; Caucus for DevelopmentNGO Networks and the Charity Commission, 2008), andstill others, civil society groups (Civil Society IndexPhilippines, 2010). On the other hand, this literaturecontain considerable amount of overlaps and are helpfulin providing a general idea about the number,characteristics, and activities of the NGO sector.

The size of the NGO sector is difficult to estimate as noagency or organization provides an accurate, up to dateand comprehensive list. The University of the Philippines(UP) - Johns Hopkins University study published in 2002(Cariño, 2002) was based on surveys undertaken in fourmajor cities in 1999. The study estimated that there

principles of modern cooperativismand the philanthropic organizations setup by wealthy families and the CatholicChurch during the twilight of theSpanish colonial administration in thelate 19th century, and the variouswelfare agencies set up by the Americancolonial government during the earlyyears of the American occupation of thePhilippines. The Philippine Corporation

Table 1. Estimated Size of Civil Society Organizations,Including Non-government Organizations

Type of Organization Estimated Size Source

Non-government organizations 15,000 to 30,000 Brilliantes (1992)

Non-government organizations 20,000 Aldaba (1993)

Non-government organizations 48,713 to 67,674 Cariño (2002)

Civil Society organizations 249,000 to 497,000 Cariño (2002)

Non-stock, non-profit organizations 81,436 Clarke (2008)

Non-stock, non-profit organizations 107,163 SEC (2009)

Note: SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) figures are as of December 31, 2009.


Chap

ter

1


were around 34,000 to 68,000 NGOs in the country. Earlierestimates in the early 1990s (Brillantes, 1992; Aldaba,1993) showed a significantly smaller number, around15,000 to 30,000. The larger number encompasses a looserdefinition of the term ‘NGO’ and included professionalorganizations and federations of self-help groups.

NGOs in the Philippines and around the world arecharacterized by several characteristics (Korten, 1990).Most NGOs are small in size (the number of staff usually isless than 25), flexible in terms of their operations (andbecause of these, they are generally unencumbered bygovernment regulations), often stress participatory views(and thus they integrate the views of their beneficiaries indevelopment activities), and can respond to the legitimateneeds of the poor.

NGOs in the Philippines engage in various types ofactivities. A survey of development NGOs (Association ofFoundations, 2001) in 1999- 2000 shows that majority ofthem are engaged in education, training and humanresource development and community development. Thisis verified by the UP study (Cariño, 2002) which says that aplurality of NGOs consider themselves as part oforganizations classified as “development and housing”organizations, which, in turn, are defined under theInternational Classification of Non-Profit Organizations, asassociations for community development and socialdevelopment, that is, organizations with ‘multi-sectoral’programs.

A significant number of NGOs is engaged in sustainabledevelopment and environmental protection activities,health and nutrition, enterprise and livelihooddevelopment, general development, social services,microfinance and cooperative development.

Table 2. Top Activities by Civil Society Organizations/Non-government Organizations

Association of Foundations (2001) Cariño (2002) Civil Society Index Philippines (2010)First Education, Training and

Human Resource Development Development and Housing Supporting the Poor

Second Community Development Business, Professional and Trades Education

Third Sustainable Development Social Services Employment

Fourth Health and Nutrition Law, Advocacy and Politics Health and Nutrition

Fifth Enterprise Development Culture and Recreation

Note: The Association of Foundations (2001) utilized a purposive survey undertaken in 1999 and 2000 and surveyed more than 750 development non-government organizations. The survey in Cariño (2002) was undertaken in 1997 and covered civil society groups in four different major cities. Thesurvey in the Civil Society Index Philippines (2010) covered around 120 civil society organizations using a random sample

It should be noted that many NGOs offer a multitude ofservices as NGOs find that services are more effective ifthey are integrated in a holistic manner. NGOs thatclassify themselves as specializing in one type of serviceis quite low; for example, the UP study (Cariño, 2002)shows that only two percent of their surveyedorganizations classify themselves in the health categoryand one percent classify themselves in the environmentcategory. Table 2 below shows the findings of differentsurveys regarding the types of activities organizationsclaim they are doing.

In recent years, NGOs have been engaged in manyactivities besides service provision (Alegre, 1996). In thepast twenty or so years, they have been engaged inupscaling through networking and coalition building, theheight of which was the formation of the Caucus ofDevelopment NGO Networks (CODE-NGO), the largestaggrupations of NGOs in the country. NGOs have alsodone lobbying for and advocacy of policy reforms andsocial legislation, and have strengthened engagement inlocal government and decentralization efforts.

NGOs report that they are most competent in areaswhich involve deepening of knowledge and changing theorientation of individuals, strengthening organizationalcapacities of groups, and pushing for policy changes.More than half of the respondents in a survey(Association of Foundations, 2001) report that they aremost competent in education and training, advocacy,community organizing, networking, and capacity andinstitutional building.

There are two characteristics of non-governmentorganizations in the Philippines that distinguish themfrom others in Asia. (Serrano,1994). One, many non-

Chap

ter



government organizations in the Philippines have anadvocacy and lobbying component as part of theirservices. Because of the fairly open political environmentin the country since 1986, non-profits undertake lobbyingwork in two levels (national and local governments), andarenas (executive and legislature). In many instances,these organizations have ‘won’ policy successes (Razon-Abad and Miller, 1997). Two, there are numerousnetworks and associations that have been established tocoordinate the work of various non-governmental groups.In most cases, the associations are established to fosterunity and cooperation and to work for the developmentand implementation of programs for the welfare of theirbeneficiaries.

Classification of Non-governmentClassification of Non-governmentClassification of Non-governmentClassification of Non-governmentClassification of Non-governmentOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizations

There are many ways of classifying NGOs. Some of themare the following:

• The International Classification of Non-ProfitOrganizations classify them according to theiractivities. The major activities are culture andrecreation, education and research, health, socialservices, environment development and housing, law,advocacy and politics, philanthropic intermediariesand voluntarism promotion, international relationsand exchange, religion, and activities of business andprofessional associations, unions, and organizationsnot elsewhere classified. While this typology canprovide a demarcation of the different major types ofactivities undertaken by Philippine NGOs, it is notused in all NGO surveys.

• The Philippine Standard Industrial Classificationsystem classifies according to the country’sclassification code, which is one of the fields thatrespondents must answer when submitting annualcorporate reports. The respondents have to checkwhether they are foundations, provider of privateeducation services, provider of health services, civicorganization for environmental concern, or businessand employers associations

• They may be classified according to geographicalcoverage of their activities. NGO operations maycover a single or multiple barangays (smallest unit oflocal government), municipalities, cities, provinces, or

politico-administrative regions. NGOs coveringseveral geographical regions may be classified asnational NGOs.

• They may be classified according to the socio-economic sectors they assist. NGOs may assist one ormore of the different marginalized socio-economicsectors, recognized by the Social Reform and PovertyAlleviation Act (Republic Act Number 8425), includingfarmers, fisherfolk, formal sector workers, informalsector workers, indigenous peoples, women,community or in-school youth, children, persons withdisability, senior citizens/ elderly, victims ofcalamities and disasters

• NGOs may be classified as exclusively grantmaking(providing financial grants to other non-profitorganizations), exclusively operating (implementingprograms or projects) or a combination of both.

• They may also be classified according to size (Aldaba1993), such as number of staff members or totalincome.

• Other classifications are according to the NGOsideologies and their initiators (business, politicalparties, the church, the academe, or the government.

Policy and Legal Environment ofPolicy and Legal Environment ofPolicy and Legal Environment ofPolicy and Legal Environment ofPolicy and Legal Environment ofNon-Government OrganizationsNon-Government OrganizationsNon-Government OrganizationsNon-Government OrganizationsNon-Government Organizations

To effectively participate in governance, NGOs aregoverned by policies, rules and regulations.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly recognizes therole of NGOs in democratic development and enshrinestheir right to participate on all levels of decision-making(Article II, Section 23; Article XIII, section 15)

In pursuance of the constitutional mandate, several lawswere enacted, such as the Cooperatives Code of 2008 andthe Local Government Code of 1991, which containprovisions that explicitly recognize the role of non-government organizations in policy making.

The Local Government Code, lobbied for heavily by thecivil society organizations,, provides for civil societyorganization participation in many areas of localgovernance, including membership in local special bodies,


Chap

ter

1


representation in local legislative bodies and processes,partnership with the local government through jointventures in development projects, and as recipients ofgovernment funds as well as other forms of stateassistance.

The formalization of NGO involvement in governancemandated by the Local Government Code, however, hasproduced a dilemma. Many NGOs that undertookcommunity organizing in the 1970s and 1980s and thenpolicy advocacy in the mid to the late 1990s, haveevolved as contractors of government programs in thelate 1990s. While these NGOs have maintained that theyhave been independent of the government, other NGOshave noted that they may have compromised theirindependence in obtaining public funds.

NGOs who wish to obtain legal personality shouldregister with the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC). Legal personality is needed for them to open bankaccounts, to enter into contracts, and to raise publicfunds. According to the guidelines released by SEC in1997, NGOs organized for charitable, religious,educational, professional, cultural, literary, scientific andcivic services or other similar purposes and have aninitial contribution of one million pesos, can register asfoundations. According to the Philippine CorporationCode (Batasang Pambansa 68), ordinary non-stockcorporations with an initial contribution of 5,000 pesosmay register with SEC.

SEC requires NGOs to regularly report about theiroperations and to submit several documents, such as alist of incorporators or founders (submitted on a one-time basis), and a general information sheet thatcontains minutes of annual meetings and auditedfinancial statements.

Licensing and accreditation procedures of NGOs varyaccording to their orientation or specific purpose (Lermaand Los Banos, 2002). Organizations for social welfarepractices, for example, are required to submit to theDepartment of Social Welfare and Developmentaccomplished application forms, a certificate of theirjudicial personality, and a certificate of employment ofregistered social workers.

For NGOs to have a donee status, the major bodiesinvolved are the Philippine Council for NGO Certification(PCNC), the Department of Finance, and the Bureau of

Internal Revenue (BIR) Organized in 1999 by sixnational NGO networks, including CODE-NGO, PCNC, inpartnership with the Department of Finance and theBureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), certifies non-profitorganizations after a stringent review of theirqualifications. The BIR grants donee institution status tothe organizations certified by PCNC.

Between 2007 and 2008 some adjustments were maderegarding PCNC’s certification power. On grounds thatsuch power constituted undue delegation ofgovernmental powers to an NGO, the government issuedExecutive Order 671, rescinding the certification powersof PCNC, and transferring them to several governmentagencies. Several consultations and meetings were heldafter the PCNC board questioned the order, explainingthat it had already been undertaking such functionsefficiently. Moreover, it claimed, the sole prerogative ofgranting tax-donee status was still with BIR. In March2008, DSWD (Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment), the Department of Finance, and PCNCarrived at a compromise arrangement, and ExecutiveOrder 720 was signed by the Philippine president in April2008. It requires all NGOs applying for donee institutionstatus to first complete the requirements mandated bythe government regulatory agencies before beingcertified by PCNC. In addition, a DSWD representative isnow included in the PCNC Board.

A certificate of donation for every donation receivedshould be submitted to the donor and the Bureau ofInternal Revenue (Lerma and Los Banos, 2002; Caucus ofDevelopment NGO Networks and the CharityCommission, 2008).

The 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code)exempts non-stock, non-profit corporations from incometax (section 30). Registration of a nonprofit organizationwith BIR is required for them to be tax-exempt.

NGO networks have developed their own codes ofconduct. In 1990, CODE-NGO established a “Code ofConduct for Development NGOs” that would help itpolice its own ranks and strengthen accountabilities ofmember organizations. Other NGOs and NGO networkshave adopted other forms of self-regulation/ self-assessment (Abella and Dimalanta, 2003; Songco, 2007).A funding NGO, the Children and Youth FoundationPhilippines, for example, provides prospective grantees aself-assessment tool that they can utilize to evaluate

Chap

ter



operations before they request for financial support.Other examples are the Association of Foundations andthe Philippine Support Service Agencies, which employ apeer review system wherein an annual report card ofmembership is presented to the general assemblies.

NGO Relationships with Sectors ofNGO Relationships with Sectors ofNGO Relationships with Sectors ofNGO Relationships with Sectors ofNGO Relationships with Sectors ofSocietySocietySocietySocietySociety

According to Alegre (1996), NGOs have very distinctrelationships with different non-state sectors of society.These sectors include the following:

1. People’s Organizations (POs). NGOs and POs haveclose links but are organically distinct from eachother. NGOs and POs have a common vision forempowerment and development, but they maintainseparate interests because their membership andconstituencies are distinct from one another. Whilemany POs are NGO-initiated, there are also manyPOs that are not. In the 1980s and 1990s, manyNGOs assisted POs by strengthening theirorganizational capacities to become independentgroups that can advocate for their own issues.

2. Churches. The history of the Church and the NGOand PO movements in the Philippines is closelyintertwined. The founding of many NGOs is closelyassociated with church-based social action (mainlyCatholic) programs in the 1950s and churchinvolvement in social and political rights in the1960s and 1970s. NGOs and church (both Protestantand Catholic) groups work together on a range ofissues, such as human rights, peace, socio-economicdevelopment, electoral reform and transformationalpolitics, agrarian reform, social housing and urbandevelopment, and the environment. However, thereare particular issues of contention between NGOsand the church, foremost among which is the lack ofa common framework in understanding women’srights. There are several NGOs that have substantialMuslim constituencies. They work in the areas ofsocial development and peace and understanding inthe country, but especially in Mindanao.

3. Academe. Many NGOs collaborate with academicgroups on development work. Academics are tappedby NGOs to assess performance and organizational

management, project designs, evaluation andimpact, and the development of new programs andprocesses. On the other hand, NGOs benefitacademic work as the former provides a rich sourceof data to interpret for further theorizing.

4. Business. Many businessmen and business groupsengage in social work. The Philippine Business forSocial Progress, for example, was created bybusiness groups as a venue for social responsibility.Still another example is the Association ofFoundations, established with the support of manycorporate foundations. Many business organizationshave been established to focus business efforts onspecific issues, including the environment (thePhilippine Business on Environment), education(Philippine Business for Education) and the disasterresponse (Corporate Network for Disaster Response).

Mapping of Non-governmentMapping of Non-governmentMapping of Non-governmentMapping of Non-governmentMapping of Non-governmentOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizations

There is currently no single reference that maps thedifferent NGO actors in the Philippines. The followingprovides a sample of the major networks andaggrupations of NGOs based on interviews. It is by nomeans an exhaustive listing. Annex 3 provides thecontact details of some of the networks discussed in thissection while Annex 4 reviews some of the databasesthat are available on NGOs in the Philippines.

National Networks

Currently, the largest non-government organizationcoalition in the Philippines is CODE-NGO, with anestimated 2,000* NGOs as members. CODE-NGO itself iscomposed of six national networks and six regionalaggrupations of NGOs, namely:

• Association of Foundations (AF). Created in 1972, itis a coalition of non-government organizations andfoundations involved in education, culture, scienceand technology, governance, social development,environment and sustainable development. It has atotal of 154 members nationwide.

• National Confederation of Cooperatives in thePhilippines (NATCCO). Organized in 1977, it is a

*The information on the number of members is current as of June 2010.


Chap

ter

1


network of more than six regional cooperativenetworks and 400 cooperatives nationwide.

• National Council for Social Development (NCSD). Thefirst network of social welfare and developmentorganizations whose roots can be traced to the 1949founding of its predecessor. Most of its memberorganizations provide services to children and theyouth.

• Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP).Founded in 1970, it is a corporate-led socialdevelopment foundation whose members include 242member corporations. It works with communitiestowards improvement of their access to basicservices, livelihood and credit, and informationtechnologies. It aims to strengthen corporateinvolvement in social development activities.

• Philippine Partnership for the Development ofHuman Resources in Rural Areas (PHILDHRRA). Anetwork of more than 70 non-governmentorganizations involved in community organizationand the provision of health, education and livelihoodservices to marginalized groups in the countryside.

• Philippine Support Service Agencies (PHILSSA). Anetwork of NGOs involved in urban development andhousing services. It counts 57 non-governmentorganizations as its members.

• Coalition for Bicol Development (CBD). Created in1996, it is an umbrella organization of non-government organizations and people’s organizationsin the Bicol region.

• Cordillera Network of Development NGOs(CORDNET). Founded in 1998, it is a network ofprovincial NGO networks in the CordilleraAdministrative Region. It aims to promote socio-economic upliftment efforts using models that aresuited to the multi-cultural characteristic of theregion. It has a membership of around 147 NGOs.

• Western Visayas Network of Social DevelopmentNGOs (WEvNet). It counts six provincial networksand 84 NGOs as its members, and is based in theWestern Visayas provinces of Capiz, Antique, Aklan,Iloilo, Guimaras and Negros Occidental.

• Central Visayas Network of NGOs and POs(CenVisNet). Founded in 2007 by four provincialnetworks based in Cebu, Bohol, Siquijor and NegrosOriental, it is one of the youngest regional networksin the region.

• Eastern Visayas Network of NGOs and POs (EVNet).It is a regional aggrupation of twelve NGOs and POsbased in Leyte, Samar and Biliran.

• Mindanao Caucus of Development NGO Networks(MINCODE). Founded in 1991, it is one of the oldestregional aggrupations. It is a network of 12provincial NGO and PO networks and counts 414NGOs and POs as its members.

National networks which used to be affiliated with theCODE-NGO include the Council for People’sDevelopment, Ecumenical Council for Development,National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA), and theNational Council for Churches in the Philippines.

Church-based National Networks

The National Secretariat for Social Action is the primarynetwork of social action centers of the Catholic Church.Social action centers are based in Church dioceses andare involved in various social welfare and advocacyefforts for the socially and economically marginalizedsectors.

The National Council of Churches in the Philippines(NCCP), a major aggrupation of the Christian churches,has a network of non-government organizations. Theassociate members of NCCP include several NGO andNGO networks, working on concerns of, the indigenouspeoples, street children, youth and students, and oneconomic empowerment of communities.

Corporate-based National Networks

The main corporate- based networks, aside from thePBSP, are the League of Corporate Foundations (LCF), thePhilippine Business for Education (PBEd), the PhilippineBusiness for Environment (PBE) and the CorporateNetwork for Disaster Response (CNDR). LCF, organized in1996, has more than sixty corporate foundations andbusiness organizations. Its aim is to strengthencorporate social responsibility (CSR) among itsmembers and promote CSR among the general public.

Chap

ter



PBEd, PBE and CNDR aim to consolidate businessphilanthropic efforts in the areas of education,environment and disaster response and management,respectively. PBEd works closely with the Department ofEducation in providing scholarships for teachers,teacher training and “adopt a school” program. PBE wasestablished in 1991 to strengthen environmentalawareness of corporations and to advocate forsustainable development in public programs. CNDR,organized in 1990, aims to mobilize business efforts indisaster preparedness and mitigation and communityrehabilitation.

Provincial networks

There are many provincial - based NGO coalitionsestablished in the past twenty years: Palawan NGONetwork, Bohol Alliance of NGO, Negros OrientalNetwork of NGOs and POs, Kaabag sa Sugbu, SiquijorCaucus of Development NGOs, Sorsogon Alliance of POsand NGOs, Surigao del Norte NGO Coalition forDevelopment, Pampanga Association of NGOs, AntiqueFederation of NGOs, Aklan Social Development Caucus ofNGOs, Capiz Caucus of Development NGO, GuimarasNGO/PO Caucus, Iloilo Caucus of Development NGOs andNegros Caucus, KAPPIA Network in Abra, BenguetNetwork, Ifugao Network, Mt. Province Network andKalinga Network. Many of these aggrupations arecoalitions of people’s organizations and other civil societygroups concerned with strengthening developmentefforts in their respective provinces.

NGO Networks in Muslim Mindanao

There are several NGO movements in Muslim Mindanao.One of the more prominent is the Consortium of BangsaMoro Civil Society (Coronel, 2005), a consortium of morethan ninety Muslim NGOs and Pos. It is engaged in relief,psychotherapy, trauma de-briefing, relocation, housing,livelihood and community rebuilding in Mindanao. Itcollaborates with non-Moro activist groups as themember organizations participate in city-wide alliances ofcivil society groups. The Philippine Council for Islam andDemocracy is another aggrupation of NGOs and POsinvolved in peace advocacy.

Major Issue-based NGOs and NGO Networks

There are many NGO networks working in variousdevelopment fields.

• Education. Aside from PBEd, the Civil SocietyNetwork for Education Reforms (E-Net Philippines)is a major aggrupation of NGOs and academicorganizations that pushes for reforms in theeducation system and consolidates non-profitinitiatives in improving literacy across the country.PBEd, LCF and PBSP are members of the privatesector-led 57-75 Movement which aims to undertakefocused interventions and community actions in theeducation sector.

• Health. The major NGO networks on health includethe Cut the Cost, Cut the Pain Network (3CPNet)that continues to advocate for cheaper and moreaffordable medicines, and the Coalition for HealthAccountability and Transparency that aims toorganize a network of organizations that would lobbyfor the improvement of health care around thecountry. There are various NGO coalitions focused onspecific areas such as the Philippine National AIDSCouncil (a government-NGO body), the PhilippineCoalition against Tuberculosis, and the PhilippineNGO Council on Population, Health and Welfare.

• Socially and economically marginalized sectors. TheNGOs for Fisheries Reform is the major network ofNGOs supporting fisherfolk POs while the NonTimber Forest Products Network is an NGO coalitionassisting indigenous people’s communities toimprove their economic livelihood. There are variousNGO coalitions working on different aspects ofchildren’s rights and welfare, including the PhilippineNGO coalition on the Convention of the Rights ofthe Child, Juvenile Justice Network and thePhilippine Coalition to Protect Children in ArmedConflict.

• Peace. The National Peace Conference and theCoalition for Peace (which is at the same time amember of the National Peace Conference) are themajor NGO and PO networks involved in peacebuilding (Coronel, 2005). NGOs that are stronglyinvolved in peace advocacy and implementation ofpeace dialogues are the Gaston Z. Ortigas PeaceInstitute, the Initiatives for International Dialogue,the Assisi Development Foundation and the CatholicRelief Services. Several school-based offices, such asthe Miriam Peace Education Center and the NotreDame Peace Center, are also involved in awarenessbuilding for peace.


Chap

ter

1


• Women. The major women’s networks include theWomen’s Action Network for Development (anetwork of NGOs and POs), CEDAW Watch (academicbased NGOs and POs involved in monitoring thecountry’s commitments to international genderagreements), the Pambansang Koalisyon ngKababaihan, the Welga ng Kababaihan, the NationalCouncil of Women of the Philippines, and the AdvocacyNetwork.

• Human Rights. The Philippine Alliance for HumanRights Advocates, an organization founded in 1986 byaround 100 organizations involved in human rightsadvocacy, is one of the oldest NGO networks in thecountry.

• Environment. The major NGO networks are the AlyansaTigil Mina, which is a civil society aggrupation ofgroups opposed to indiscriminate mining in thecountry. The Community Based Forest ManagementSupport Group is a wide association of NGOssupporting community forestry efforts around thecountry. Green Forum, a major environmentalcoalition that had its heyday in the 1990s, is stillstrong in several areas, particularly Western Visayasand Mindanao. Regional NGO coalitions exist tosupport biodiversity coalitions in several areas.

• Rural Development. Besides PHILDHRRA, thePhilippine Network of Rural Development Institutes(PHILNET-RDI) is an aggrupation of NGOs andindividuals engaged in organizing, capacity building,and research and advocacy in the rural areas. ThePhilippine Rural Reconstruction Movement is a largeNGO with chapters in different provinces nationwidethat work across a wide area of development,including capacity building of rural organizations,program implementation and policy advocacy.

• Urban Development. PHILSSA is one of the oldest NGOnetworks in the country that focuses on housing andurban development issues.

• Good governance and social equity. The Transparencyand Accountability Network, organized in 2000, is anaggrupation of NGOs, business groups and theacademe working on the improvement of participationin various government processes. At the advent of theBenigno Aquino administration it got involved in theappointments processes for various constitutional

bodies. The Coalition against Corruption has asmembers church networks. The Social WatchPhilippines, composed of NGOs, POs and academe,was organized to monitor the country’sinternational social development commitments andto assess the adequacy of the national budget infunding these commitments. The NationalMovement for Free Elections, the Parish PastoralCouncil for Responsible Voting and the NASSA aremajor organizations involved in electoral reforms.The Freedom from Debt Coalition is a majoraggrupation of NGOs and political groups involvedin monitoring and advocating policies related todebt management, public expenditures andprivatization of utilities.

• Migrants. The Philippine Consortium on Migrationand Development is a major NGO consortiuminvolved in migrant issues. It was organized tocoordinate the provision of legal, entrepreneurialand health services to migrant communities and thedevelopment and advocacy of policies for thebenefit of migrants.

• Legal issues. The Alternative Law Group is thenetwork of NGOs that provides legal services tograssroots communities and to other NGOs. It is alsoinvolved in judicial reform.

Large local funding non-governmentorganizations

The Foundation for Sustainable Society Inc. (FSSI), theFoundation for Philippine Environment (FPE) and thePeace and Equity Foundation (PEF) are the largestfunding organizations in the Philippines. Theseorganizations provide financial resources for variousinitiatives such as community development,environmental protection, sustainable agriculture,livelihood, education, health and water and sanitationprograms throughout the country. The PhilippineTropical Forest Conservation Fund (PTFCF) is a financingorganization that provides support to organizations forthe preservation of tropical forests around the country.

People’s organizations networks

There are many PO networks and alliances, and theyhave yet to be federated at the national level. In the1980s, many farmers’ groups were linked to the

Chap

ter



Congress for People’s Agrarian Reform, a federationwhich advocated for a stronger version of the agrarianreform law. Trade union federations, on the other hand,were linked to the Labor Advisory and CoordinatingCouncil. The Urban Land Reform Task Force was a lobbygroup of different urban poor networks that pushed forthe passage of various laws on socialized housing.

Socio-civic organizations and other non-profit institutions

Other organizations that are involved in socio-economic development efforts are socio-civicorganizations which undertake activities for social andeconomic development either of their own members, ofothers, or both. The Rotary Club, Lions’ Club, and theSoroptimist International, for example, work for theirown members as well as non-members. The otherorganizations are business associations such as theMakati Business Club and the Philippine Chamber ofCommerce and Industry. Sill others are professionalassociations such as the Philippine Medical Associationand the United Architects of the Philippines. The lawrecognizes trade unions and homeowners associations ascivil society groups but if we strictly follow the definitionstated in the beginning of this paper, they are not non-government organizations.

A SWOT Analysis of the NGO SectorA SWOT Analysis of the NGO SectorA SWOT Analysis of the NGO SectorA SWOT Analysis of the NGO SectorA SWOT Analysis of the NGO Sector

This section of the paper will present a SWOT(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats)analysis of the NGO sector. But before that, thefollowing key characteristic of the sector observed inthe past ten years is offered:

1. Fairly significant contribution to the economy andemployment. Racelis (2002), evaluating a sampleof 110 large non-stock corporations listed in theSecurities and Exchange Commission, estimatesthat non-profit organizations contributed between1.5 to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in1997, or 36.5 billion to 65.4 billion pesos. Clarke(2008), using a larger sample of 250 non-stockcorporations, estimates that non-profitcorporations contributed around 8.5 percent ofGDP in 2005, or 493.7 billion pesos. A surveyconducted by the Association of Foundations(2001) in 2000 conservatively estimates thatdevelopment NGOs contributed around 12.8 billionpesos, or 0.5 percent of GDP, in 1999. Although thefigures are not comparable, they indicate asignificant contribution of NGOs to the economy.

Chart 1. Estimates of NGO size as percent of GDP

Estimates of NGO size

Perc

enta

ge o

f GD

P

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Development NGOs(AF, 2001)

Civil societyorganizations(Carino, 2002)

Non-stock, non profitorganizations(Clarke, 2008)


Chap

ter

1


Chart 2. Estimates of total employment in the NGO sector

Estimated AverageRegion Population Number of Organizational family

Non-stock density IncomeOrganizations

National Capital Region (Metro Manila) 9,932,560 30,706 3.09 266,000

Cordillera Autonomous Region 1,365,412 2,937 2.15 152,000

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao 2,876,077 623 0.21 83,000

Region 1: Ilocos 4,200,478 3,471 0.82 124,000

Region 2: Cagayan Valley 2,813,159 1,691 0.60 126,000

Region 3: Central Luzon 8,204,742 8,633 1.05 160,000

Region 4a: CALABARZON 9,320,629 12,905 1.38 184,000

Region 4b: MIMAROPA 2,299,229 1,246 0.54 103,000

Region 5: Bicol 4,686,669 2,492 0.53 109,000

Region 6: Western Visayas 6,208,733 4,005 0.64 111,000

Region 7: Central Visayas 5,706,953 2,937 0.51 121,000

Region 8: Eastern Visayas 3,610,355 1,068 0.29 103,000

Region 9: Zamboanga Peninsula 2,758,380 1,691 0.61 93,000

Region 10: Northern Mindanao 3,505,558 2,047 0.58 109,000

Region 11: Davao 3,676,163 3,115 0.84 117,000

Region 12: SOCCSKARGEN 3,222,169 1,602 0.49 113,000

Region 13: Caraga 2,095,367 267 0.12 90,000

Note: Organizational density is measured as number of organizations per 10,000 population.Source: Clarke (2008).

Table 3. Correlation between Regional Income and Regional Density of NGOs, 2007

NGO employment estimates1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

500,000

400,000

200,000

0Development NGOs

(Aldaba, 1993)Development NGOs

(AF, 2001)Civil society

organizations(Carino, 2002)

Total public sectoremployment (late

1990s)

The NGO sector is also a major contributor toemployment in the country. Early review of NGOs(Aldaba, 1993; Association of Foundations, 2001)estimates that there are around 100,000 to 120,000staff and volunteers employed in developmentNGOs in the early 1990s.The UP study (Racelis,2002) also estimates that there are around 184,000full-time and part-time staff and 631,000 volunteersemployed in the non-profit sector in 1997. These

numbers are not insignificant considering that totalemployment in the Philippines was around 28million in the late 1990s. Charts 1 and 2 showestimates of the income size and employment of theNGO sector.

2. High correlation between location of main officesand ‘well-off’ areas. Studies by the Association ofFoundations (2001) and Clarke (2008) note that the

Chap

ter



Table 4. Matching of Donor Priorities and NGO ranks of financialsustainability, by scope and nature of work, 1999- 2000

Donor Respondents NGO Respondents

By Funding Priorities By Sustainability

Livelihood Science and Technology

Environment Environment

Health and Nutrition Microcredit

Microcredit Cooperatives

Agrarian Reform Social Services

Cooperatives Community Development

Gender Education

Science and Technology Livelihood

Local Governance Urban Poor

Social/ Legal Services Health and Nutrition

Education/ Human Res. Peace

Population Agrarian Reform

Sports Arts

Indigenous Peoples Student/ Volunteer

Peace Gender

Arts Legal Services

Student/ Volunteer Labor Organizing

There is a perception among some quarters in thedevelopment community that communityorganizing failed to provide tangible socio-economic benefits to marginalized areas (Gonzales,2005). However, this has been countered by the factthat physical asset transfers (i.e., agrarian reform,urban housing, and ancestral domain titles) havebeen undertaken in the most organizedcommunities in the country. It is also noted that theslowdown in the implementation of various socialreform laws is due to the lack of pressure fromorganized communities.

One of the factors contributing to this phenomenonis the decline of resource agencies focusing oncommunity organizing work. A cursory review of theofficial development assistance (ODA) facilitiesprovided by the National Economic DevelopmentAuthority (NEDA) in Annex 5 shows that most of theforeign donors focus on service delivery andresearch, although community organizing could beundertaken as a secondary activity in projectssubmitted for funding.

4. Corporate foundations are increasing in number.The members of the League of CorporateFoundations have grown in number from aroundsixty in 2005 to more than 80 in 2010. Theseinstitutions are increasing because they are able tomuster enough resources from their motherinstitutions and there is an increase in the in thecorporate community’s and the general public’sawareness of corporate social responsibility(Gonzales, 2005). In many cities outside MetroManila, corporate social responsibility activitiesamong small and medium enterprises andphilanthropy in the corporate networks areincreasing in number.

5. Women play a significant role in the NGOmovement. Female NGO executive directorsoutnumber their male counterparts. Among allaggregate staff of the NGO sample surveyed by theAssociation of Foundations (2001), womenoutnumbered men by a ratio of six to four. However,many NGOs have not yet established formal ruleson equal opportunities for women. A survey by theCivil Society Index Philippines (2010) reports thatonly 53 percent of non-profit organizations havewritten gender equality policies.

development NGOs are concentrated in large urbancenters. There is a positive correlation betweenNGO density (the proportion of number of NGOsper ten thousand population) and the region’saverage family income. As Table 3 below shows,this correlation is quite high at over 0.90. Thisshows that NGOs are created mainly by the middleclass. While it is also true that NGOs work outsidethe areas where their main offices are, these areasare in the periphery of their main offices.

It is also observed that many NGOs and NGOnetworks have been organized in surroundingregions and cities outside Metro Manila. Since thequality of transportation and communication linksbetween these cities and the surrounding townshas improved, NGO services are delivered moreefficiently.

3. Decline in the number of NGOs with communityorganizing work, as NGOs with microfinance and/orsocial enterprise components increase. NGOs in thelate 1990s that were financially sustainableranked science and technology, environment,microcredit and cooperatives as the activities thatthey were most active; they ranked low or middlesectoral organizing, such as organizing the urbanpoor, labor, students, and the youth (Association ofFoundations, 2001; see Table 4 below).


Chap

ter

1


Strengths

The internal strengths of the NGO sector are thefollowing:

1. Presence of formal internal governance systems.Various surveys (Association of Foundations, 2001;Domingo, 2005; Civil Society Index Philippines,2010) note that many established NGOs complywith the minimum legal requirements for operatingas non-profit entities. Many have a board ofdirectors and many regularly submit requiredreports. The number of board members in theseNGOs more than satisfies the requirement(Domingo, 2005); while existing laws require thatthere should be at least five members, the averagenumber of members is around nine or ten, withsome having around 15 members. NGOs put a lot ofeffort in determining the size, composition andfunctions of the board. However, one should notethat a large board size does not mean bettercorporate governance. Many large NGO boards areoften inactive and difficult to convene. Larger NGOsalso have formal planning mechanisms andprogram/ project review systems. However, onlyvery few have successor planning mechanisms(Domingo, 2008).

Democratic decision-making is also observed inmany NGOs. More than 70 percent of civil societyorganizations in the Civil Society Index surveyreported that major decisions were made by theirelected leaders or board members. However, manyNGOs have problems distinguishing between thegoverning and accountability making functions ofthe boards, and the executive and managementfunctions of the NGO heads. Boards only operateon a very perfunctory basis and have very nominalpowers while the organization’s chief executiveofficer holds the real decision-making powers(Aldaba, 2003). Thus, several NGO networks,including the Association of Foundations, havedeveloped programs to educate the members ofNGO boards on their corporate and fiduciaryresponsibilities.

2. Strengthened self-regulatory initiatives. As noted inthe review of the regulatory system above, NGOshave been policing their ranks in order to promoteinstitutionalization of governance and

accountability structures. There are indicationsthat NGO coalitions are reviewing the monitoringsystems within their ranks in order to strengthenthem.

3. Relatively stable number of volunteers. Cariño(2002) noted in 1997 that there were more than600,000 volunteers assisting various non-profitorganizations. In early 2001 it was estimated thataround three to eleven percent of the populationwere volunteers of civil groups (World ValuesSurvey, 2001). The Civil Society Index Philippinesnoted that five percent of the population was activein various non-government organizations in 2009(Civil Society Index Philippines, 2010). This showsthat NGOs have a relatively large pool ofindividuals to draw from.

4. Relatively good level of ICT resources and use.Around three fourths of the organizations surveyedin the Civil Society Index (Civil Society IndexPhilippines, 2010) have moderate to high access toinformation and communication technologyresources (such as telephone, facsimile, personalcomputer, internet connection). This affirms theresults in an earlier survey (Association ofFoundations, 2001) and shows that NGOs havealready acquired some level of informationtechnology in order to more effectivelycommunicate with others. However, the Foundationfor Media Alternatives (2001b) notes that there maybe problems in effectively using the technology forprograms and project implementation.

5. Most NGOs are affiliated with networks andassociations. NGO surveys (Association ofFoundations, 2001; CSI Philippines, 2010) consis-tently show that NGOs are strongly connected toeach other through coalitions, aggrupations,networks and associations. More than 56 percentof organizations surveyed in the late 1990sreported that network building was one of theirgreatest strengths. Almost two thirds of the non-government organizations in the Civil Society Indexorganization survey report that they are part of anetwork or they meet regularly with otherorganizations.

6. Good value orientation of NGO leaders and staff.One of the significant contributions of the NGO

Chap

ter



sector to Philippine society is the institutionali-zation of many progressive political, economic andsocial norms and values (Alegre, 1996). Catchwords,such as “people’s participation,” “sustainabledevelopment,” and “women’s empowerment,” all havegained widespread acceptance in the countrymainly due to the advocacy of the NGO sector andother grassroots movements. NGO personnel haveabsorbed these norms. Many publish their financialrecords either in a bulletin board or website fortransparency and accountability (Civil Society IndexPhilippines, 2010). And NGO workers are moretrusting of others compared to the general population.

But many practices, such as those related to equalopportunities in terms of gender, and respect forlabor rights and environmental norms, remain to becodified. And many of those who belong to NGOstend to be less tolerant of people of other races andreligions, and are less “public spirited” than thegeneral population.

7. Capacity for policy advocacy. NGOs have a capacityfor policy change advocacy. The passage of theIndigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (recognizing theindigenous peoples’ rights over their ancestraldomain), the Fisheries Code (giving marginalizedfisherfolk exclusive access to coastal areas) and theComprehensive and Integrated Shelter Financing Act(which opened to the urban poor access togovernment funds for social housing projects) wasdue to their efforts.

There are many factors that explain NGO successesin the area of advocacy. (Razon-Abad and Miller,1997; Magadia, 2003). These include the presenceof coalitions that span a wide portion of the civilsociety, and full-time secretariat that can provideexpertise and technical knowledge on buildingalliances; speedy decision-making processes withinthe coalition; a willingness and ability to negotiatewith government; a strong popular educationcomponent to make the general public understandthe issues involved in these advocacies; and, a moredynamic view of the state which helped the groupsidentify allies for their policy proposals. Anotherimportant component is the acceptance of the civilsociety proposals by critical elements of thegovernment.

Weaknesses

At the same time, the NGO sector continues to facechallenges in terms of widening their internalcapacities. Some of them are:

1. Continued dependence on declining volume ofgrant funding, especially from abroad. In the late1990s, foreign foundation, bilateral, andmultilateral grant funding comprised 30 to 45percent of the NGO sector’s income, while localgrant funding comprised 10 to 15 percent(Association of Foundations, 2001). However, thereare indications that local resources are increasingas a source of NGO income. In the Civil SocietyIndex survey, NGOs report that service fees andcorporate donations make up the second and thirdlargest source of their funds, respectively.

2. Weak participation in governance and ODAallocation. During the past twenty years, manymechanisms were created to increase theparticipation of NGOs in governance. At thenational level, there was a plethora of commissionsand councils that existed and continue to exist (i.e.,Philippine Council on Sustainable Development,National Anti-Poverty Commission, NationalCommission on the Role of Filipino Women) thatallow for institutionalized participation of NGOsand other civil society groups. But NGOparticipation has continued to be weak because ofthe inadequate capacity of NGOs to engage thegovernment on a sustained basis, a lingeringdistrust of government by many NGO groups, andthe hostility of government officials to NGOparticipation (Gonzales, 2005). Still, in somegovernment agencies, NGOs continue to enjoyfriendly relations with government bureaucrats.

The Local Government Code of 1991 opened manyavenues to NGO participation in local development.While around 5,000 NGOs and POs applied foraccreditation in 1992 (in which 3,100 wereapproved and 729 were pending) (Buendia, 2005),by 1993, more than 16,000 NGOs and POs wereaccredited in various local government bodies(Silliman and Garner-Noble, 1998). More than4,600 NGO and PO representatives were reportedsitting as members of local special bodies. But NGO


Chap

ter

1


participation has been constrained by the lack offamiliarity with government rules and mechanisms(Capuno, 2007; Gonzales, 2005). Despite thepresence of NGO-PO desks in a majority of cities in2004, i.e., functioning desks were present in 64 or112 cities (Bureau of Local Government Supervision,2006), only a third of cities reported that NGOsparticipated in projects supported by their localdevelopment fund.

Another area where NGO participation is weak is theplanning and monitoring of donor-funded projects.The lack of financial resources and weak analyticalcapacity of NGOs are some of the main constraintsthat NGOs face when dealing with donors (Gonzales,2005).

3. Weak impact of projects relating to livelihooddevelopment and entrepreneurship. There is aperception that NGO economic projects have hadvery limited success, and there are some indicationsthat the perception is true (Gonzales, 2005). Thiscan be traced to project interventions and poorquality of program design (i.e., poor targeting).

4. Lack of second liners and a declining level ofattractiveness to the youth. Several donor agenciesand NGO leaders acknowledge that the loss ofinstitutional grant funding has severely affectedtheir ability to implement programs that enhance

the capacities of their human resources. At the sametime, there are some indications that the salary atthe middle or upper level of NGO management,especially in smaller NGOs, has not kept up withindustry standards (Aldaba, 2001). The limited poolof college graduates that join social developmentwork (many of the pioneering NGOs that werefounded in the 1970s and 1980s were founded byyoung professionals who just graduated from theuniversity) has contributed to the lack of secondliners in many NGOs. This is mainly becauseeducational institutions, especially Catholic tertiaryinstitutions have de-emphasized the importance ofcommunity development as a path towards socio-economic change. However, there are many studentsand youth that are particularly interested in severalareas of development work, particularly inenvironmental and peace activities.

5. Many NGOs do not have a system to measureoutcomes and impacts. Many studies (Aldaba, 2001;Cariño, 2002; Abella and Dimalanta, 2003;Gonzales; 2005) note that NGOs are weak indeveloping structural measures to measureperformance and impact of their policies andprojects. While they have developed systems tobetter measure outputs and processes, there is nosystematic assessment/ audit of the changes in thewelfare of their beneficiaries brought about by theprograms and projects that they implement.

Chart 3. External and Internal Awareness of Development Impact, 2009

Note: “Internal” respondents are respondents from NGOs’own membership. “External” respondents are respondentsfrom a purposive survey of academic, government, religious, and media leaders.Source: Civil Society Index Philippines (2010).

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0Poverty

reductionAnti-corruption Environmental

protection

‘Internal’ respondents‘External’ respondents

Chap

ter



Table 5. Latest asset levels of large local grantmaking NGOs

Local foundation Total assets- most recent annual report Total assets- previous year report

Peace and Equity Foundation P 1,362 million (2009) P 1,802 million (2008)

Foundation for Sustainable Society P 793 million (2008) P 793 million (2007)

Foundation for Philippine Environment P 769 million(ending June 30, 2009) P 755 million (2008)

Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Fund P 193 million (2008) P 250 million (2007)

Source: Securities and Exchange Commission I-View, www.sec.gov.ph.

Baseline studies continue to be implementedcursorily, even if there is greater awareness amonggroups that these should be constantly undertaken.

6. Limited administrative and program capacities.Cariño (2002) notes that NGOs are constrained bythe “technical competence required in developingpublic programs and projects”. Gonzales (2005notes that NGOs lack sufficient capacity in policyresearch and development, technicaldocumentation, organizational management andsocial entrepreneurship. Abella and Dimalanta(2003) note that the development of the financialmanagement systems of NGOs is focused onspecific funding agencies; thus, these systems needto be transformed every time a new donor providesfunds.

7. Vulnerability to control by politicians and politicalgroups. NGOs are vulnerable to intervention bypoliticians and political groups that have set upnon-profit groups as tools to deliver services andgoods to their constituents Alegre (1996). There arealso indications that NGOs have been used to divertstate and foreign donor funds to political groups.

8. Weak documentation of NGO efforts. Formalrecording of NGO work and practices has been verylimited. Various organizations give low priority toresearch and documentation. Research andacademic institutions that focus on the NGO sectorare few.

Opportunities

Some of the external opportunities that the NGO sectormay take advantage of are the following:

1. Good perception of the impact of program andpolicy work, especially in terms of povertyalleviation and environmental protection. Leadersof politically and economically influential groups’

perception of the NGO sector is generally good andpositive and much better than what NGO leadersthemselves acknowledge (Civil Society IndexPhilippines, 2010). Chart 3 below shows that morethan sixty percent of “external” respondents rate theimpact of NGO work in poverty alleviation, anti-corruption and environmental protection as eitherhigh or moderate. This is around ten to fifteenpoints higher than the self-rating of NGOs.

2. High level of trust by the general public, butdeclining trust among influential sectors. NGOscontinue to command the respect of the generalpublic. Civil Society Index Philippines (2010) notesthat more than 80 percent of those surveyed in1999 stated that they had a “great deal” or “quite alot” of trust in civil society organizations, such asNGOs. This compares favorably with the more than70 percent rating for environmental and women’sgroups, based on a survey done in 1996 and 2001.However, there is a perception among leaders thatthe reformist orientation of the NGO sector hasbeen slightly tarnished due to several high profilecases of financial mismanagement and accusationsof rent-seeking in the past several years. Andbecause NGOs have pervaded many areas of society(politicians, entertainment personalities, mediaand religious groups have organized NGOs), NGOsnow do not merely reflect interests of themarginalized sector, but rather, of diverse sectors ofsociety.

3. Increasing opportunities for sub-contracting work inforeign donor projects and the creation of new localfunding windows in the last 15 years. NGOs aremajor recipients of subcontracting work bygovernment agencies — they undertake projectsfully or partially funded by foreign donors. Thesemay be projects related to agrarian reform,environment, urban development and housing andothers. An example is the Kapit Bisig Laban sa


Chap

ter

1


Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Deliveryof Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) Program in 2003to 2009 of the Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment, funded by a US$100 million loanfrom the World Bank. NGOs were tapped to do apilot study and to assess the program.

In the past ten years or so, major local donoragencies were created to support NGO activities.Before the financial crisis hit the local financialmarkets, three major local donors (FPE, FSSI, andPEF) provided more than a quarter of a billionpesos in resources annually. And in 2002, a newtrust fund with an endowment of around P 400million was created for environmentalconservation activities. See Table 5 below for theresources of the largest local grant making NGOs.

4. Opportunity to influence national policy andprogram. NGO capacity to influence policy-makingand government programs has been constrainedduring the past several years. Several cabinetsecretaries, closely identified with the NGO sector,left the Arroyo administration after the presidentwas accused of committing electoral fraud in the2004 presidential election. This has resulted in nonew major community-based program initiativesfrom the government (the KALAHI-CIDSS program,initiated in 2003 could be the last major initiative).When the government issued new rules rushing theprocess of appointments of civil societyrepresentatives to the National Anti-PovertyCommission, NGOs protested (Caucus ofDevelopment NGO Networks, 2010). And last butnot least, the Department of Environment andNatural Resources has restricted NGO access toenvironmental impact assessments.

But at the same time, because of the continuedexistence of spaces for NGO involvement in policy-making (i.e., the presence of government councils,commissions and other bodies), and the presenceof bureaucrats in specific agencies who arefriendly to NGOs, many government-NGOcollaborative initiatives have continued to survive.New laws, such as the law extending the agrarianreform program, the Magna Carta for Women, andexpanded benefits for senior citizens were passedduring the past three years, thanks to NGOadvocacy.

Also, many initiatives for good governance continueto persist despite tepid support by national andlocal governments. Social Watch Philippines andother groups have continued their budgetaccountability processes. The Alternative LawGroup continues to participate in the SupremeCourt’s judiciary reforms.

5. Resources from Diaspora groups. Filipino overseashas been an increasingly important source offunding for non-profit activities. Garchitorena(2007) cites several reasons why FilipinoAmericans support philanthropic activities for thePhilippines. One reason is the desire to give back,to the country of their birth. Another is compassionfor the poor and the victims of natural disasters,especially in their home towns. Still another is alonging to maintain ties with their homeland.However, there are no estimates of financialsupport given by overseas Filipinos to NGOs.Nonetheless, the size of bank transfers from abroadmay still be increased by reducing the costs of banktransactions and giving financial incentives todonors. This is especially needed, given the factthat Filipinos give indiscriminately and in smallamounts.

Moreover, there are also opportunities in tappinglocal charity. Fernan (2002) and Alba and Sugui(2009) estimate that Filipino charitablecontribution amounts to 1 to 1.8 percent of totalfamily expenditures.

Threats

Some of the external threats that the NGO sector facesare the following:

1. Disappearance of many bilateral NGO fundingwindows. Gonzales (2005) notes that in the pastfifteen years many bilateral funding mechanismshave closed down. Three of them are the UnitedStates Agency for International Development’s PVOCo-Financing Program and the CanadianInternational Development Agency’s Canada Fundfor NGOs and the Philippine Canadian DevelopmentFund. While NGO co-financing schemes have beenmade available by the European Union and byGerman and Dutch foundations, there is evidencethat the resources available for development

Chap

ter



Chart 5. Total ODA Grants and Loans Disbursed to the Philippines, in millions of US dollars (real 2007 prices), 1986- 2008

Note: The amounts reflect the official ODA provided by bilateral and multilateral agencies.Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Development Assistance CommitteeAid statistics http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data.

activities are smaller than in the past. ODA grants(mainly made by bilateral and multilateralagencies to the national government) that thePhilippines has received since the mid 1990s havealso considerably decreased; from a peak of US$900 million in 1993, total grants disbursed to thecountry was only a bit over US$ 400 million in 2008(see Chart 5).

2. Weak and inconsistent public regulatory regime. Astudy undertaken in 2007 and 2008 by the Caucusof Development NGO Networks and the CharityCommission (2008) notes that the public regulatoryregime for NGOs is still far from satisfactory.Policies and existing practices by governmentregistering and licensing agencies are weak interms of protection from NGO abuse and in termsof mitigating NGO risks. The study also notes thatwhile there are government departments that havedone an effective job in terms of monitoring thework of non-profits, other agencies are constrainedin terms of: a) the lack of mandate to superviseNGO activities; b) limited financial and humanresources; c) lack of systems to take in and manageinformation on the nature and activities of NGOs;and d) lack of common understanding among the

bureaucrats of the norms for the protection ofNGOs.

3. Persistence of poverty and inequity. The decline inpoverty incidence in the Philippines has stalledduring the past several years. Despite an averageof 4 percent gross national product growth in the2003 to 2006 period, headcount index of povertyhad increased from 24.4 percent in 2003 to 26.9percent in 2006, close to the 27.5 percent recordedin 2000 (National Statistical Coordination Board,2008). In fact, the magnitude of poor fisherfolk,women, migrant, youth and formal sector workersincreased during this period (Castro, 2009). Also,income inequality, as measured by the Gini index,has hardly changed since the 1980s; in 2006, theindex was 0.46, not significantly lower than 0.44 in1985.

The unchanging picture of poverty and inequity ispartly due to the tepid efforts in terms ofimplementing the social reform legislation enactedmore than ten years ago (Philippine Partnershipfor the Development of Human Resources in RuralAreas, 2007). It could also be traced to the natureof economic development in the country. Growth is


Chap

ter

1


restricted to a few sectors (mainly the businessprocess outsourcing, finance andtelecommunications industries) where only a smallproportion of the underclass is employed (Habito,2010).

4. Unsolved major political and social issues, includingcorruption, peace and order and environmentaldestruction. The Philippines continues to rank lowin perception surveys on corruption and lack oftransparency - it is in the lowest quartile ofcountries in terms of corruption scores(Transparency International, 2009). The peacenegotiations between the government and the MoroIslamic Liberation Front, a key armed group basedin Mindanao has stalled, and there is no progressin terms of discussions with the communists. Whilethere is some indication of improvement inenvironmental sustainability, mining advocatesclaim that unabated mining especially in the pastfive years put severe constraints on the capacity ofthe country’s natural resources to cope with thegrowing population.

Summary and PreliminarySummary and PreliminarySummary and PreliminarySummary and PreliminarySummary and PreliminaryRRRRRecommendation fecommendation fecommendation fecommendation fecommendation for Furor Furor Furor Furor Fur therthertherthertherInvestigationInvestigationInvestigationInvestigationInvestigation

The Philippine NGO sector is said to be one of the mostdynamic in the region. The sheer size of the sectormakes it a major force for social and economicdevelopment in the country. NGOs have made acontribution to poverty alleviation and environmentprotection. However, as this monograph has shown,there is still room for improvement in their impact onthe macro level. Specifically,

1. NGOs have to assess their program and projectimpacts and outcomes. There are many types ofdevelopment activities which NGOs undertake, but

which areas are they most effective vis-à-vis otherdevelopment actors (church, national government,local government, people’s organizations)? Toanswer this, there has to be an examination of theimpacts of NGO development projects.

2. NGOs should examine the factors that comprisetheir” policy success.” Corollary to the first point isa more thorough examination of the factors thatallow NGOs to successfully lobby government toundertake development policies. It is alsoimportant to review how the policies advocated byNGOs have affected the poor.

3. NGOs should examine the factors that sustain them.Despite programmatic and administrativeweaknesses, NGOs continue to survive (Cariño,2002). What are the factors most necessary for thecontinued existence of NGOs, besides financialresources? Is it the clarity of the mission andvision? Is it the quality and depth of leadership? Oris it a supportive policy environment? Whichfactors are most crucial?

4. NGOs should find out the effective spaces forstrategic learning. There are many strategic studiesof the NGO sector that have been undertaken in thepast (Alegre, 1996; Gonzales, 2005). What are themost effective methodologies for NGOs to learnfrom these assessments and develop newstrategies?

5. There seems to be a need to further map the areaswhere NGOs operate. These areas may differ fromthe location of their main office.

6. Since people’s organizations and organizations ofmarginalized groups are an important grouping indevelopment efforts, there is a need for an analysisof people’s organizations, which this monographomits.

Chap

ter



Abella, Carmencita and Ma. Amor Dimalanta. 2003.NGOs As Major Actors in Philippine Society.Paper written for the Asia-Pacific PhilanthropyConsortium. http://www.asiapacificphilanthropy.org/files/philippines_2003.pdf.

Alba, Michael and Jessa Sorraya Sugui. 2009. “Motivesand Norms Behind Remittances: The Case ofFilipino Overseas Workers and Their RecipientHouseholds,” Philippine Institute ofDevelopment Studies Discussion Paper No.2009- 26.

Aldaba, Fernando.1993. “The Role of NGOs in SocialTransformation.” Philippine Politics and Society1 (2): 2-54.

Aldaba, Fernando. 2001. “Doing Good and Being Good:Aspects of Development and NGO Governance,”Public Policy 6 (2): 1- 26.

Aldaba, Fernando. 2002. “Philippine NGOs and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships: Three Case Studies,”Voluntas 13 (2): 179- 192.

Aldaba, Fernando, Paula Atenzana, MarianoValderrama and Alan Fowler (2000). “NGOStrategies Beyond Aid: Perspectives fromCentral America and the Philippines,” ThirdWorld Quarterly 21 (4), pp. 669- 683.

Alegre, Alan. 1996. Trends and Traditions, Challenges andChoices: A Sourcebook of Social DevelopmentNGOs. Quezon City: Ateneo Center for SocialPolicy and Public Affairs.

Alegre, Alan.1998. Civil Society Resource Organizationsand Development in Southeast Asia. New York:Synergos Institute.

Asian Development Bank. 2005. Philippines: CountryGovernance Assessment. Manila: AsianDevelopment Bank.

Association of Foundations. 2001. A Sourcebook ofDevelopment NGOs. Quezon City: Associationof Foundations.

References

Association of Foundations. 2005. Good News: DiasporaPhilanthropy by Filipinos. Quezon City:Association of Foundations

Brilliantes, Alex.1992. “NGOs as Alternative DeliverySystems: The Philippine Experience,” inPerfecto Padilla (ed.). Strengthening LocalGovernment Administration and AcceleratingLocal Development. Quezon City: UP College ofPublic Administration and Asia Foundation.

Buendia, Emmanuel. 2005. Democratizing Governance inthe Philippines: Redefining and Measuring theState of People’s Participation in Governance.Quezon City: National College of PublicAdministration and Governance.

Bureau of Local Government Supervision. 2006. Resultsof the 2004 Local Government PerformanceMonitoring System: The State of CitizenParticipation in Cities.

Capuno, Joseph 2007. “The Quality of Local Governanceand Development under Decentralization in thePhilippines,” in Arsenio Balisacan and Hal Hill.Eds. The Dynamics of Regional Development:The Philippines in East Asia. Quezon City: Ateneode Manila University Press.

Cariño, Ledevina. 2002. Between State and the Market:The Non-Profit Sector and Civil Society in thePhilippines. Manila: NJP Printmakers.

Carroll, John. 2005. “Cracks in the Wall of Separation:The Church, Civil Society and the State in thePhilippines,” in Lee Hock Guan. Ed. Civil Societyin Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies.

Castro, Lina 2009. 2006 Poverty Statistics for the BasicSectors, Presented during the Users’ Forum onthe 2006 Poverty Statistics for the BasicSectors and 2006 Child Development Index.http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2006pov ,February 24, 2010.

Caucus of Development NGO Networks and the CharityCommission. 2008. NPO Sector Assessment:Philippine Report. Available at the Caucus ofDevelopment NGO Networks website.http://codengo.org/home/images/stories/pdf/


Chap

ter

1


Philippine_NPO_Sector_Report_FINAL2.pdf.Accessed February 21, 2010.

Caucus of Development NGO Networks. 2010. Opposethe Hasty and Questionable Process ofAppointing the new NAPC SectoralRepresentatives and Uphold the Basic Sectors’Integrity, Autonomy and Role in NAPC! http://code-ngo.org/home/index. , March 1, 2010.

Civil Society Index Philippines. 2010. Draft Report.Report for the Second Advisory CouncilMeeting.

Clarke, Gerard.1998. Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia:Participation and Protest in the Philippines. NewYork: Routledge.

Clarke, Gerard. 2008. Map, Monitor, Measure:Regulating ‘Civil Society’ in the Philippines.Paper presented at the Annual Conference ofthe Association of Southeast Asian Studies inthe United Kingdom, Liverpool John MooresUniversity.

Domingo, Ma. Oliva. 2005. Good Governance and CivilSociety: The Role of Philippine Civil SocietyBoards. Quezon City: UP National College ofPublic Administration and Governance.

Domingo, Ma. Oliva. 2008. “Governance in thePhilippine Third Sector: Highlights from theCountry Study,” in Samiul Hasan, Mark Lyonsand Jenny Onyx. Eds. Comparative Third SectorGovernance in Asia. Springer: New York.

Fernan, Ramon. 2002. “Giving and Volunteering,” inLedevina Cariño. Ed. Between State and theMarket: The Non-Profit Sector and Civil Society inthe Philippines. Manila: NJP Printmakers.

Ferrer, Miriam Coronel. 2005. Institutional Response:Civil Society. Background Paper for the 2005Philippine Human Development Report. http://hdn.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2005_PHDR/2005%20Civil_Society_Assessment.pdf.

Foundation for Media Alternatives. 2001.LegalFramework of Non-government Organizationsin the Philippines. Paper submitted to the AsiaPacific Philanthropy Information Network.

Foundation for Media Alternatives. 2001. A Survey ofthe Information and CommunicationTechnology Use of Non-GovernmentOrganizations.

Garchitorena, Victoria. 2007. Diaspora Philanthropy:The Philippine Experience. The AyalaFoundation. http://tpi.org/downloads/pdfs/Philippines_Diaspora_Philanthropy_Final.pdf,last viewed on February 21, 2010.

Gonzalez, Raul. 2005. Searching for Relevance: PhilippineNGOs in the 21st Century. Quezon City:Association of Foundations.

Habito, Cielito. 2010. Putting Filipinos to Work.Presentation at the Jobs and Doing Business inthe Philippines Forum, Beyond 2010:Leadership for the Next Generation. http://law.upd.edu.ph/new/Academic-Congress-February-1-5,2010/Day-1/Session-1/Dr.%20Cielito%20F.%20Habito%20-%20Putting%20Filipinos%20to%20Work.pdf,last viewed on February 27, 2010.

Hedman, Eva-Lotta. 2006. In the Name of Civil Society:From Free Election Movements to People Powerin the Philippines. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press.

Hilhorst, Dorothy. 2003. The Real World of NGOs:Discourse, Diversity and Development. QuezonCity: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Korten, David. 1990. Getting to the 21st Century:Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda.Makati: Kumarian Press.

Lee Hock Guan. 2006. Civil Society in Asia. Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Lerma, Carol and Jessica Los Banos. 2002. “Law and theNonprofit Sector,” in Ledevina Cariño. Ed.Between State and the Market: The Non-ProfitSector and Civil Society in the Philippines.Manila: NJP Printmakers.

Lopez Wui, Glenda and Teresa Encarnacion Tadem.2006. People, Profit and Politics: State- CivilSociety Relations in the Context of Globalization.Quezon City: Third World Studies Center.

Chap

ter



Magadia, Jose. 2003. State- Civil Society Dynamics: PolicyMaking in a Restored Democracy. Quezon City:Ateneo de Manila Press.

Moreno, Antonio. 2006. Church, State, and Civil Society inPostauthoritarian Philippines: Narratives ofEngaged Citizenship. Quezon City: Ateneo deManila Press.

National Statistical Coordination Board. 2008. 2006Poverty Statistics: Annual Per Capita PovertyThresholds, Poverty Incidence and Magnitudeof Poor Families: 2000, 2003, 2006. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2006_05mar08/table_1.asp, Last viewed on February 24, 2010.

National Statistics Office. 2008. Gini ConcentrationRatios. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2006/ie06fr05.htm, Last viewed onFebruary 24, 2010.

Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment Website. http://www.oecd.org/.2010.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of HumanResources in Rural Areas. 2007. Philippine AssetReform Score card. Quezon City: PHILDHRRA.

Quizon, Antonio. 1989. A Strategic Assessment of NGOs inthe Philippines. Manila: Asian NGO Coalition.

Racelis, Rachel. 2002.

Razon-Abad, Henedina and Valerie Miller. 1997. PolicyInfluence: NGO Experiences. Quezon City: AteneoCenter for Social Policy and Public Affairs.

Serrano, Isagani.1994. “Civil Society in the Asia-PacificRegion,” Civicus

Serrano, Isagani. 2003. “Civil Society in the Philippines:Struggling for Sustainability,” in David Schakand Wayne Hudson. Eds.

Silliman, Sydney and Lela Gardner Noble. 1998.Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Societyand the Philippine State. Quezon City: Ateneo deManila University Press.

Sobritchea, Carolyn. 2005. “Women’s Movement in thePhilippines and the Politics of CriticalCollaboration with the State,” in Lee Hock Guan.Ed. Civil Society in Southeast Asia. Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Songco, Danilo. 2007. The Evolution of NGOAccountability Practices and their Implicationson Philippine NGOs: A Literature Review andOptions Paper for the Philippine Council forNGO Certification, United Nations NGO LiaisonService. http://www.un-ngls.org/site/IMG/doc/Philippines-Evolution_of_NGO_Accountability_Implications.doc.Accessed March 2, 2010.

Tolentino, Aurora and Eugene Caccam. 2001.Strengthening Philanthropy in the Asia PacificRegion: An Agenda for the Action BackgroundPaper: The Philippines. The Asia PacificPhilanthropy Consortium.

Transparency International. 2009. CorruptionPerceptions Index 2009. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table,February 27, 2010.


Chap

ter

1


Elizabeth Yang, Executive Director, PILIPINA, February13, 2010. Telephone interview.

Norman Jiao, Executive Director, Association ofFoundations, February 15, 2010, Quezon City.

Ching Jorge, Vice President, Bato Balani Foundation,February 15, 2010. Telephone Interview.

Fely Soledad, Executive Director, Philippine Council forNGO Certification, February 15, 2010, Manila.

Edil Guyana, Program Coordinator, Good Governance,National Secretariat for Social Action, February17, 2010. Telephone interview.

Sixto Donato Macasaet, Executive Director, Caucus ofDevelopment NGO Networks, February 19,2010, Quezon City.

Joey Austria, Division Chief, Special Concerns Office,Department of Environment and NaturalResources, February 22, 2010, Quezon City.

Alice Bonoan, Director IV, Standards Bureau, Departmentof Social Welfare and Development, February22, 2010, Quezon City.

Rommel Linatoc, Program Secretary, Christian Unity andEcumenical Relations, National Council ofChurches in the Philippines, February 22, 2010,Quezon City.

Vincent Lazatin, Executive Director, Transparency andAccountability Network, February 23, 2010,Quezon City.

Janet Carandang, Senior Program Officer, Social WatchPhilippines, February 23, 2010. Telephoneinterview.

Eric dela Torre, Senior Program Officer, Team EnergyFoundation, February 23, 2010. Telephoneinterview.

Roy Tordecilla, Mindanao Operations Officer, World BankManila Office, February 23, 2010. Telephoneinterview.

Atty. Jose Andres Canivel, Executive Director, PhilippineTropical Forest Conservation Fund, February 24,2010, Makati.

Ellen Pedrosa, MD, Executive Director, AlthealthFoundation, February 24, 2010, Quezon City.

Roundtable Discussion with Metro Manila-based NGOleaders, March, Quezon City.

Roundtable Discussion with Mindanao-based NGOleaders, March, Davao City.

Key Informants Interviewed

Chap

ter



Annex 1Directory of NGO Networks in the Philippines

A. Major National and Regional NGO Networks

Founded as an aggrupation ofNGOs to forge broad unityamong the differentdevelopment NGOs in thePhilippines

First heterogeneous network inthe Philippines for foundationsand NGOs involved in fundingand philanthropy.

A cooperative network of 420primary cooperatives, 128 ofwhich are direct affiliates and 6are regional organizations;originally organized in responseto the growing training andeducational needs of theprimary cooperatives and toorganize cooperatives’ politicalvoices on national issues.

The first social developmentnetwork in the Philippines,originally focused on streetchildren.

Created by prominentbusiness leaders in thePhilippines to promotecommitment to socialprogress.

Strengthening the capacities of memberorganizations, advocating for reforms inpolitical and social governance,developing regional partnerships forpoverty reduction and strengtheninginternational linkages with NGO networksin other countries.

Conducts institution and capacity buildingfor members; Steward of the PhilippineFoundation Center (PFC),Southeast Asia’sfirst one-stop resource and informationcenter on Philippine NGOs, foundationsand the civil society sector; supports theestablishment of community foundations– localized private/non-profit units thatmobilize resources for projects in definedareas

Primary focus is financial intermediationfor cooperatives, providing a wide array offinancial and banking services, andmaintaining stabilization and centralfunds.

Conducts a variety of social developmentprojects, sometimes with collaborationfrom other agencies and actors.

Promotes corporate socialresponsibility (CSR); provides financialassistance and funding fordevelopment and poverty-alleviationprojects throughout the country.

Sixto Donato Macasaet,Executive Director 69 Esteban Abada Street,Loyola Heights 1108Quezon City, PHILIPPINES632-920.2595, +632-926.8131632 435-6616 loc. 103http://www.code-ngo.org

Room 1102, 11th FloorAurora Tower, Araneta CenterCubao, Quezon City

Norman Jiao, Executive DirectorTel/Fax: +63 2 911-9792Tel No: +63 2 913-7231e-mail: [email protected]

227 J. P. Rizal StreetProject 4, 1109 Quezon City

Sylvia Paraguya, Chief Executive OfficerTelefax: +63 2 913-7016Tel No: +63 2 913-7011 to 14; +63 2 912-6005e-mail: [email protected]

4/F 900 United Methodist ChurchHeadquarters BuildingUnited Nations Avenue, Ermita, Manila

Corazon Paraiso, Executive DirctorTel: +63 02 523 4846; Fax: 524 8043e-mail: [email protected]

Philippine Social Development Center,Real corner Magallanes StreetsIntramuros, Manila

Rafael Lopa, Executive DirectorFax No: +632 527-3743Tel Nos: +632 527-3745;+632 527-7741 loc. 213e-mail: [email protected]

Network (Date founded) History/ Nature Activities Contact information

Caucus of DevelopmentNGO Networks (1990)

Association ofFoundations (1972)

National Confederationof Cooperatives (1977)

National Council forSocial Development(first founded asCouncil of WelfareAgencies in thePhilippines, Inc.(CWAPI) in 1949,reformed as NCSD in1988)

Philippine Businessfor Social Progress(1970)


Chap

ter

1



Philippine Partnershipfor the Development ofHuman Resources inRural Areas (1978)

Philippine SupportService Agencies (1988)

Coalition for BicolDevelopment (1996)

Cordillera Network ofDevelopment NGOs(1998)

Western Visayas Network

Eastern VisayasNetwork of NGOs andPOs (EVNet)

Central VisayasNetwork (CENVISNET)(2007)

www.pbsp.org.ph

#59 C. Salvador StreetLoyola Heights, Quezon City

Divina Luz Lopez, Executive DirectorTelefax: +63 2 436-0702/426-6740e-mail: [email protected]

3/F Hoeffner Hall, Social Development ComplexAteneo de Manila UniversityLoyola Heights, Quezon City

Benedict Balderrama, National CoordinatorTelefax: +63 2 426-4327Tel Nos: +63 2 426-6001 loc. 4854;e-mail: [email protected]

CASAFI CompoundLiboton St., Naga City 4400Joy Oropesa-Bañares, Officer-in-ChargeTel/Fax: (054) 472.2569E-mail Address: [email protected]

c/o Shontoug Foundation15 Gibraltar RoadGood Shepherd CompoundBaguio City

Marietta Paragas, PresidentTel/Fax: +63 74 444-7197e-mail: [email protected]

c/o Iloilo CODE, 72 Matilde SubdivisionJalandoni Street, Jaro, Iloilo City

Emmanuel Areño, Executive DirectorTelefax. +63 33 508.6527e-mail: [email protected]: www.wevnet.org

VICTO Building, 1430 Main StreetSampaguita Village, Tacloban City

Paulina Lawsin-Nayra, Vice Chairperson Telefax. (053) 524.4903E-mail. [email protected]: http://evnet.multiply.com

c/o NEGORNETYMCA Complex, 151 North Road6200 Dumaguete City

Gregorio Fernandez, CoordinatorTel/Fax: +63 35 225.1519e-mail: [email protected]

Created to advance ruraldevelopment and agrarianreform in the Philippines andsupport NGOs dedicated tothese objectives.

Formed as a non-stockservice network of largely-urban based socialdevelopment organizationsand NGOs.

Formed to consolidateresources and activities, aspart of a desire to coordinatethe NGO community in Bicoland to make their effortsworthwhile.

A diverse network of 147NGOs and People’sOrganizations (POs), with thepurpose of promotingsustainable development andmaintaining the culturaldiversity and natural systemsof the Cordilleras

The leading NGO network inWestern Visayas, focuses onsustainable development andthe empowerment of citizens,particularly those of WesternVisayas; has 6 provincialnetworks under its umbrella,representing 84 NGOs inWestern Visayas

The main regional NGOnetwork in Leyte, Samar andBiliran, with 12 NGOs and POsamong its members.

A relatively recent network,having been registered withSEC only in 2007; a regionalNGO network linking NGOs inthe Central Visayas Region,most of which were formedfollowing the passage of the1991 Local Government

Conducts community organizing,sustainable agriculture, livelihoodprojects, education, primary healthcare, gender equity, cooperatives andenterprise development, among others.

Serves as a network and resourcecenter for NGOs and experts that wishto advance the causes of urban poorand marginalized, such as out-of-schoolyouth, informal settlers, slum-dwellers,women and children.

Undertakes capacity-building for memberNGOs, provides support for member NGOs’respective advocacies and projects.

Works actively with other stakeholderstowards the sustainable development ofthe Cordillera Region; promotes crafting ofdevelopment models that are suited to theunique and multicultural landscape of theregion; reshaping of social architecture ofgoverning relationship through the pilotingand testing of a model on localized anti-poverty project designed by CODE-NGO.

Building-up the capacities of its members,partners and constituencies,implementation of innovative programsand advocacies for sustainabledevelopment and good governance.

Reduction of poverty and promotion ofsustainable development by strengtheningpartnerships in Eastern Visayas; poolingand sharing resources, expertise andinformation among member organizations;biodiversity conservation and protection;capacity building; regional sustainabledevelopment and social entrepreneurship.

Members offer varied developmentprograms serving different sectors in theregion, such as fisherfolk, urban workers,farmers, women, children, youth, agrarianreform communities, senior citizens,people’s organizations and academe.

Chap

ter



B. Provincial NGO Networks

Mindanao Coalition ofDevelopment NGOs(1991)

National Secretariat forSocial Action (1966)

League of CorporateFoundations (1991)

Code.The primary coalition ofNGOs in Mindanao, with12 regional networks anda total of 414 NGOorganizations

This is the social arm of theCatholic Bishops Conferenceof the Philippines.

An offshoot of the Associa-tion of Foundations.

Facilitates fora for discussion, dialogueand coordination among Mindanaonetworks and NGOs concerningdevelopment programs and their impacton the Mindanao communities.

Ongoing formation towards mature socialconsciousness; initiating and supportingsustainable development programs thatuphold the integrity of the human personand of creation and are gender and childrensensitive; delivering development programsand services for the empowerment andstrengthening of Basic EcclesialCommunities and other faith communities;promoting cooperation and dialogue withother cultures and faiths in pursuit ofgenuine justice and peace; and linking andnetworking with other like-minded groups:non-government organizations, people’sorganizations, and governmentorganizations.

Acts as a service provider to its membersfor enhanced institutional capabilities indistinct areas of social development;engages in external advocacy work;technical services such as research andtraining can also be accessed from andutilized by member foundations.

3 Juna Avenue corner Camia St.Juna Subdivision, Matina, Davao City

Ian Digal, Program OfficerTelefax: +63 82 299-0625e-mail: [email protected]

CBCP-NASSACaritas Filipinas Foundation Inc.Tel: 527-4163 / 527-4147/ 527-4134Fax: 527-4144Email: [email protected]

Unit 704 Midland Mansions Condominium839 A.S. Arnaiz Ave., Legazpi VillageMakati City 1226, Philippines

Jerome V. Bernas, Executive DirectorPhone Number: (+632) 892.9189Fax number: (+632) 892.9084



Palawan NGO Network,Inc. (1991)

Iloilo Caucus ofDevelopment NGOs

Formed as a coalition ofPalawan-based NGOscapable of presenting abroader NGO consensus thatwould carry more weight inthe policy-making process invarious local governmentunits in the province.

This network is under theWestern Visayas Network ofNGOs and POs

Conducts advocacy and lobbying forvarious developmental concerns;deliberates and studies developmentprojects; with a view on ensuringsustainable and equitable development inthe province.

Networking, with a view to improvingcompetencies, financial and humanresources and member coordination ofmember; developing critical partnershipwith development Institutions, usingadvocacy, multi-stakeholder partnership,and service synchronization; modeling ofsustainable development Initiatives inIloilo.

Unit 3 Zanzibar Building, Rizal Avenue,Puerto Princesa 5300, Palawan,Philippines.Laurence Padilla, ChairpersonTelefax: (048)[email protected]

Iloilo CODE NGOs, Inc.36 D. B. Ledesma St., Jaro, Iloilo City 5000PhilippinesTel: (63-33)320-35-90, [email protected]


Chap

ter

1



Corporate Network forDisaster Response (1990)

Philippine Business forEducation

Philippine Business forthe Environment (1992)

Civil Society Network forEducation Reforms

Women’s Action Networkfor Development (1990)

Philippine Network ofRural DevelopmentInstitutes, Inc.(1996)

Philippine RuralReconstructionMovement (1952)

Transparency andAccountability Network(2000)

A network of variouscorporations and companiescommitted to disaster relief.

A network of businesscorporations that areconcerned with educationreforms in the Philippines.

A non-profit network ofbusiness corporations,committed to sustainabledevelopment.

A network of various civilsociety movements formed tocorrect a lack of involvementby the civil society sector ineducation.

A network of NGOs that aim tostrengthen capacities ofwomen and women’s groupsin the country.

An NGO network dedicated tothe goal of self-determinationfor rural communities.

This NGO network advocatesfor sustainable, equitable andeco-friendly development inthe rural regions. (should be inthe column on activities)

A coalition of multi-sectoralorganizations dedicated to thecause of reducing corruption.

Conducts emergency response initiatives intimes of disasters; provides support forcommunity-based risk management,business disaster preparedness, andresettlement assistance, among others.

Identifying opportunities that can be usedto direct, accelerate, broaden and sustaineducation reforms; consideration of suchopportunities with full knowledge andinformation; mobilizing commitment forsuch actions.

Provides environmental informationsupport and serves as an environmentaladvocate; acts as a catalyst for corporateenvironmental action; links business withother groups to create environmentalpartnerships.

Serves as a venue for education reformsand for complementing, consolidating andintegrating various initiatives of civil societyorganizations; works to connect variouscivil society organizations involved in theeducation sector, and connects theseefforts with government educationprograms so that positive changes in policyand practice may be created to expand civilsociety influence in effecting positivechanges in education.

Advocates for women’s rights and issues inthe country.

Conducts rural cooperative organizing andeducation, asset reform and ruralgovernance, productivity systemsenhancement, enterprise development,area development planning and projectdevelopment and management.

Strengthening Civil Society Capacities andMovements, promoting Learning forSustainability, Influencing, Public Policy,Promoting Development CooperationDeveloping and Implementing InnovativeField Programs and Projects.

Monitoring government and publicexpenditures and actions which are ofinterest to the public; advocating andlobbying for laws that promote the fightagainst corruption.

Unit 606 City Land Megaplaza Building, ADBAvenue cor. Garnet Road, Ortigas Center,Pasig CityPhone Number: 687-9228Fax Number: 687-4208Email Address: [email protected]: www.cndr.org.ph

11th Floor, PHINMA Plaza, 39 Plaza DriveRockwell Center, Makati City, PhilippinesPeter A. V. Perfecto, Associate [email protected] Number: (02)8700219 or (02)8700227Fax: (02)8700466

2nd Floor, DAP Bldg., San Miguel Ave.,Pasig CityTel: (632)635-3670, 635-2650 to 51Email: [email protected]

Physical Address: Door 2 Casal Building, 15Anonas St., Brgy. Quirino 3-A Project 3,Quezon City 1102 Philippines Telephone : ++63 2 995-89-55 Fax: ++63 2433-5152 E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

#10 MakaDiyos St., Sikatuna Village,Quezon CityPh#: 632 925-1410Fax#: 632 433-1160E-mail: [email protected]

107 Anonas Extension Sikatuna Village1101 Quezon City PhilippinesTel/Fax. (632) 4340851E-mail: [email protected]

Address: 56 Mother Ignacia Avenue cornerDr. Lazcano Street, Quezon City 1103PhilippinesTrunkline Nos.:+63 2 3724991 / +63 23724992 / +63 2 3724994 / +63 2 3724996/Fax No.: +63 2 3724995Email Address: [email protected]

162 B. Gonzales St. Dominion Townhomes,Unit M Varsity Hills Subdivision, LoyolaHeights, Quezon City PhilippinesPhone: (+63 2) 435 0203Fax: (+63 2) 434 0525

C. Other National NGO Networks

Chap

ter




Social Watch Philippines(1997)

Philippine Alliance ofHuman Rights Advocates(1986)

National PeaceConference (1990)

Freedom from DebtCoalition (1987)

Cut the Cost, Cut the PainNetwork (2001)

Alyansa Tigil Mina (2004)

National Movement forFree Elections (1957)

Parish Pastoral Councilfor Responsible Voting(1991)

An internationally-connectednetwork of citizens’organizations determined toeradicate poverty and thecauses of poverty, ensureequitable distribution of wealth,economic and social justice,and realization of human rights.

Formed as an alliance ofindividuals, institutions andorganizations committed to thepromotion, protection andrealization of human rights inthe Philippines.

created to forge consensus on anational agenda for peaceamong all sectors in thePhilippines

A multi-sectoral coalition thatadvocates for sustainable andequitable economic progress.

An NGO network dedicated toensure availability of affordablequality medicines

An alliance of NGOs andconcerned groups that monitormining projects in thePhilippines.

A well-known civic movementdedicated to ensuring free andfair elections in the Philippines

A church-supported nationallay movement for ensuringclean and honest elections inthe Philippines

Conducts programs for policy advocacy andinterventions; watches social progress andthe country’s Millennium DevelopmentGoals; local monitoring and capacity-buildingfor communities; expanding thecommunities’ networks and affiliations.

Advocacy of human rights; coordination ofmember organizations; representing civilsociety in the Presidential Human RightsCommittee.

Organizes annual conferences; advocates,supports and encourages citizens’participation in peace processes.

Campaigns for economic developmentissues.

Undertakes policy studies that highlightspecific reform initiatives on safe andaffordable medicines; generates interest anddebate on the issue through knowledgenetworking, information dissemination andcommunity campaigns; ensures grassrootsinvolvement in policy studies and campaign;builds linkage with national and interna-tional organizations

Advocacy and civic action regarding miningissues; information gathering on miningsites.

Monitoring elections in the Philippines;used to do quick-counts of ballots.

Monitoring elections; research on election-related issues

No. 40 Matulungin St., Central District,Quezon City n Telefax: (632) 4265626 nEmail: [email protected]

53-B Maliksi Street, Barangay Pinyahan,Quezon City, Philippineshttp://www.philippinehumanrights.org63 2 436 26 3363 2 433 17 14

Karen TanadaExecutive DirectorCoalition for Peace, Gaston Z OrtigasPeace Institute(GZO-P1) Social Development Complex,Ateneo de Manila University,Loyola Heights, Quezon City, PhilippinesTel. #: 63 2 924 45 67 or 63 2 86 02 70or 632 924 4601Fax #: 63 2 924 45 57 (call first)

11 Matimpiin Street, Barangay Pinyahan,Quezon [email protected]+63 2 9211985+63 2 9246399http://www.fdc.ph

129-D Matatag Street, Brgy. Central,Quezon City, PhilippinesTelefax: (63)2 433 1594

The Alyansa Tigil Mina Secretariat:Telephone: 63-2 - 426-6740Fax:63-2 -426-0385

Philippine Partnership for the Developmentof Human Resources in Rural Areas(PhilDHRRA)#59 C. Salvador StreetLoyola Heights, Quezon City Philippines

PPCRV National Office Room 301,Pius XII Catholic CenterUnited Nations Avenue, Paco, Manila1007 Philippines

Tel. No. : (02) 521-5005 / 524-2855E-Mail : [email protected]


Chap

ter

1



D. Local Funding NGOs

Peace and EquityFoundation (2001)

Foundation forSustainable Society, Inc.(1996)

Foundation for PhilippineEnvironment (1992)

Philippine Tropical ForestConservationFoundation, Inc. (2002)

Formed by NGO leaders in2001 as an independent non-profit organization dedicated tohelping eradicate poverty

An eco-enterprise foundation,created from the proceeds of adebt for environment swap bythe Swiss government

A foundation formed to helpmitigate the damage to thePhilippines’ natural resources.The organization was createdfrom a debt for environmentswap undertaken by the UnitedStates Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

Formed under a bilateralagreement between thePhilippines and the USA;dedicated to the sustainablemanagement of Philippineforests.

Manages and preserves the value of thePEACE Bonds endowment fund for thecreation of opportunities for the poor toliberate themselves from poverty;supports best practices, innovative andtrailblazing development projects;provides civil society organizations withdevelopment financing and technicalassistance; promotes appropriatetechnology; and promotes networkingamong its stakeholders.

Promotes and encourages internationaland local cooperation among NGOs,business groups, government agencies,and communities towards developingpolicies and effective programs forbiodiversity conservation and sustainabledevelopment.

Provides grants for various projects thatmeet the objectives for sustainabledevelopment in poor communities.

Funds and assists several naturalconservation/sustainable developmentprojects in the Philippines.

Source: NGO websites.

Veronica Villavicencio, Executive Director#69 Esteban Abada Street, Loyola Heights,Quezon CityPhone Number: (632) 4268402Telefax Number: (632) 4268402 local 102 or(632) 4269785 to 86Email Address: pef @ pef.phWeb address: www.pef.ph

Emma Lim-Sandrino, Executive Director46-E Samar Ave. corner Eugenio Lopez St.South Triangle,Quezon City PHILIPPINES 1103Phone number: (63-2) 9288671/4114702Fax number: (63-2) 4114703/9288422Web address: www.fssi.com.ph

Ma. Christine Reyes, Executive Director77 Matahimik Street, Teachers’ Village,Quezon CityPhone number: 927-9403,927-2186, 927-9629Fax number: 922-3022Web address: www.fpe.ph

Unit 11-3A Manila Bank Bldg, 6772 AyalaAve, MakatiCity,1223Website: http://www.ptfcf.org / Email: [email protected]. No.: (632) 891-0595 / (632) 864-0287

Chap

ter



Social welfare and development organizations,providing social welfare assistance to sociallymarginalized groups; Contact details (contact person,program services, service delivery mode, client mode,area of operation)

Women NGOs; Contact details (address, telephone,contact person), chapters/ geographical coverage,areas of concern/ program, target groups, availableresources

NGOs’ participation in the NAPC sectoral councils (forNGOs, and other sectors); name of organization,address, region, contact numbers

List of existing DOST-certified science foundations; hasbasic contact information

List of PCNC certified NGOs, including organizationname, address, history and purposes of the organiza-tion and contact person

Development NGO networks including organizationalname, contact information, activities, competencies,financial resources, human resources.

List of CODE-NGO affiliated NGOs, including organiza-tion name, contact information (address, telephone,e-mail, website), type of organization, type ofregistration and license, and status of certification byPCNC, local government engagement, humanresources, programs including geographical andsectoral coverage,

Basic corporate information for non-stock, non-profitorganizations including general information sheet(organization name, contact information, boardmembers and officers, number of employees/ staff),annual audited financial information (incomestatement, balance sheet, cash flow, notes to financialstatements), articles of incorporation, membershipbook (list of corporate members).

Agency / Source Type of organization / Available information Availability of information

Directory is available on website http://www.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/downloads

Directory availability on website http://www.ncrfw.gov.ph/index.php/directory-women-ngos; some organizations are POs or womenassociations

Directory availability on website http://www.napc.gov.ph/BS_Directory.htmList ismainly based on sectoral representatives in theCommission

Data is available at the Science EducationInstitute

Data is available on website http://www.pcnc.com.ph/NGOList.php

1999- 2000 database is available

Data is available on website http://code-ngo.org/codedb/

The service is available through the Securitiesand Exchange Commission I-View service https://ireport.sec.gov.ph/iview/login.jsp. Data canalso be requested in hard copy from the SECManagement Information System Division. Bothare paid services.

> 3,600

46

~220

~ 50

522

718

~600

~110,000

1. DSWD- RegulatoryBureau and theKALAHI-CIDSS program

2. National Commissionon the Role of FilipinoWomen (NCRFW)

3. National Anti-PovertyCommission (NAPC)

4. Department of Scienceand Technology

5. Philippine Council forNGO Certification(PCNC)

6. Association ofFoundations

7. Caucus of Develop-ment NGO Networks(CODE-NGO)

8. Securities andExchange Commission(SEC)

Number

Source: Organizational websites.

Annex 2Preliminary Listing of NGO Data Bases


Chap

ter

1


1. Philippine Australian Community AssistanceProgram (Australia)PACAP Secretariat, Australian Embassy, Level 23,Tower 2 RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala Ave., Makati City1200; Telephone (02) 757-8101

The Program aims to support community-initiatedsustainable poverty alleviation programs andactivities and assist capability-building initiativesof the non-profit sector (primarily NGOs and POs).It also aims to support LGUs so that they canprovide services that meet community needs. PACAPfocuses on activities that aim to reduce povertyboth directly and indirectly by: a) improvingcommunity access to basic services; b)strengthening the management and implementationcapacity of key local service providers; and c)helping to build relationships betweencommunities, NGOs, POs and LGUs.

2. Small Project Scheme (New Zealand)New Zealand Agency for InternationalDevelopment (NZAID),New Zealand Embassy Manila, 23rd Floor BPIBuendia Center, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City;Telephone (02) 891-5358 to 67 ext 210, Telefax (02)891-5357

The principal objective of the SPS is to contribute tothe efforts of the Government of the Philippines andthe Filipino people to achieve poverty eliminationthrough equitable and sustainable social andeconomic development. Programmes and projectsshould have direct relevance to NZAID’s countryprogramme thematic objectives as follows: a)natural resource management; b) activitiesconcerning indigenous peoples including Muslimminority; and c) activities which seek to enhancethe quality and sustainability of governance.

3. Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction (AsianDevelopment Bank)Office of Cofinancing Operations, AsianDevelopment Bank, P.O. Box 789, Mandaluyong,

Annex 3

Metro Manila; Telephone (02) 632-6527, Telefax(02) 636-2182

The program provides grants related to the ADBlending program in the Philippines. Grants shouldfocus on activities which: a) respond directly to theneeds of the poorest and most vulnerable groupsthrough new and innovative methods; b) supportinitiatives that lead to rapid, demonstrable benefitswith positive prospects of developing intosustainable activities; or c) build ownership,capacity, empowerment and participation of localcommunities, NGOs and other civil society groupsto facilitate their involvement in operationsfinanced by ADB.

4. Japan Social Development Fund (World Bank)The World Bank Office Manila, 23rd Floor Tai PanBuilding, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Telephone (02)637-5855

The Fund provides grants to NGOs that are closelylinked to World Bank’s lending program in thecountry. The grants are intended to focus onactivities which: a) respond directly to the needs ofthe poorest and most vulnerable groups; b)encourage the testing of innovative methods; c)support initiatives that lead to rapid, demonstrablebenefits with positive prospects of developing intosustainable activities; or d) build ownership,capacity, empowerment and participation of localcommunities, NGOs and other civil society groupsto facilitate their involvement in operationsfinanced by the World Bank.

5. Civil Society Fund (World Bank)The Civil Society Fund, The World Bank OfficeManila, 23rd Floor Taipan Place, F. Ortigas Jr.Avenue (formerly Emerald Ave.), Ortigas Center,Pasig City, Telephone (02) 917-3042, 637-5870

The Bank has small grants program that providesfinancial assistance for NGO activities undertakingprojects in specific areas of development. These

Official Development Assistance Facilities for Non-government Organizations

Chap

ter



areas change from year to year. For fiscal year2010, the theme is community-based disaster riskmanagement.

6. Global Environmental Facility- Small Grants Fund(United Nations)UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme, 30th FloorYuchengco Tower I RCBC Plaza 6819 Ayala Avenuecor. Sen. Gil. J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City; Telephone(02) 901-0220/901-0265, Telefax (02) 843-0978,899-0200

The fund supports small scale activities initiated bycommunity-based organizations, people’sorganizations, and NGOs. The fund assists theseorganizations in the areas of bio-diversityconservation, climate change mitigation, protectionof international waters, phasing out or persistentorganic pollutants through community basedinitiatives and action.

7. Canada Fund for Local Initiatives (Canada)Canada Fund Coordinator, c/o Philippines-CanadaCooperative Office, 9/F Salcedo Towers, 169 H.V.dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City,Telephone (02) 813-8264

The program is aimed at supporting activitiesrelated to community development and povertyalleviation. Priority is given to health and nutrition,basic education, HIV/AIDS, child protection, genderequality strengthening, and providing for basichuman needs.

8. International Development Research Center(Canada)IDRC Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia,22 Cross Street #02-55, South Bridge Court (ChinaSquare Central), Singapore 048421, Email:[email protected], Website: http:// www.idrc.org.sg

The office supports research activities ofdeveloping countries on a broad range of topicssubmitted by various sectors (government,academe, research institutions, NGOs), specificallyon poverty monitoring, natural resourcesmanagement, effective use of ICTs.

9. Finnish Fund for Local Cooperation (Finland)Embassy of Finland, 21st Floor Buendia Center, Sen.Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, Telephone (02) 891-5011 to 15, Telefax (02) 891-4107

The program aims to complement other Finnishdevelopment cooperation efforts in the fields ofpoverty alleviation, social development, promotionof human rights, good governance andenvironmental protection. Priority areas include: a)projects which aim at reducing poverty in asustainable way; b) projects which enhance thestatus of the most vulnerable in society,specifically indigenous peoples, women, childrenand the disabled; c) promotion of human rights andgood governance ( for example, projects within theareas of civic education and awareness raising,participatory development and gender equality);and, d) concrete measures taken to improve thecondition of the environment and/or awarenessraising on environmental issues.

10. Grant Assistance for Grassroots Human SecurityProjects (Japan)Economic Section, Embassy of Japan, 2627 RoxasBlvd., Manila (PO Box 414 Pasay Central PostOffice) http://www.ph.emb-japan.go.jp/

The program aims to aid self-supporting socio-economic development activities to benefit sectorsat the grassroots level; particular emphasis isplaced on poverty-alleviation and livelihoodimprovement.

11. Cooperacion Española (Spain)Coordinator General, Cooperacion Española, 28-BRufino Pacific Tower, Ayala Avenue, Makati City

The agency provides assistance to NGOs whichcontribute to the achievement of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, the sustainable humandevelopment, strengthening of democracy andaddressing concerns of various vulnerable sectorsin the Philippine society. The areas of assistanceinclude governance; coverage for social needs(education, health and water); environment; genderand development; peace building and prevention ofconflict; culture and development.


Chap

ter

1


12. Dialogue on Governance Assistance Facility(European Union)Delegation of the European Commission to thePhilippines, 30/F, Tower 2, RCBC Plaza, 6819 AyalaAve. cor. Gil Puyat, Makati City; Telephone (02) 859-5100

The overall objective is to contribute to improvinggovernance as underlying condition for reachingthe Millennium Development Goals. It is created tosupport and showcase innovative models forpartnerships that will build on complementarycapacities of different stakeholders in localgovernance. The models should increase efficiencyand effectiveness and reinforce accountability ofLGUs and for them to provide public goods thatrespond to the needs of all sections of thecommunity, including the poor.Some of the priority areas for financing are thedevelopment of participatory governancestructures, citizens’ feedback mechanisms, andcivil society representation in sectoral committees.

13. Expanding Participation of Persons withDisabilities in Development Programming(United States)

United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment/ Philippines,P. O. Box EA 423, Ermita, Manila

The program is designed to solicit applications forfunding from prospective partners to includepeople with disabilities into developmentprogramming or to work with disabled peoplesorganizations for better understanding andinclusion in programs being undertaken by theUnited States Agency for International Development(USAID), to strengthen their participation,management and implementation of inclusiveprograms for people with disabilities in thenational and local governments, and better informUSAID of context or specific needs of people withdisabilities within their programs or countries.

14. Embassy Funds. There are several diplomaticposts in Manila that have funding mechanismsavailable for non-government organizations. Thisincludes the American and Dutch embassies, amongothers, but no details were provided as of thiswriting.

Source: National Economic and Development Authority; various donor websites.

Chap

ter



A. Registration of Non-Stocks

The Philippine Corporation Code provides a veryexhaustive framework for the incorporation andorganization of NPOs. All non-stock, non-profitcorporations have to register themselves with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a bodyattached to the Office of the President which registersall corporate entities. Non-stock, non-profitcorporations are defined by Batas Pambansa 68 or theCorporation Code of the Philippines as legal entitieswhich do not have “capital stock [that are] divided intoshares and are authorized to distribute to the holders ofsuch shares dividends or allotments of the surplusprofits on the basis of the shares.” A non-stockcorporation is one where no part of its income isdistributable as dividends to its members, trustees, orofficers, subject to the provisions of the CorporationCode, provided that any profit which a non-stockcorporation may obtain as an incident to its operationsshall, whenever necessary or proper, be used for thefurtherance of the purpose or purposes for which thecorporation was organized (section 87, CorporationCode)

SEC has issued the SEC Citizens’ Manual for Registrationof Corporations and Partnerships to assist the public inthe registration process. The Manual provides matriceswhich are user-friendly, can be accessed at SEC’swebsite (http://www.sec.gov.ph/) under the subheadingPublication. Non-stocks should submit their articles ofincorporation and by-laws and their membership bookto SEC. Additional endorsements and/or clearances arerequired to be made from other government agencies,per regulations covering the organization type (i.e.,social welfare agencies are required to get a clearancefrom the Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment, non-profit hospitals from the Departmentof Health). The names of contributors to theorganization’s paid up capital should also be certifiedby the organization’s treasurer.

Annex 4Regulatory Rules for Non-Stock, Non-Profit Corporations

1 SEC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 1, Series of 2004 increased the initial minimum contribution for foundations to P1,000,000.00.(http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2004/sec-memo-1,s2004.pdf )2 This was imposed by SEC through SEC Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2006, http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2006/sec-memo-2,s2006.pdf.3 MC No. 3, Series of 2006 http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2006/sec-memo-3,s2006.pdf

Although the Corporation Code states that thecorporation shall adopt its by-laws within a monthafter receipt of official notice of the issuance of itscertificate of incorporation, the Corporation Codeallows its adoption and filing prior to incorporation,together with the other registration documents.

There are additional requirements that a non-stock hasto submit in order to complete the registration process:

1. For foundations: Notarized Certificate of BankDeposit of the contribution of not less than P1,000,000.001; and Statement of Willingness to allowthe Commission to conduct an audit.

2. For federations: Certified list of member-associations by corporate secretary or president.

3. For neighborhood associations: Certification fromthe Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board(HLURB) that there is no other existing homeowners’or similar association in the community where theassociation is to be established.

4. For those engaging in microfinance activities: AllNGOs already engaged in or will engage inmicrofinance activities are mandated to state thesame as one of their purposes in their respectiveArticles of Incorporation. All existing NPOspresently engaged in microfinance activities arerequired to amend their Articles of Incorporationand General Information Sheets to comply with theSEC directive2.

SEC Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2004 defined“foundation” as “ a non-stock, non-profit corporationestablished for the purpose of extending grants andendowments to support its goals or raising funds toaccomplish charitable, religious, educational, athletic,cultural, literary, scientific, social welfare or othersimilar objectives.” All foundations are now requiredto deposit their funds in a banking institution regulatedby the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.


Chap

ter

1


There are also several disclosure requirements issuedby SEC. The specific address of their principal officeand of each incorporator, trustee or partner, isrequired.3 There are specific filing fees for non-stocks.

SEC has formal and informal links with othergovernment agencies with regards to application ofspecific types of non-stock, non-profit corporations. Forexample, SEC has established links for assessing thevalidity of applications:

1. of social welfare organizations with the Departmentof Social Welfare and Development;

2. of entities using the word “police” in theircorporate name or with a “peace and orderpurpose” with the Philippine National Police;

3. filed by persons with derogatory records as foundin the “watch lists” of Philippine National Police;

4. of educational institutions with the Department ofEducation, the Commission on Higher Educationand the Technical Education Skills and DevelopmentAuthority;

5. of hospitals with the Department of Health;6. of professional organizations with the Professional

Regulatory Commission;7. of voluntary fire brigades with the Bureau of Fire

Protection of the Department of Interior and LocalGovernment (DILG).

B. Availability of Information on Non-Stocks

All documents submitted to SEC are available to thepublic:

1. Upon request from the Public Relations Unit (PRU)for photocopies or certification for a minimal fee tocover costs.

2. Through the SEC-I-View which can be accessed viathe SEC website (https://ireport.sec.gov.ph/iview/login.jsp). The SEC I-View is one of the componentsof the agency’s web facility (which includes the SEC-I-Register) and was funded from the E-GovernmentFund. Through this facility, one can view the actualsubmissions of NGOs, including their articles ofincorporation and by-laws, the general information

1 SEC Memorandum Circular 7, series of 2008, revises slightly the dates of submission of the audited financial statements. http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2008/sec-memo-07,s2008.pdf2 SEC Memorandum Circular 13, series of 2009, requires auditors and audit firms be registered with the SEC for purposes of assessing the veracity ofnature of these individuals and corporations. http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2009/sec%20memo%20no.%2013,s2009.pdf3 Section 22 of the Corporation Code states that “if a corporation has commenced the transaction of its business but subsequently becomes continuouslyinoperative for a period of at least five (5) years, the same shall be a ground for the suspension or revocation of its corporate franchise or certificate ofincorporation.”

sheet and audited financial statements. Access tothis facility can be made through electronic creditsfrom the SEC head office.

All data included in the Articles of Incorporation isencoded in the SEC-I-View. The SEC I-View is one of thecomponents of the agency’s web facility (which includesthe SEC-I-Register) and was funded from the E-Government Fund. Through this facility, one can viewthe actual submissions of NGOs, including their articlesof incorporation and by-laws, the general informationsheet and audited financial statements.

Organizations are required to provide the address ofthe non-profit organization, telephone and contactnumbers, names of officers, trustees and members, theiraddresses and amount of contributions and number ofstaff. The General Information Sheet is submittedannually within 30 days from date of the annualmeeting of the NPO as stated in the corporate by-laws.

An independent certified public accountant’scertification is required for organizations with totalassets of P 500,000.00 or more or with gross receipts ofP100,000.00 or more for the fiscal year. In other cases,the financial statements may instead be attested andsworn to by the corporation’s treasurer. Publicdisclosure of the non-stock, non-profit records andcoordination with the Bureau of Internal Revenue,Philippine National Police and anti-graft agencies areimportant.

Non-stock organizations are also required to submitaudited financial statements of their assets andliabilities, certified by any independent certified publicaccountant in appropriate cases, covering thepreceding fiscal year. The audited financial statementsare required to be submitted within 120 days after theend of the fiscal year as specified in the By-laws4. SECfurther requires that the Board of Accountancy numberbe supplied.5

Based on the random sampling undertaken by theCaucus of Development NGO Networks and the CharityCommission (2008), only approximately a quarter of

Chap

ter



non-stocks regularly submit their general informationsheets and audited financial statements to SEC. Thus,one of the actions taken by SEC is to regularly clean upthe list of organizations in its list. This action is basedon Sections 22 and 141 of the Corporation Code andSection 5 of the Securities Regulation Code amendingPresidential Decree (PD) 902-A6. Non-compliance byany corporation of the requirement to submit GIS orAudited Financial Statements continuously for 5consecutive years is tantamount to non-operation andprovides just cause for SEC to revoke certificates ofregistration of these corporations. As a result, SEC hasrevoked the certificates of registration of corporationswhich have not submitted the required reportorialrequirements, trimming down the number of registeredNPOs from a peak of approximately 152,000 in 2002 toless than 80,000 in March, 2008.

C. Monitoring of Issues and Concerns of Non-Stocks

SEC has tightened its monitoring of non-stock, non-profit corporations; more recently, it has issuedMemorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 2006, whichprovides for additional reportorial requirements forfoundations. In addition, in 2006, it requiredorganizations to state specifically if they conductmicrofinance operations under the Social Reform andPoverty Alleviation Act. SEC’s mandate as a corporateregistration agency allows it to monitor compliancewith the reportorial requirements and other pertinentprovisions of the Corporation Code, especially withrespect to “ultra vires” acts, which include fraudulentand illegal activities as well as those not within itspurposes. In other words, SEC has the power to examinewith thoroughness the reports and data submitted byNGOs but, it claims, it does not have the humanresources to do it because of the huge volume of reportsand data.

SEC MC No. 6, series of 2008, (http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2008/sec-memo-05,s2008.pdf) providesGuidelines on On-Site Verification of Financial RecordsRelative to Certain Applications Filed with theCommission, for the purpose of ensuring accuracy andcompleteness of the information submitted to theCommission.

In addition to the reportorial requirements, foundationsare required to submit a Statement of Funds under oathby the President within 120 days after the end of thefiscal year as specified in the By-laws, setting forth indetail the sources and amounts of funds established

and the names of the beneficiaries and thecorresponding amounts of funds granted or endowedthereto by the foundation.

While SEC does not analyze data on NPOs, it requiresthat their financial statements be audited by certifiedpublic accountants before submission to it.Accountants must have board of accountancy numbersand statements of representation in the files of SEC. Astatement of management responsibility and thegeneral information sheet signed by the corporationpresident or the corporate secretary are also required.

D. Investigation of Complaints Against Non-Stocks

SEC has inherent powers under its charter toinvestigate complaints of wrongdoings by registeredNPOs, such as violations of the Corporation Code andother related laws, rules and regulations. SEC haspowers to subpoena documents from theseorganizations and to require witnesses to attendhearings.

At present there are 43 staff, including 13 investigators,in SEC’s Compliance and Enforcement Department(CED), the body within SEC that acts on complaints fromthe general public. The staff is qualified to act oncomplaints received from the public, which may or maynot be given due course depending on the facts andcauses of action cited, as may be determined by theInvestigating Officer/s. A CED informant stated thatthere are very few complaints filed or investigationsundertaken against non-stocks.

SEC acts on and investigates complaints against non-stock, non-profit organizations on the basis ofcomplaints received from the public. Where the initialinvestigation finds that the facts and causes of actionmay cause serious damage to the public, fullinvestigation is conducted in accordance with itsinternal administrative procedures until a finaldisposition of the case is reached.

The general public is encouraged to use adownloadable form, which can be e-mailed or sent viapostal mail. The complainant should state his/hername, mail and email addresses, and telephonenumbers; name, mail and email addresses, telephonenumbers, and website address of the individual orcompany complained about, and specific details of thecomplaint.


Chap

ter

1


The Complaints and Investigation Division of CEDevaluates the complaint. It is the general policy of SECto keep the investigations confidential to preserve theintegrity of its investigative process and to protectpersons against whom unfounded charges may bemade.

Information about public enforcement actions arepublished at SEC’s website. The investigations areundertaken with a “project management approach,” i.e.,meeting set targets according to an agreed-upontimetable and reassessing the plan of investigation atregular intervals.

It is noteworthy to reiterate that SEC’s mandate coversboth the capital market regulation and the registrationof corporation and partnerships and as such, CEDhandles investigations of violations not only of theCorporation Code, but also of the Securities andRegulation Code as well as all other securities relatedlaws.

E. Protection of Non-Stocks

SEC’s powers to protect non-stock, non-profitorganizations and their beneficiaries from the risk ofmisuse and abuse are basically intertwined with itspower to investigate complaints. The power of SEC toact on and investigate complaints received from thepublic against NPOs or their officers, trustees andmembers is corollary to its power to protect the sameNPOs, their members and beneficiaries.

While SEC has the authority to issue cease and desistorders (CDOs), insofar as non-stocks are concerned,these CDOs can be availed of only if SEC finds probablecause that the NPOs have committed a violation of theSecurities Regulation Code (SRC) or any rules

promulgated in the CODE. In other words, if the non-stock organization and its officers, directors and staffare found to have committed fraud relative tomismanagement of NPO funds (which is not related tosecurities matters as defined under the SRC), the remedyof the members and/or beneficiaries is to file anapplication before the regular courts for a preliminaryattachment and/or injunction over the non-stock’sassets and funds.

SEC, on its part, can impose administrative fines andpenalties against the NPO, suspension or revocation ofits certificate of registration, without prejudice to thefiling of criminal cases before the regular court againstthe responsible officers, trustees and/or members.

F. Mitigation of Risks and Issues Among Non-Stock, Non-Profit Organizations

SEC has been undertaking several consultations anddialogues with various non-government sectors to fine-tune policies on corporate governance. It hasundertaken dialogues with the Philippine Council forNGO Certification and the Caucus of Development NGONetworks on donors’ efforts to strengthen NGOregulation in the country.

In addition, SEC has initiated efforts to partner withother regulatory agencies to understand and enhancethe NGO sector. For example, it has entered into aMemorandum of Agreement (MOA) with DSWD oncoordination between them on matters involving socialwelfare agencies whose secondary registration,licensing and accreditation have been revoked. Therehave been moves to enhance existing MOAs between SECand the Department of Health and the ProfessionalRegulation Commission.

Source: Caucus of Development NGO Networks and the Charity Commission (2008).

Chap

ter



1 SEC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 1, Series of 2004increased the initial minimum contribution forfoundations to P1,000,000.00. (http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2004/sec-memo-1,s2004.pdf )

2 This was imposed by SEC through SEC MemorandumCircular No. 2, series of 2006,http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2006/sec-memo-2,s2006.pdf.

3 MC No. 3, Series of 2006http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2006/sec-memo-3,s2006.pdf

4 SEC Memorandum Circular 7, series of 2008, revisesslightly the dates of submission of the audited financialstatements.http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2008/sec-memo-07,s2008.pdf

(Endnotes)(Endnotes)(Endnotes)(Endnotes)(Endnotes)

5 SEC Memorandum Circular 13, series of 2009, requiresauditors and audit firms be registered with the SEC forpurposes of assessing the veracity of nature of theseindividuals and corporations.http://www.sec.gov.ph/circulars/cy,2009/sec%20memo%20no.%2013,s2009.pdf

6 Section 22 of the Corporation Code states that “if a corporation has commenced the transaction of itsbusiness but subsequently becomes continuouslyinoperative for a period of at least five (5) years, thesame shall be a ground for the suspension or revocation of its corporate franchise orcertificate of incorporation.”

Chap

ter

2


People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesA Review of the People’s Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges

Chapter 2


IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

This paper provides a brief overview of the state ofpeople’s organizations. These sectors, excepting thenon-government organizations and cooperatives,comprise the fourteen ‘basic sectors’ identified asmarginalized groups under the Republic Act 8425 or theSocial Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act. This paperalso consolidates the sectoral papers written on therural poor (authored by Ma. Dolores Bernabe), urbanpoor (Ana Teresa de Leon- Yuson and Ma. TanyaGaurano), formal, informal and overseas workers(Jeremaiah Opiniano), women (Elizabeth Yang and ElenaMasilungan) and social sectors (Philip Tuaño) for theCivil Society Resource Institute.

People’s organizations (POs) are usually defined asmembership-based organizations formed largely on avoluntary basis (occasionally having full-time staff)function as community-sector, or issue-based primarygroups at the grassroots (e.g., trade unions,environmental advocacy groups, peasant groups, etc.),are bona fide associations of citizens withdemonstrated capacity to promote the public interestand with identifiable leadership, membership andstructure. These organizations undertake variousactivities, from provision of basic services, such ashealth, education and nutrition, water and sanitation,to environmental services, including protection andconservation activities, to participation in localgovernment affairs.

There are several defining characteristics of theseorganizations. According to Korten (1990), theseorganizations are defined by three characteristics: a) amutual benefit association that bases its legitimacy onthe ability to serve its members; b) a democraticstructure that gives members ultimate authority over itsleaders; and c) self-reliance so that its continuedoperations does not depend on external initiative orfunding. Buendia (2005) noted that there are threeimportant dimensions of the definition of theseorganizations. These are: a) structure, which defineshow members relate to one another; b) purpose, or theobjectives or aims of the organization; c) membershipbasis, which defines who are those who belong to theseorganizations. The terms associated with structure are‘associations’ or ‘groups, with purpose, ‘public good’,‘welfare of members’, and with membership basis,‘basic sectors’, ‘common bond’, ‘citizens’, ‘voluntary’ and‘spatial’.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly recognizesthe role of people’s in democratic development andenshrines their right to participate on all levels ofdecision-making. This has been formalized in many ofthe provisions in the Constitution, including thefollowing:

• Article II, section 23 or the promotion of ‘non-governmental, community-based or sectoralorganizations’ by the State;

PPPPPeople’eople’eople’eople’eople’s Organizations (POs) in the Philippiness Organizations (POs) in the Philippiness Organizations (POs) in the Philippiness Organizations (POs) in the Philippiness Organizations (POs) in the Philippines

A Review of the People’s Organizations Sector: The Necessityof Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges

Chap

ter

2People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesA Review of the People’s Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges


• Article XIII, section 3, which recognizes theright to self-organization by workers and affordthese organizations full protection;

• Article XIII, section 15, which recognizes therole of people’s organizations to pursue theircollective interests through peaceful means;

• Article XIII, section 16, which acknowledges theright of people and their organizations toparticipate in decision-making, and requiresthe state to establish adequate consultativemechanisms in government.

• Article II, section 14, recognizing the role ofwomen in nation-building and ensuring thefundamental equality before the law of womenand men.

At the international level, there are major internationalinstruments that have been signed by the Philippinegovernment in order to respect the rights of citizens toorganize and articulate their legitimate concerns to thegovernment; these include those adopted by the UnitedNations and other legitimate agencies. According toBuendia (2005), these also include the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948), whichconsists of 30 articles that represent the global list ofrights that all human beings are entitled to, and twoattendant global agreements, the InternationalConvention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(1966) and the International Convention on Civil andPolitical Rights (1976). The International Conventionon the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination(1965) provided the framework for abolition of hatredand intolerance among specific population groups. TheConvention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1979) providedthe International Framework on Women’s Rights.

At the national level, specific political and sociallegislation that strengthens the participation of themarginalized groups have been enacted. The SocialReform and Poverty Alleviation Act of 1997 provides theframework for participation of these sectors in policy-making at the national level. While the Party List ActSystem of 1995 is the enabling law for the participationof the sectors in national legislature, the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 allows for the participationof marginalized groups in the local legislature.

Major Sectoral RMajor Sectoral RMajor Sectoral RMajor Sectoral RMajor Sectoral Responsesesponsesesponsesesponsesesponses, Issues and, Issues and, Issues and, Issues and, Issues andRolesRolesRolesRolesRoles

In the past twenty years, there have been several majorlaws that have been developed for the benefit of themarginalized sectors. In terms of the redistribution ofproductive assets, the Comprehensive Agrarian ReformLaw of 1987 (which provides for the distribution ofpublic and private lands for all types of agriculturalland), the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1996 (whichrecognizes the rights of the indigenous peoples overtheir ancestral domain), the Fisheries Code of 1996(which provides exclusive access to municipal watersamong marginal fisherfolk), and the Urban Developmentand Housing Act of 1992 and the Comprehensive andIntegrated Shelter Financing Act of 1994 have beenenacted (which provides the framework for theprovision of socialized housing for the urban poor).There also many laws that protect women and childrenfrom violence, increase the participation of sectors indecision-making, promote their rights in the communityand in the workplace, and provide access to basicservices and other social needs of these sectors.

The studies identified several major issues that people’sorganizations have been working on, including thefollowing:

a) Political and social exclusion, including lack ofparticipation of specific groups in governance. Atthe national level, while the party list law hasbeen enacted, only a small proportion ofleaders of marginalized groups have beenelected to the House of Representatives. Manyof the government agencies that have been setup to promote and monitor the welfare of thesectors have suffered from limited resourcesand from marginal influence across thegovernment bureaucracy. At the local level,while the Local Government Code has allowedfor the participation in sectors in locallegislative and special bodies, there has beenno enabling law that would provide themechanisms for this; thus only a small portionof the estimated 100,000 seats for the sectorshave been actually filled by them.

b) Economic marginalization, including poverty, lackof security of tenure in the workplace limited

Chap

ter

2



public allocation for services and limited accessto asset redistributive programs, and highunemployment rates. Poverty for many of themarginalized sectors is quite high; Castro(2009) noted, for example, that poverty formany groups have been higher than the povertyincidence at the national level; the sectors withthe highest poverty rates include the fisherfolk(49.9 percent), farmers (44.0 percent) andchildren (40.8 percent). The level ofinformalization in the workplace is quite high;the Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics(2010) reported that majority of senior citizenswork as unpaid family labor while theGovernment of the Philippines (2008) reportthat there are three quarters of a million ofchild laborers in the country. The rural poorhave been affected by the lack of provision ofproductivity enhancing services, includingirrigation, in the country. One of the mainchallenges that the sectors are facing is theliberalization of international trade that haveexposed small producers to increasedcompetition from abroad.

c) Environmental and demographic vulnerability.Over a third of a million urban poorhouseholds reside in danger zones and othervulnerable areas in Metro Manila. The ruralpoor have been affected by numerousenvironmental disasters, including landslides,earthquakes, typhoons and others, affectingmore than four to six million Filipinos,according to the International DisasterDatabase. Uncertainties in the climate hasaffected agricultural productivity and divertedpublic resources to climate changeadaptability.

d) Feminization of poverty and situation ofmarginalized women’s groups. There are severalmillion of Filipina laborers that are workinghere and abroad that have suffered from lowwages and poor working conditions. Womenalso work as unpaid family workers and do notenjoy protective services.

Other sectoral issues

Besides, the major issues listed, there are also othersectoral concerns that are faced by the marginalizedgroups. Access to maternal health services andcomprehensive health care needs to be addressed, andprograms to reduce violence against women andchildren need to be expanded. Landlessness still needsto be addressed; the number of large farms are still thesame in 2002 as in the 1980s, while the agrarian reformprogram still needs to be completed, 22 years after thelaw authorizing such a program was enacted. Labordisplacement, flexibilization of working arrangementsand informalization of work needs to be addressed.Access to credit for housing and livelihood needs to beadequately provided for both urban and rural poor,while increased access to education and other servicesshould be provided to the youth and children, and othersectors.

Roles

According to Deolalikar, Brillantes, Gaiha, Pernia andRacelis (2003), people’s organizations are important interms of strengthening the resilience of theirmembership and create a sense of solidarity andidentity among the poor. These organizations can helpcreate the mechanisms for more creative and inclusiveforms of assistance by the government and by otherstakeholders.

Bautista (2003) noted that POs that are fullyempowered have a mobilizeable base and many of thesehave committed leaders with the mandate andgrounding to represent their constituents innegotiations. They can be effective spokespersons thatcan give a face, articulate and represent their sector’sadvocacy to the government and to the general public.They can be self-reliant and autonomous venues forpeople’s participation and representation.

POs are not the same as non-government organizations(NGOs), nor are POs to be compliant and dependent onNGO. Rather, many POs that have been organized withthe support of NGOs have been autonomous from theseNGOs and capable of standing on its own but providedwith technical support (see for example, the dynamicrelationship between NGOs and POs in undertaking

Chap

ter



community forestry management in Duthy and Bolo-Duthy (2003)). POs envision being autonomous, self-reliant and sustainable organizations that are capableof addressing and promoting the concerns, issues andagenda of their constituent members.

Mapping ofMapping ofMapping ofMapping ofMapping of P P P P People’eople’eople’eople’eople’s Organizationss Organizationss Organizationss Organizationss Organizations

History

The lineage of many civil society groups, includingpeople’s organizations, can be traced from the value ofmutual support or damayan, which was developed outof situations marked by subsistence economicproduction and trading and politico-militaryrelationships between different communities (Cariñoand Fernan, 2002). It is also said that they may also berooted from religious organizations known asconfriadas (meaning confraternity or brotherhood),which sprouted during the Spanish colonial period inthe 17th and 18th centuries; some of these organizations,whose members came mainly from the rural, peasantclass, initiated the first organized attempts against theSpanish rule. The first federation of labor unions in thecountry was founded in 1901, while the first women’sorganizations were founded a few years later in order topush for the right of women to vote. The organization ofan urban poor movement was galvanized in response toa number of demolitions and evictions in the 1950s and1960s.

Characteristics and number

Across different marginalized sectors, people’sorganizations exist in order to provide mutual aid andprotection (i.e., initiating protest actions and legalmoves against eviction, undertaking collectivebargaining negotiations with employers), improving theeconomic welfare of their members (i.e., organizinglivelihood seminars), and strengthening access tosocial services. They also undertake lobbying andadvocacy work, including the initiation of legislativeand administrative reforms to improve the servicesprovided to their constituencies.

Most organizations are primary groups, which exist asthe main unit of membership of marginalized sectors;these are organized at the barangay or municipalitylevel. However, there are secondary and tertiary

organizations, which are federations of differentprimary units, or coalitions of different organizationsthat exist at the municipal, provincial, and nationallevel. POs across different sectors share the samecharacteristics such that they have a leadership andformal/ informal set of rules that provide guidance totheir conduct. These organizations vary in terms of size;primary groups may be fewer than 10 but also canreach thousands.

There is no exact estimate of the number of people’sorganizations in the Philippines. According to Buendia(2005), there were around 300 secondary and tertiarylevel organizations in 2000, whose members areprimary organizations that share the same ideologicaland political platform, and whose organizationalsystems can be quite complex as these are set up byregional or provincial aggrupations. There are alsoaround 121,000 primary organizations in the late1990s, according to the same source, culling data fromvarious government agencies. Using the data onSecurities and Exchange registered organizations in thethe Caucus of Development NGO Networks (2008), thetotal number of registered trade unions andmembership organizations reached more than 41,000 in2007. While POs exist in most, if not all, geographicalareas of the country, most of the registered groups arebased in urban centers, i.e., municipal or town centers,cities.

Major sectoral alliances

There are very few ‘cross-sectoral’ coalitions of people’sorganizations; according to Buendia (2005), most ofthese are the political or advocacy orientedorganizations, such as the Bagong AlyansangMakabayan (BAYAN), the Freedom from Debt Coalition,the Pinagkaisang Lakas ng Sambayanan (SANLAKAS), theCitizens Action Party (AKBAYAN) and others. However,there are numerous federations of people’sorganizations; these include:

• For farmers, the Aniban ng mga Manggagawasa Agrikultura, the Federation of Free Farmers,the Katipunan ng Bagong Pilipina, KilusangMangingisda, the Pambansang Koalisyon ngmga Kababaihan sa Kanayunan, thePambansang Kilusan ng mga SamahangMagsasaka, the Kilusang Magbubukid ngPilipinas;

Chap

ter

2



• For workers and workers in the informal sector,the Kilusang Mayo Uno, the Labor SolidarityMovement, the Federation of Free Workers, andthe Trade Unions Congress of the Philippines;the Pambansang Kalipunan ngManggagagwang Impormal ng Pilipinas, theHomenet and Katinig;

• For women, the General Assembly BindingWomen for Reform, Integrity, Equality,Leadership and Action (GABRIELA), and theWomen’s Action Network for Development;

• For urban poor, the Urban Poor Alliance (or UP-ALL);

• For social sectors, the Coalition of OlderPersons Associations of the Philippines andthe Federation for Senior Citizens Associationsof the Philippines; Student Council Associationof the Philippines, Confederation of StudentGovernments in the Philippines, the Union ofCatholic Student Councils of the Philippinesand the National Union of Students in thePhilippines.

Areas of success of people’s organizationwork

There are several areas where the work of people’sorganizations’ alliances or federations have beenrelatively successful. Razon-Abad and Miller (1997) andMagadia (2003) discuss the role of people’sorganizations in the advocacy of landmark legislationin agrarian reform, urban land reform and socializedhousing, fisheries and aquatic reform and labor rightsand welfare. Their work has resulted in the legislationof many social reform laws (listed above) that hasstrengthened legal protection and developmentprograms for them.

Some of the factors for policy success are the presenceof a professional/ semi-professional staff, strategicallycohesive organization (in terms of sectoral interests),clear decision making mechanisms, the ‘degree ofefficiency within the organization’, the ability to buildalliances among influential policymakers and powerbrokers, the willingness and capacity to negotiate withgovernment and to accept the validity of incrementalreform, and effective grassroots organizing efforts tohelp sustain the institutional base of people’sorganization.

POs have the organized numbers that can be utilizedand mobilized as the base constituents for advocacyactivities. If well organized, united and broadlyrepresented (not just only representing their localcommunity but is geographically broad enough to cutacross regions), the POs would be in a strategic andmore effective position to negotiate, leverage andrepresent their sector in negotiating and advocatingtheir sector’s interests to the government.

Bautista (2003) also provides cases of people’sorganizations in program implementation for povertyreduction, especially in areas of interface with thenational and local government. The successfulinstances of implementation occurs when communitymobilization is undertaken before projectimplementation itself, support (both financial/ materialand moral) can be provided for the PO leaders and thatsufficient skills are provided to the people’sorganizations supporting them.

SWSWSWSWSWOOOOOT Analysis ofT Analysis ofT Analysis ofT Analysis ofT Analysis of the P the P the P the P the People’eople’eople’eople’eople’sssssOrganizations SectorOrganizations SectorOrganizations SectorOrganizations SectorOrganizations Sector

What could be the analysis of the institutionalcapacities of people’s organizations? The following is asummary of the list of internal strengths andweaknesses, and external opportunities and threats(SWOT) for the sector.

Strengths

There are several internal strengths of people’sorganizations. They underlie the fact that most of theseorganizations are autonomously run and are dependenton the willingness and ability of the generalmembership to handle their own affairs. Theseorganizations are linked to NGOs and different sectorsin the local level, including the local government, theChurch and other groups. Despite the decliningmembership among trade unions, there are many otherorganization types, including workers in the informalsector groups that have reported increasingmembership in the past decade. More specifically, theirstrengths include the following:

1. Organizational leadership. Many of theseorganizations have been run by leaders knownfor their articulation of the concerns of the

Chap

ter



sector. Many of these leaders have beenrecognized for their deep knowledge andexpertise of the different issues surroundingtheir respective sectors. They also have beeninvited as members of different sectoral andmulti-sectoral councils in the country, such asthe National Anti-Poverty Commission and theNational Economic and Development Authority,and abroad, such as the United Nations. At thelocal level, they represent their constituenciesin the local legislation and local specialbodies. They have contributed to the increasingacceptance by the general public of theirconcerns.

2. Advocacy experience and capacity to influencegovernment policies and programs. Manypeople’s organizations, especially at thenational level, have influenced thedevelopment of laws and government ordersthat have benefited the sector. They can easilyprovide feedback on the appropriateness ofdraft policies and programs for the sector. Theycan undertake cost-effective work that canhighlight the importance of proposed policiesfor the sectors.

3. Relatively long experience in providing servicesto their constituencies and increasing theirawareness of their rights. People’sorganizations have significant experiences inproviding services to their constituencies,especially in areas where government is notpresent. With the support of non-governmentorganizations and cooperatives, they haveprovided skills training and employmentseminars, and provided credit and productivityenhancing services to their membership.

Weaknesses

Most federations of people’s organizations have existedonly in the past 20 or 30 years; many known people’sorganizations that have existed in the 1970s or 1980shave disbanded. Thus organizations need to managetheir dynamics and need to constantly refreshobjectives. Some of the internal weaknesses of people’sorganizations are as follows:

1. Limited organizational capacities, specifically the

need to improve leadership succession. Manyfederations and networks have had the sameleaders for more than a decade and it isincreasingly difficult to make organizationwork attractive for a younger generation ofsectoral leaders. At the same time, many ofthese leaders are involved in advocacy andcampaign work that they have sometimesundertaken their activities to the detriment ofother organizational tasks, such as expansionand stabilization of their organizations, and attimes, to the detriment of improving theirfamily’s welfare. Training of a new set ofleaders is then an important aspect of theirwork. At the same time, many people’sorganizations lack the technical skills to runprojects and some rely on hiring skilledprofessionals to undertake specializedprograms. Many people’s organizations arealso dependent on non-governmentorganizations.

2. Financial constraints. Many resourceorganizations have increasingly focused onservice provision to marginalized sectors andmay have de-emphasized the need to build onthe organizational capacities of these sectorsso that they can assist themselves. Thus, in thepast two decades, there has been a markeddecline in financial resources provided bydevelopment donors and non-governmentorganizations that could be available for them.Nevertheless, many organizations continue toexist utilizing their internally generatedresources, including membership fees, orservice fees.

3. Fragmentation of organizations. Over the pastfour decades, many trade union federations,for example, have been created due to the‘recorded and alleged’ internal disputes withinthe labor sector, and due to the fact that the‘ideological biases’ of some POs havecontributed to the fragmentation andconstrained the unity of the sector. There arealso very few true multi-sectoral coalitionsthat can represent the interests of people’sorganizations.

Chap

ter

2



Opportunities

Under the current Aquino administration, there areexpectations that people’s organizations wouldcontinue to flourish and make a significant impact inthe lives of ordinary Filipinos. The following are theexternal opportunities of people’s organizations:

1. Policy and legal environment, including thecountry’s international commitments. ThePhilippine Constitution recognizes theimportance of people’s organizations inadvocating the interests of the poor andmarginalized. The Philippines is also signatoryto many global rights covenants, including theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, theUnited Nation’s Millennium Development Goals(MDG) the International Convention onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights, theInternational Convention on Civil and PoliticalRights, the International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women (CEDAW) and the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of all Forms ofRacial Discrimination. This is an opportunityfor sectoral organizations to advocate sectoralprograms to the government and to widen thestructures for participation of the sectoralgroups.

While a favorable policy environment does notguarantee that the interests of the POs areensured or even addressed, this also shows theimportance of developing an organized andvigilant POs. In most cases, favorable policyenvironments need to be enforced and realizedby vigilant and organized POs that are capableof effectively demanding for these gains to beenforced. People’s organizations need to widenthe scope of mechanisms for participation ingovernance.

2. Existence of mechanisms for participation ofthe poor. Many people’s organizationsparticipate in the formal decision-making andconsultative bodies that have been createdacross the national government in order torepresent their interests; these include theNational Anti-Poverty Commission, thePhilippine Commission on Women, the

Presidential Commission on the Urban Poor,and the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council,among others. There are also mechanisms forparticipation at the local level, including thepresence of local special bodies, wherepeople’s organizations also are represented.The party list system has also opened a venuefor participation of these groups in craftingnew policies.

3. Partnership agreements with government.People’s organizations also have formalagreements with national and localgovernment units in undertaking specificprograms. This has resulted in the developmentof special NGO-PO desks in differentgovernment agencies. Many governmentbureaucrats also recognize the importance ofthese groups in their work.

Threats

Poor delivery of the social reforms (e.g. adequatehousing, basic social services, agrarian reform) isattributed by the POs to the government’s lack ofpolitical will and prioritization for social programsthat would pursue the agenda of the basic sectors. Thelack of the provision of the full financial requirementsof asset redistribution measures and the minimalpolitical support for the development of participatorymechanisms has had an impact in the people’sorganizations’ trust in government’s poverty alleviationalleviation. (See for example, the Philippine Partnershipfor the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areasor PHILDHRRA (2008) and the Caucus of DevelopmentNGO Networks or CODE-NGO (2010)).

Areas fAreas fAreas fAreas fAreas for Interor Interor Interor Interor Intervvvvvention and supporention and supporention and supporention and supporention and supportttttfor the PO Sectorfor the PO Sectorfor the PO Sectorfor the PO Sectorfor the PO Sector

Based on the findings of the subsectoral studies and theresults of the focus group discussions, the following aresome of the recommendations:

1. Support for strengthening the capacities ofmarginalized groups. There are manyfederations with the capacity for widening thenumber of people’s organizations; these can

Chap

ter



represent the interests of the poor at thenational and local level. Support can beprovided to these organizations in terms oforganizing their respective constituencies,strengthening their leadership and improvingtheir capacity for analysing issues andavocacy (e.g. understanding governmentprocesses). Support can also be provided interms of improving the welfare of their leaders.

2. Strengthening participatory mechanisms forpeople’s organizations in government and theircapacities for policy advocacy. These includeproviding support for developing policy andprogram proposals that can improve thewelfare of the sectors.

3. Private sector-PO partnerships and PO-POexchanges. People’s organizations can benefitfrom further exchanges with business andacademic groups that could help providefinancial and technical expertise to their work.They can also understand how other people’sorganizations across different sectors andwithin their sector have addressed thechallenges in their work.

Concluding RemarksConcluding RemarksConcluding RemarksConcluding RemarksConcluding Remarks

Though the basic sector people’s organizations arecrucial players that can constantly push and checkgovernment’s policies, programs and capacity todeliver social reforms, being organized on a per sectorbasis also has its own weakness. Because people’sorganizations represent the factional/ sectoralinterests of their members, they are sometimes accusedof not balancing the broader interests of society. Thisview has limited their influence in the policy circles.Likewise, as the people’s organizations becomeempowered to articulate and demand their own sectorinterest, they are also seen as a threat to the power ofestablished political groups in the local level. Such isthe dynamics of engagement between and amongpeople’s organizations and various players in the locallevel even up to the national level. It is thereforeimperative to recognize the role and nature of people’sorganizations, as they would ensure that developmentis democratized and responsive to the needs of theirrespective sectors needs and interests.

Chap

ter

2



Bautista, Victoria. 2003. Participatory Governance inPoverty Alleviation. Quezon City: Center forLeadership, Citizenship and Democracy,National College of Public Administration andGovernance, University of the Philippines.

Buendia, Emmanuel. 2005. Democratizing Governance inthe Philippines: Redefining and Measuring theState of People’s Participation in Governance.Quezon City: University of the PhilippinesNational College of Public Administration andGovernance.

Cariño, Ledevina and Ramon Fernan. 2002. “SocialOrigins of the Sector,” in Ledevina Cariño (ed.)Between the State and the Market: The NonprofitSector and Civil Society in the Philippines. QuezonCity: University of the Philippines NationalCollege of Public Administration andGovernance.

Caucus of Development NGO Networks. 2010. CivilSociety Assessment of the 2004- 2010 MediumTerm Philippine Development Plan. Quezon City:CODE-NGO.

References

Duthy, Stephen and Bernadette Bolo-Duthy. 2003.“Empowering people’s organizations incommunity based forestry management in thePhilippines: The community organizing role ofNGOs,” Annals of Tropical Research 25 (2), pp.13- 18.

Korten, David. 1990. Getting into the 21st Century:Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. WestHartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Magadia, Jose. 2003. State- Civil Society Dynamics: PolicyMaking in a Restored Democracy. Quezon City:Ateneo de Manila Press.

Philippine Partnership for the Development of HumanResources in Rural Areas. 2008. The PhilippineAsset Reform Score Card. Quezon City:PHILDHRRA.

Razon-Abad, Henedia and Valerie Miller. 1997. PolicyInfluence: NGO Experiences. Quezon City: AteneoCenter for Social Policy and Public Affairs.

Chap

ter

2


People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesPeople’s Organizations in the Agriculture Sector

The recent campaign on the passage of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension andReform (CARPER) Law, which extended agrarian reformimplementation by five more years, highlights the vitalrole peoples’ organizations, particularly farmersgroups, play in influencing national policies. Indeed,the CARPER campaign is one of the many successfulinitiatives that peoples’ organization – with the supportof non-government organizations and other civil societygroups and actors – have spearheaded to advocate forand claim policies that support their ideal ofagricultural development.

Article 13, Section 15 of the Philippine Constitutiondefines peoples’ organizations as “bona fideassociations of citizens with demonstrated capacity topromote the public interest and with identifiableleadership, membership, and structure.” Members ofpeoples’ organizations define their organization as onethat has direct stakeholders as members - parties thatare directly affected by a particular issue or concern. Asin other organizations, members are united around acommon set of goals, governed by a defined structureand process, and following a specific set of rules andregulations.

It is in pursuing their sectoral interest, particularlytheir survival as a sector amidst changing political,social and economic conditions that peoples’organizations, especially farmers groups, charted thecourse of the peasant movement, as well as those ofother stakeholders’ groups in the sector. For instance,Lara noted that during the Marcos administration, thecontinued existence of authoritarian political andeconomic institutions that prevented the state fromresponding to peasant demands encouraged the latter

to undertake a range of alliance building efforts bothinside and outside the formal political system” (Lara,1990). Today, peoples’ organizations continue to evolvein their advocacies as well as ways of working as theypush for policies and confront new challenges.

It is by understanding peoples’ organizations - theirstrengths and weaknesses - as well as the context ofPhilippine agriculture, including the opportunities andthreats it offers to small agricultural stakeholders thatone can more accurately locate the actual and potentialrole and contribution of peoples’ organizations tosocial, economic and political development. A SWOT(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats)analysis of peoples’ organizations can also provideuseful input in defining areas where support to peoples’organization can yield the best return in terms ofdelivering policies and program that have optimumimpact on small agricultural producers.

Sectoral ContextSectoral ContextSectoral ContextSectoral ContextSectoral Context

The situation of Philippine agriculture provides a usefulprism in understanding peoples’ organizations.Conditions in the sector affect and animate farmers andagricultural stakeholders groups in the same way thatthe latter, depending on their level of influence andempowerment, also impact on policies and programsthat define and shape the sector.

Over the past decades the share of agriculture to thePhilippine economy has been declining. Its share toGross Domestic Product (GDP) has gone down from30.4% in the early half of the 1970s to 18.1 % in 2008(Bureau of Agricultural Statistics and the Association of

People’s Organizations in the Agriculture Sector

Maria Dolores BernabeMaria Dolores BernabeMaria Dolores BernabeMaria Dolores BernabeMaria Dolores Bernabe

Chap

ter

2People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesPeople’s Organizations in the Agriculture Sector


Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN Statistical Yearbook,2008). Similarly, its share to total employment hasdropped from 51.4% in 1980 to 36.1 % in 2007. Formany farmers and agricultural stakeholders’organizations, the diminishing role of agriculture in theeconomy is the effect of government’s poor level ofprioritization of the sector, particularly in terms ofpolicies and resource allocation. Coalitions such as theAlyansa Agrikultura, a broad alliance of peoples’organizations from various commodity groups in thesector, asserts that this low level of priority given toagriculture – reflected mainly in government’s limitedpublic investments in basic and productivity enhancingagricultural support services - is also one of the mainreasons behind the poor performance of this segment ofthe economy.

Irrigation, which has the potential to substantiallyincrease agricultural production and incomes, remainsvery limited. As of 2008, only 1.43 million hectares, or45.89 percent of the country’s total agricultural landshave irrigation facilities (Bureau of AgriculturalStatistics, 2008). Similarly, affordable credit foragricultural production, especially from formalsources, is highly inaccessible to many smallagricultural producers. Agricultural loans account foronly 4.3 percent of total loans in the Philippines in2007 (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, 2008). A studyconducted by Centro Saka (2008) indicates that only 4%of farmers source credit from formal lendinginstitutions. All these data are consistent with the factthat government allocation for agricultural services isvery minimal. Under the Arroyo administration,government spending for the sector accounts for 3.62per cent of the total budget. (Bureau of AgriculturalStatistics, 2008)

Landlessness also remains a major problem for manysmall farmers. While increasing pressures on land haveresulted in smaller farm sizes, large farms remainlargely untouched. In the 1980s, there were 11,738farms under the 25 hectare and above category. As of2002, the number of farms under this category is onlyslightly lower at 11,616. (Bureau of AgriculturalStatistics, 2008)

Governments’ failure to deliver essential productivityenhancing support services for small agriculturalproducers has resulted in low agricultural incomes. Towit, average net returns from palay production, which is

the most dominant source of income in many ruralareas in the Philippines is at only PHP 8,477 per seasonper hectare for non-irrigated lands and PHP 14,063 perseason per hectare for irrigated lands. Average incomefrom yellow corn production is at PHP 14,050. (Bureauof Agricultural Statistics, 2008)

The passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law(CARL) in 1988 and the Agriculture and FisheriesModernization Act (AFMA) in 1997 is just some of thepolicy initiatives undertaken by government to respondto peoples’ organizations’ clamor for land as well as forincreased public investment in the sector. Unfortunatelythe translation of these laws into concrete programsand projects that benefit agricultural producers hasbeen far from optimal. AFMA implementation washampered by limited new resource allocation as well aslack of institutional focus and prioritization. Similarly,the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform ImplementationProgram (CARP) was not fully implemented due tolimited budget, bureaucratic inefficiency and landlordresistance. The last Congress, in response to themassive campaign spearheaded by farmers’ groups,passed the CARPER law to extend the implementationperiod of CARP by five more years to allow governmentto distribute the balance in land tenure improvement.

In the main, it is clear that the core problems of poorsupport services and landlessness in the sector stillexist and are in fact compounded by a new set ofchallenges. The Philippines’ commitment to various freetrade agreements, such as the Association of South EastAsian Nations Free Trade Area-Common EffectivePreferential Tariff scheme (AFTA-CEPT), the ASEAN ChinaFree Trade Area (FTA), the ASEAN Australia New ZealandFTA, among others, liberalized domestic markets andexposed small agricultural producers to increasedcompetition from less priced agricultural imports.Additionally, climate change, manifested mainly inincreasing atmospheric temperatures and extremeweather conditions, is heightening uncertainties inagricultural production.

The presence of these problems undermines theeconomic viability of small agricultural producers andthreatens to exacerbate poverty in the sector. Two thirdsor 61.7 percent of the poor in the Philippines are to befound in rural areas where agriculture is the mainsource of income and livelihood. Moreover, povertyincidence within the sector is very high at 48.5%, which

Chap

ter

2



indicates that almost one out of two people inagriculture is poor (Bernabe and Montemayor, 2006).Addressing poverty in the Philippines cannot beachieved without addressing the problems of theagricultural sector.

In this context, many development organizationsdevoted to poverty alleviation and reduction must lookat agriculture as a significant target area ofintervention. For these organizations, a related andmore relevant question is: what types of interventionwill provide the best return on investments ofdevelopment funds, resources and energy in terms ofimpact on poverty reduction? What initiatives, whensupported, can generate sustainable and broad basedgrowth and development?

As will be seen in the succeeding sections of this paper,peoples’ organizations in the agricultural sectorconsider policy work - advocacy, research and lobbying- as a central strategy to promote agriculturaldevelopment. For many of these groups, influencing thepolicy environment so that it supports rather thanundermines the economic viability and sustainability ofagricultural production is the most strategic andcrucial form of intervention.

Mapping of Peoples’ Organizations inMapping of Peoples’ Organizations inMapping of Peoples’ Organizations inMapping of Peoples’ Organizations inMapping of Peoples’ Organizations inthe Agricultural Sectorthe Agricultural Sectorthe Agricultural Sectorthe Agricultural Sectorthe Agricultural Sector

Stakeholders in agriculture include farmers, agrarianreform beneficiaries, rural women, fisherfolks,farmworkers, and their families. There is no official andexact data on how many farmers and agriculturalstakeholders are actually organized, although thePhilippines has a long list of peoples’ organizations inthe agricultural sector.

Organized stakeholders are affiliated with differenttypes of peoples’ organizations. Some are members oflocal organizations, which may or may not be affiliatedwith national organizations. Others are members ofgroups that are organized according to commodities orsectors, such as the Nagkakaisang Ugnayan ng mgaMagsasaka at Mangagawa sa Niugan (NIUGAN), in thecase of coconut farmers and Kilusang Mangingisda(KM), in the case of fisherfolks. Still, some are formed

by agrarian reform beneficiaries within a community, orfrom a particular landholding, such as the Samahang53 Ektarya, which is formed by agrarian reformbeneficiaries in Montalban, Rizal. Others are organizedby farmworkers, usually from the same plantation.

However, in general, most peoples’ organizations in thesector, including those covered by this study have mixmembership, which means, they have variousstakeholders as members. For instance, groups likePambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka(PAKISAMA), Pambansang Katipunan ng Samahan saKanayunan (PKSK), and Makabayang Alyansa ng mgaMagbubukid ng Pilipinas (MAKABAYAN), among othershave members that include farmers from differentcommodity groups, rural women, fisherfolk, agrarianreform beneficiaries and farmworkers.

Mapping Methodology

In undertaking the mapping, data on the followingpeoples’ organizations were generated throughroundtable discussions, key informants interview,records review and internet sources. By design, themapping exercise covers only national organizations,since these are also composed of local organizationsand hence can provide insights on the operations of thelatter on the ground.

The mapping exercise considered data on the followingorganizations:

• Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura(AMA)

• Pagkakaisa Para sa Tunay na RepormangAgraryo at Kaunlarang Pangkanayunan(PARAGOS-Pilipinas)

• Kapatiran ng Malayang Maliliit naMangingisda (KAMMMPI) –KM MakabayangAlyansa ng mga Magbubukid ng Pilipinas

• Katipunan ng Bagong Pilipina (KABAPA)• Katipunan ng mga Maralitang Magsasaka sa

Kanayunan (KASAMA-KA)• Kilusang Mangingisda (KM)• Makabayang Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid ng

Pilipinas (MAKABAYAN)• Pambansang Koalisyon ng mga Kababaihan sa

Kanayunan (PKKK)• Nagkakaisang Ugnayan ng mga Magsasaka at

Chap

ter



Parameter Indicators

Objectives Vision, Mission, Goals

Membership Number of MembersRecruitment and membership Policies

Geographical presence Chapters in provinces and regions

Governance strsucture Organizational diagramDecision making processRelationship between national and local officesProcess of planning formulation,implementation and evaluation

Nature of Work Programs and projects

Key Advocacies Advocacy agenda

Nature of relationship with government Description of engagement with government

Objectives: Vision, Mission, Goals

Although the exact articulation of vision, mission andgoals vary from one organization to the other, almostall of the peoples’ organizations covered by the studyare organized around two main, broad goals. The firstis to promote a better life for stakeholders in theagricultural sector. This is clearly articulated in theirobjectives, which includes promoting agriculturaldevelopment through asset reform, increased publicinvestment in agriculture, sustainable agriculture andclimate resilience, to name a few.

The second relates to a much broader goal of helpingbring about over-all economic, social and politicaldevelopment. For instance, many peoples’organizations identified the promotion of participatorygovernance as one of their main goals. Someorganizations like PKSK and MAKABAYAN have explicitlyidentified the rejection of neo-liberal economic policiesas one of the end objectives of their respectiveorganizations.

Membership and Geographical Presence

National peoples’ organizations and networks areusually composed of local organizations or chapters.Membership is mainly through local memberorganizations. Some, like the Federation of FreeFarmers, have local chapters, through which membersdirectly affiliate themselves with the organization.

Some organizations are in a position to quantify theirmembers. For instance, PKSK reports that it has 22,000farmers as members, while MAKABAYAN puts itsmembership at 15,000 farmers and their families. FFF,which is one of the oldest farmers’ groups in thePhilippines states that it has 200,000 as members. KMPclaims that it has control over 1.3 million farmers allover the country.

Some organizations, particularly those that arerelatively newly organized, like PKKK, do not have anexact accounting of the number of its members, but canprovide data on the geographical coverage of its

Mangagawa sa Niugan (NIUGAN)• Progresibong Alyansa ng Mangingisda ng

Pilipinas (PANGISDA)-KM• Pambansang Katipunan ng Makabayang

Magbubukid (PKMM)• Pambansang Katipunan ng Samahan sa

Kanayunan (PKSK)• Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang

Magsasaka (PAKISAMA)• Kilusan ng Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KMP)• Federation of Free Farmers (FFF)

As much as possible, the author endeavored to gatherdata on peoples’ organizations, using the followingparameters and indicators.

Chap

ter

2



operations. For instance, PKKK reports that it hascoalition chapters and core groups in 30 provincesacross Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, even though ithas no exact figure on the actual number of itsmembers.

The requirement for membership is fairly simple andstraightforward: members must accept and adhere tothe goals, principles and objectives of the organization,and are expected to attend meetings and participate inthe activities of the same. Many of the members arevery poor, and as such cannot afford to pay membershipdues. Hence, very few organizations are able toregularly and consistently collect membership fees.Dues are very minimal and, usually, only collectedduring the General Assembly, as a requirement tohaving voting rights in the election of the leaders of theorganization.

An organization is considered as national in scope if ithas members, chapters or presence in Luzon, Visayasand Mindanao. A scanning of the geographical presenceof the organizations covered by the study shows that, ingeneral, most peoples’ organizations have greaterpresence in Luzon, followed by Mindanao, and theVisayas.

During the roundtable discussion among leaders fromthe agriculture sector hosted by the Civil SocietyResource Institute (September 1, 2010, PartnershipCenter, Quezon City) , farmer leaders explained that thisis probably because government offices are located inLuzon, and many peoples’ organizations are organizedprimarily to engage government. Also, since many of thenational organizations are formed in Luzon, it is easierfor them to recruit local member organizationsoperating within this region.

Organizational Structures and Processes

The General Assembly (GA), composed ofrepresentatives from local member organizations orchapters, is the highest policy making body for theorganizations covered by this mapping exercise. TheGeneral Assembly, which is convened once every two tothree years, elects the leaders and sets the direction ofthe organization. It is also the venue for organizationalplanning and assessment.

The elected leaders form part of an executive ornational council, which ensures that the directions setby the General Assembly are translated into concreteprograms and activities. The council takes care of theday-to-day operations of the organization. It is usuallycomposed of leaders from the different islandgroupings, and as such also facilitates communicationbetween local members and/or chapters in the regionwith the national office.

Advocacy Agenda

Many peoples’ organizations share the same advocacyagenda, which revolve around the following themes:

1. Full implementation of agrarian reform2. Increased budget and resource allocation for

agricultural support services3. Increased trade protection for small farmers,

and rejection of agricultural tradeliberalization

4. Participatory formulation of a comprehensivedevelopment plan for fisherfolks

5. Strengthening and promotion of democraticand participatory governance

6. Rural development through community basedeconomic and social enterprises

7. Promotion of sustainable agriculture8. Respect for rural women’s property rights9. Asserting the right of indigenous people in

ancestral domain10. Protecting community rights in coastal

resources11. Democratizing access to safe, adequate food

and potable water12. Facilitating women’s access to sustainable and

women-friendly agriculture and fishery supportservices

13. Ensuring women’s representation andparticipation in the implementation of Genderand Development (GAD) and Local SectoralRepresentation

14. Fulfillment of reproductive rights andprotection from all forms of violence and othergender relations

15. Promoting climate resilience

Chap

ter



Nature of work

Peoples’ organizations adopt a range of interventions toachieve their goals and to push for the realization of theiradvocacy agenda. These interventions are not mutuallyexclusive, and are in fact used in a complementaryfashion.

In the main, one can identify six forms of interventionsundertaken by peoples’ organizations in the agriculturalsector:

1. Organizing – this is considered as the foundation ofall the work of peoples’ organizations. It enables thelatter to undertake and sustain all other forms ofinterventions. It involves recruiting members,securing their commitment to a common objectiveand mobilizing them towards the realization of acommon goal;

2. Public advocacy – this refers to articulating farmers’position and advocacy agenda to the broader publicin order to generate attention, support and leveragein pushing for the adoption and implementation ofpolicies consistent with their agenda. Media work,campaigns and mobilizations, mass actions andalliance building are just some of the activities thatfall under public advocacy;

3. Policy advocacy and lobbying – this refers to holdingdialogues and direct interaction, in a sustained andsystematic manner, with officials from the executiveand/or legislative branches of government with theend in view of influencing policies and programs.

4. Economic empowerment – this involves helpingfarmers undertake projects and initiatives that canhelp them improve incomes and/or productivity in asustainable manner. Examples of interventions underthis category include setting up village leveleconomic enterprises and promoting the use oforganic farming practices, among others.

5. Capability building –peoples’ organizations regularlyprovide training to their members to raise theirawareness on particular issues or to improve theircapability to undertake certain activities or assume aspecified set of functions. For instance, organizationsadvocating for agrarian reform implementationprovides their members with training on CARP in the

same way that those involved in the advocacy forgender equality usually provide training onwomen’s rights.

6. Social protection – some peoples’ organizationsprovide social protection to their members, such asthrough the extension of insurance and othersupport to their members.

Nature of engagement with government

Peoples’ organizations can also be classified accordingto the nature of their engagement with government. Inthe main, one can identify four broad types of relatingwith the state:

1. Expose and oppose – engagement under thiscategory is mainly for propaganda value and notintended to actually result in policy and programreform; additionally, engagement is normally in linewith a greater political agenda such as a platformto criticize not just a particular administration, butthe government as a whole;

2. Critical engagement - engagement with thegovernment is based on a critique of existingpolicies and programs, and involves a presentationof possible alternatives;

3. Critical collaboration –under this category, peoples’organizations maintain a critical stance, but engagethe state as part of or within government structuresand processes. An example of this type ofengagement is the participation of various people’sorganizations in the National Anti-PovertyCommission (NAPC).

4. Collaboration – some people’s organizations workwith government and act as implementers ofgovernment policies and programs.

A SWA SWA SWA SWA SWOOOOOT (Strengths-WT (Strengths-WT (Strengths-WT (Strengths-WT (Strengths-Weaknesses-eaknesses-eaknesses-eaknesses-eaknesses-OpporOpporOpporOpporOpportunities-Threats) Analysis:tunities-Threats) Analysis:tunities-Threats) Analysis:tunities-Threats) Analysis:tunities-Threats) Analysis:

Strengths

People’s organizations have positive experiences incharting concrete policy and program gains

Chap

ter

2



People’s organizations have positive experiences inundertaking campaigns and initiatives that haveresulted in concrete policy and program gains. The mostrecent is the campaign for the passage of the CARPERlaw, which gave the executive department the mandateto extend CARP implementation by an additional fiveyears, while plugging some of the loopholes thatundermined agrarian reform. Initially, the chance ofpassing CARPER into law was considered very smallbecause of the strong lobby of landlords in Congress.However, the leadership skills wielded by farmerleaders, who launched a massive campaign from theground up captured the imagination and support of thepublic and created the necessary pressure on Congressto pass the law despite strong opposition from somelegislators.

Another campaign successfully spearheaded by farmersgroups is the extension of the maintenance ofquantitative restrictions (rice QRs) on rice importation.Like the CARPER Law, the possibility of maintaining riceQRs at the start of the campaign was very small.However, farmers’ groups adopted a host of public,executive and legislative advocacy and were able tosuccessfully influence government to heed theirposition.

The organizations have such positive experiences andconcrete policy gains because of several factors:

1. People’s organizations have learned how tomaximize spaces as well as opportunities forengagement in government. For instance, inwaging the campaigns on the rice QRs, farmerleaders actively participated in all relevantlegislative hearings as well as in allconsultations conducted by the Department ofAgriculture on the issue. Similarly, in lobbyingfor CARPER, farmer leaders actively sought andsecured the support of sympathetic legislatorsin pushing for the passage of the bill.

2. People’s organizations have become moreinnovative in their advocacy and lobbying.Borras (1999) documents how farmers’organizations adopted the bibingka strategywhere lobbying pressures were exerted fromthe ground (grassroot level) as well as from thetop (on national executive agencies) to push forland reform implementation in some areas.

3. People’s organizations, with the support ofnon-government organizations, have greateraccess to information, which enable them tobetter respond to issues affecting their sector.

Peoples’ organizations, with the proper organizingsupport, have the potential to offer optimal andsustained return on investments of developmentresources and funds

Investing in organizing farmers’ organizations has thepotential to yield optimal returns in terms of: (1)delivering policies and programs that have tangiblebenefits for small agricultural producers; (2)empowering farmers and enhancing their confidence toparticipate both in the formulation and implementationof policies and programs for their sector; (3) improvingtheir capability to sustain, maximize and build on thegains from their initiatives.

For instance, Soc Banzuela of PAKISAMA cited the caseof the Sumilao farmers. He pointed out that organizingthe Sumilao farmers required minimal cost butgenerated substantial gains for the farmers as well asfor the entire agrarian reform and rural developmentcommunity. Apart from successfully pushing for thedistribution of 50 hectares of land, the Sumilao farmerswere also able to lobby government to provide them thenecessary resources for support services. Moreover,their initiatives helped galvanized support for thepassage of the CARPER law.

Organizing farmers empowers the latter to activelyparticipate in development programs. The InternationalFund for Agricultural Development or IFAD (2009), indrawing lessons from its country strategic program inthe Philippines, reported that the active participation of“stakeholders in project identification and preparationimproves long term impact, due to increasedcommitment to project objectives.”

Participants in the roundtable discussion confirmedthat with proper support, particularly in organizing,peoples’ organizations can deliver concrete gains, bothin terms of policy and services, at the local andnational level.

Peoples’ organizations are in a position to contribute topolicy formulation as well as to monitor and givefeedback on policy and program implementation

Chap

ter



Because peoples’ organizations are composed of actualagricultural stakeholders, they are in the best positionto provide the most grounded input on a particularpolicy program or issue. Additionally, since they are onthe ground, they can easily monitor and providefeedback on the status as well as impact of thegovernment’s implementation of policies and programs.

Many people’s organizations also benefit from the factthat they have committed leaders as well as members,who are very knowledgeable on key issues affecting theagricultural sector. At the same time, people’sorganizations have become innovative and open toadopting a mix of interventions to more effectivelyrespond to the members’ needs.

Weaknesses

The following are the weaknesses of people’sorganizations in the agricultural sector:

Peoples’ organizations need to improve theirorganizational capability, such as organizationalmanagement, fund raising and reporting, among others

Many people’s organizations lost funding supportbecause they were not able to fulfill the documentationand reportorial requirements of donors. As a result,most of the funding support was channeled to non-government organizations, which extended support topeople’s organizations based on their defined programsand priorities. This arrangement defines the currentrelationship and dynamics between people’sorganizations (POs) and non-government organizations(NGOs). Ideally, NGOs should assume a supporting rolevis-à-vis POs since the latter are composed of actualstakeholders. However, the fact that donors arechanneling their funds to NGOs gave the latter thepower to define programs and campaigns, with POsacting as mere beneficiaries rather than the onesactually setting the direction of advocacy work.

Improving the capability of peoples’ organizations toundertake the administrative and financial aspects oforganizational work will enable them to deal moredirectly with donors, and secure resources to financeand direct their own campaigns, with NGOs assuming asupporting, rather than directing role.

Some groups like PAKISAMA are addressing this problemby hiring competent and highly qualified secretariat toundertake the administrative and financial aspects oforganizational work.

Competing demands on the time of members andleaders limit their capability to undertake all aspects oforganizational work

Many leaders and members of people’s organizationsare heavily involved in a lot of campaigns coveringvarious advocacy agenda. At the same time, they alsoneed to earn a living as agricultural producers. Hence,most of them do not have the time to undertake allaspects of organizational work.

The failure to manage the pressure from thesecompeting demands on the time of leaders and membershave, in some cases, resulted in fatigue from organizingand meeting. It also negatively affects the quality oforganizing work, as leaders and members tend to devotelesser time on the organizational aspects of their work,including reflecting and assessing their ways ofworking.

People’s organizations need to create a systematicsuccession plan

The absence of a systematic succession plan is creatinga dearth in second-generation leaders. It also poses aserious threat to the sustainability of people’sorganizations in the sector. Additionally, the fact thatthere are relatively few second liners exerts a lot ofpressure on the time, energy and resources of currentleaders, and limits the latter’s capability to effectivelyfulfill all their functions.

Opportunities

Spaces for policy advocacy and lobbying in executive andlegislative branches of government

There are now more spaces for advocacy and lobbyingin the executive and the legislative branches ofgovernment. Although far from perfect, these spaces canbe maximized to push for important policy reforms. Forinstance, the Department of Agrarian Reform opened theprocess of formulating the Implementing Rules and

Chap

ter

2



Regulations (IRR) of the CARPER law to POs and NGOs.Similarly, the Department of Agriculture (DA)conducted consultations to get the view of variousagricultural stakeholders’ organizations ondeveloping the country’s negotiating position on theAgreement on Agriculture under the World TradeOrganization.

At the legislative level, the party list system enabledmembers to have access to sympathetic legislatorswho were willing to articulate and take on theirposition in legislative deliberations.

Empowering people’s organizations to maximize thesespaces contributes to the process of democratizingpolicy formulation, and encourages government toadopt a bottom - up approach to developmentplanning.

Support from NGOs and other groups

Non-government organizations and other civil societygroups and networks offer a broad range of supportfor people’s organizations. By tapping their support,people’s organizations have created synergies thatwere instrumental in successfully pushing for therealization of their advocacies, such as the passageof the CARPER Law, the resolution of the Sumilao caseand the maintenance of quantitative restrictions onrice importation, to name a few.

During the roundtable discussion, leaders frompeople’s organizations emphasized that NGOs aresupport groups, and should take the lead frompeople’s organizations in defining the advocacyagenda of the sector

Economic and political conditions that createincentives for organizing

The fact that agricultural stakeholders confrontdifferent economic and political challenges createsincentives for organizing. For instance, the dampeningeffect of vegetable smuggling and importation onvegetable prices provided the impetus for farmers inBenguet to organize into the Benguet Farmers’

Cooperative, and encouraged them to seek out and joinexisting organizations and coalitions advocating fortrade protection for small agricultural producers, suchas Alyansa Agrikultura.

Climate change advocacy as platform for long standingadvocacies

Many farmers view the current attention on climatechange, particularly on adaptation as an opportunity topush for their long standing advocacies on sustainableagriculture and increased agricultural support services.

Threats

Limited funding for people’s organizations

The limited funding for people’s organizations,particularly for organizing work is considered as one ofthe biggest threats to their continued survival andexistence. Much of the resources allocated by donorsfor the agricultural sector are channeled to non-government organizations. Very few donors areallocating resources for organizing work, which is thelifeblood of many people’s organizations.

Challenges facing the sector

Leaders consider the various social, economic andpolitical challenges facing the sector as threats to theirviability as agricultural producers, and as such, arealso threats to the continued existence of theirorganizations. These challenges, some of which areelaborated in Part 1 of this paper, include:

• Limited public allocation for basic supportservices

• Increased competition from agricultural imports• Poor level of competitiveness• Landlessness• Impacts of climate change

Increased militarization in some areas

The problem of increased militarization hampersorganizing work in some areas.

Chap

ter



Conclusion and Recommendations

The breadth of problems in Philippine agricultureunderscores the importance of policy change as a targetof development intervention in the sector. Whiledevelopment organizations can indeed easily chartmeasurable and tangible gains through serviceprograms, it is only through policy work that they havethe chance to contribute to comprehensive andsustainable solutions of the sector’s problems. The factthat two thirds of the country’s poor is in agricultureemphasizes the importance of strategic and effectiveinterventions in the sector in any development effort.

People’s organizations have already identified the mostcrucial challenges in agriculture and have forwardedconcrete proposals to address them. In many cases,they have demonstrated that with proper support, theyhave the capacity to influence policies. Additionally,they have shown that allocating development resourcesfor organizing offers the best return on investments -both in terms of realizing policy gains as well as insecuring actual tangible support to farmers, both at thelocal and national level.

With these considerations in mind, the paper putsforward three broad areas where developmentorganizations can provide support for people’sorganizations in the agricultural sector. These are:

Policy advocacy and lobbying

Peoples’ organizations have identified the followingareas where policy advocacy and lobbying areimportant.

1. Ensuring allocation for land distribution underCARPER

2. Adoption of trade policies that support ratherthan undermine the economic viability of smallproducers

3. Increasing budget allocation for agriculturalsupport services

4. Building climate resilience

5. Promotion of sustainable agriculture

6. Promotion of women’s rights, especiallyproperty rights

7. Participatory process of creating acomprehensive development plan foraquaculture

8. Protection of the rights of farm workers

People’s organizations are in a position not only tocontribute to the formulation of policies, but also tomonitor their implementation, and provide feedback ontheir impact on agricultural stakeholders.

Organizing and constituency building

Successful policy advocacy and lobbying cannot beachieved without constituency building. Indeed,experiences from past campaigns have shown thatorganizing and critical mass building are essentialrequirements to securing policy gains.

Organizing has a social multiplier effect because itempowers stakeholders, organizations andcommunities to innovate and tap other resources toachieve their advocacy agenda. Moreover, organizingcan contribute immensely to democracy building as itenables people to have an input in local and nationalpolicies by using, creating and maximizing spaces forengagement in government.

Capability Building

The following are areas where people’s organizationsrequire capability building support:

1. Organizational management

2. Fund raising and management

3. Systematic leadership development plans forsecond-generation leaders

4. Action research in line with their keyadvocacies

Chap

ter

2



References

Balisacan Arsenio. 2007. Agrarian Reform and PovertyReduction in the Philippines. Presentation for thePolicy Dialogue on Agrarian Reform Issues inRural Development and Poverty Alleviation heldat the Traders Hotel in Manila, 30 May 2007

Bernabe and Montemayor (2006), Special Products andSpecial Safeguard Mechanisms in PhilippineAgriculture.

Bernabe M. D. and Quinsaat S. 2009. “PhilippineAgriculture under the World Trade Organization,1995-2005: Gains, Losses and Prospect.”Kasarinlan, 24, 1: pp. 4-34

Borras, Saturnino M. 1999. The Bibingka Strategy inLand Reform Implementation: AutonomousPeasant Movements and State Reformists in thePhilippines. Institute of Popular Democracy,Quezon City.

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2008. Selected Statisticson Agriculture 2008. Quezon City: Bureau ofAgricultural Statistics.

Carino, Ledivina, V. 1997. “Beyond the Crossroads : PolicyIssue for the Philippine Nonprofit Sector.,” Voluntas,10, 1: 83-91.

Centro Saka. 2008. Philippine Small Farms: Profile andPolicy Implications. Quezon City : Centro Saka.

Deparment of Agriculture. 2007. Highlights of the Statusof Activities under the Implementing Rules andRegulations of the Agriculture and FisheriesModernization Act. Department of Agriculture,Quezon City.

Franco, Jennifer C. 2004. “Fractious Civil Society andCompeting Visions of Democracy” In, MuthiahAlagappa. Ed.Civil Society and Political Change inAsia. Stanford, California: Stanford UniversityPress, pp. 97-137.

International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2009.Country strategic opportunities program,Republic of the Philippines. http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/97/e/EB-2009-97-R-12-REV-1.pdf.

Lara, Francisco. 1990. “The Peasant Movement and theChallenge of Rural Democratization in thePhilippines.” Journal of Development Studies, 26,4: pp.143-163

Mangabat, M. 1998. Effects of Trade Liberalization onAgriculture in the Philippines, Institutional andStructural Aspects. CGRPT Centre, Working PaperSeries.

Musngi, Miguel. 2007. “AFMA Implementation: Dismal atBest.” Farm News and Views, Centro Saka. http://www.centrosaka.org/agri_policies/afma/afma_imp.html

National Economic Development Authority. 2004.Medium Term Development Plan for Agriculture.Manila: NEDA

Putzel, J. 1997. “Managing the Main Force: TheCommunist Party and the Peasantry in thePhilippines”. Kasarinlan, 2, 3 and 4: pp. 135-166

Reidinger, Jeffrey M. 1995. Agrarian Reform in thePhilippines, Democratic Transitions andRedistributive Reforms. Standford, California:Stanford University Press.

Chap

ter



Name Organization

1. Grace Laguitan Makabayan-Pilipinas

2. John A. Cortez Makabayan-Pilipinas

3. Raul Socrates Banzuela Pakisama

4. Trinidad M. Domingo Kabapa – PKKK

5. Elvira M. Baladad Envi-watchers – PARAGOS Pilipinas

6. Pablo Rosales PKMM/ Pakisama

7. Ernesto B. Prieto Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa

Agrikultura (KMA)

8. Jhun Pascual PKMM

9. Romy Rubion Kilos Kanayunan

10. Maning G. Rosario PKSK

11. Annie de Leon-Yuson CSRI

12. Riza Bernabe Researcher/Facilitator

13. Daryl Leyesa Documentor

Annex AAnnex AAnnex AAnnex AAnnex AParticipants to the Agriculture Sector Round Table Discussion

hosted by the Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI)August 31, 2010, Partnership Center,

59-C, Salvador St., Loyola Heights, Q.C.

Chap

ter

2

69

People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesThe Urban Poor Movement: Past Gains and Future Challenges


The Urban Poor Movement: Past Gains and Future Challenges

Ana TAna TAna TAna TAna Teresa Deresa Deresa Deresa Deresa D. Y. Y. Y. Y. Yuson and Maria Tuson and Maria Tuson and Maria Tuson and Maria Tuson and Maria Tanya Gauranoanya Gauranoanya Gauranoanya Gauranoanya Gaurano

OverviewOverviewOverviewOverviewOverview

This paper provides insight on the beginnings, trends,issues and direction of peoples’ organizations (POs) inthe urban poor and housing sector. The sector’s rootscan be traced back to the Marcos administration andcharacterized as a response to the mass and sweepingdemolitions undertaken by the government then. Ashared problem or issue - such as the perennial threatof eviction and the consequent need to secure housingtenure - serves as an impetus for the urban poor tocome together as a group, association or movement tocollectively rally against oppressive and often,hazardous living conditions common to them.

a. Definition of the sector

The Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor(PCUP), the agency linking the sector with thegovernment, describes the urban poor as “theunderprivileged or the homeless in society – theunemployed, underemployed and irregularly employed,who, owing to their lack of income become squattersand slum dwellers.” This segment of the population areoften located in sidewalks, dumpsites, cemeteries,unoccupied government or private lands and dangerareas such as railroad tracks, riverbanks and roadright-of-way. The PCUP was created in 1986 by virtue ofExecutive Order 82 to serve as a direct link of the urbanpoor sector to the government in policy formulationand program implementation that address their needs.It coordinates and facilitates efforts and dialoguesamong various stakeholders concerned or affected bythe plight of the urban poor. In 2002, through ExecutiveOrder 152, it was designated as the “sole clearinghouse

for the conduct of demolition and eviction activitiesinvolving the homeless and underprivileged citizens”and mandated to “monitor all demolitions, whetherextra-judicial or court-ordered”, involving the homeless.

As a concept, urban poor groups, also called peoples’organizations (POs), are closely linked with or relatedto non-government organizations (NGOs), making up“civil society” or “civil society groups” (Songco, 2003).Velasco (2004) refers to them as the base of civil societyat the grassroots level representing a diverse range ofinterests of the marginalized masses. These groups areformed on a voluntary basis around a common issue orneed, with the lack of housing tenure as the mostpalpable necessity and pending demolition threats asthe most immediate.

Comprised of urban poor households that haveorganized themselves into an association, these groupsare officially recognized as a legal entity upon theirregistration with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (SEC). To participate in a government’shousing program such as the Community MortgageProgram (CMP), these groups need to be registered as ahomeowners’ association (HOA) with and theirexistence acknowledged by the Housing and Land UseRegulatory Board (HLURB). The CMP is a housing financeprogram that allows organized low-income families,specifically those illegally occupying lands to accessfunds for land acquisition, infrastructure developmentand house construction. Target beneficiaries arerequired to organize themselves into a communityassociation and only as a legal entity (i.e., HOA) canthey obtain a loan to purchase property and undertakeland development without collateral.

Chap

ter

2People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesThe Urban Poor Movement: Past Gains and Future Challenges


As an organized group or recognized HOA, the urbanpoor are better able to assert their rights and commandattention to their claims: negotiations are betterfacilitated by concerned government agencies as theywork with them at an organizational, rather than on apiecemeal (household) basis. Also, in their struggle fortenure security and decent housing, their beingorganized allows them some leverage duringnegotiations, dialogues and advocacy activities.

Despite the apparent significance of these associationsin the overall composition of the sector, there is nocomprehensive data on the number of associationscreated and registered solely for the purpose ofparticipating in a government housing program like theCMP. In its website, the HLURB simply lists the names ofHOAs registered with them but does not distinguishbetween associations composed of urban poorhouseholds from their middle- or upper-classcounterparts (HLURB Website, 2010).

Similarly, in a 2008 report, the Caucus of DevelopmentNGO Networks (CODE-NGO) states that in the NationalCapital Region (NCR) alone, there are around 4,862HOAs, with only about 730 associations registered withthe said government agency.

b. Demographics and statistics: Urbanization,informal settlements and the poor

Karaos and Nicolas (2008) report that the NationalStatistics Office (NSO) is yet to release the total urbanpopulation, but anticipate that this would certainlyexceed the 48.03 percent urbanization level it postedseven years ago. The authors likewise quote a UnitedNations (UN) study, which places the urbanization levelin the country at 64 percent, around 57 million of thecountry’s entire population or more than 10 millionhouseholds. It is estimated that more than twenty (20)percent of this number are found in the NCR.

This number is accounted for by the influx of ruralmigrants, lured by employment opportunities and basicservices available in the urban areas, and naturalpopulation growth. This rapid increase in the country’surban population has put a strain on the cities’resources, including available and affordable parcels ofland and housing. The authors likewise cite a recent UNreport estimate that 30 percent of the country’s urbanpopulation (approximately 16.5 million people) is living

in slums while government data indicate that there areabout 1.4 million informal settler families in thePhilippines. Around half of this number (681,096families) is located in the NCR.

In terms of income, households in the urban areas farebetter than their rural counterparts as povertyincidence, or the proportion of the population livingbelow the poverty threshold, is more severe in ruralareas. The National Statistical Coordination Board(NSCB) however reports that on the average, families inthe urban areas require income levels twenty (20)percent more than those in the rural areas.Consequently, households in the urban areas unable tomeet this high cost of living make up the urban income-poor. Using a simple income criterion, which utilizes theconcept of poverty threshold, or the minimum incomeneeded to buy food and other necessities to support afamily of six (6), Porio (2004) cites Karaos (1996) whostated that in 1991, more than half of the squatterpopulation was not “poor”; however, because they are ininformal settlements, they may be classified as “housingpoor” or those who do not have housing due to the largegap between their incomes and the cost of housing inthe market. No data however, exist that merge these twocategories (of poor).

In the 2008 Philippine NGO report on the right toadequate housing submitted to the UN, it was stated thatbecause the 7.3 percent economic growth experienced bythe country in 2007 was coupled by food and energyprice hikes, there was an increase in the number ofFilipino families in urban areas falling below thepoverty line. This means that a family of five (5) in theNCR would need a monthly income of more than P10,000to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter andtransportation (Karaos and Nicolas, 2008a).

The projected housing need for 2005- 2010 is about 3.7million units. Of this number, around 1.2 million or 31percent already comprise the housing backlog whichconsists of 1) doubled-up housing; 2) housing units inneed of replacement due to relocation from dangerzones, government infrastructure project sites andprivate lands subject to court-ordered clearances ordemolitions; 3) homeless families needing shelter, and4) makeshift units in need of upgrading. The remaining2.6 million units (69 percent) represent the projectedincrease in the household population that wouldlikewise need housing (Karaos and Nicolas, 2008b)

Chap

ter

2

71



To address this housing need, the government’s NationalShelter Program (NSP) aims to provide secure tenureand/or decent housing for the bottom 40 percent of thepopulation, measured in shelter security units (SSU) asthe sector’s contribution to poverty alleviation efforts.For the period 2005-2010, the government targeted thedelivery of 1,145,688 SSU, 68 percent or 780,191 unitsof which fall under the category of socialized housingthat is supposed to cater to the bottom 40 percent of thepopulation. Key programs expected to deliver housingassistance to this segment of the population include: 1)Resettlement that assists families displaced by largeinfrastructure projects; 2) Community MortgageProgram (CMP) directed to small and medium informalcommunities on privately-owned lands; 3) PresidentialLand Proclamations that cover informal settlementsoccupying government-owned lands which have notbeen used for the purpose for which they were acquired;and 4) Housing loans to formal employees provided bythe Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) or Pag-ibig.Though the NSP aims to address the housing needs ofinformal settlers in both the rural and urban areas, thefirst three (3) programs cited above cater mostly to thatof the urban poor. (Karaos and Nicolas, 2008b)

Based on the Medium-Term Philippine DevelopmentPlan (MTPDP), the government can barely meet thegrowing number of urban informal settlements. Thelarge discrepancy between the 3.7 million housing needand the government’s housing target of 1.1 million unitsindicate that only about a third of the projected housingneed is met. In terms of actual performance, thegovernment has likewise exhibited poor performance.For the period 2001-2004, it was reported that only 73.6percent (882,823 units) of the government’s 1.1 millionhousing units was achieved, a drop in the bucket for theestimated 3.6 million housing need for the same period.

Moreover, land prices in urban areas are increasing ata rapid rate, thus putting more pressure on the alreadyinadequate and irregular income of the urban poor andaggravating the growth of informal settlements andslums. In Metro Manila, market values of residentiallands range from P3,000 to P 42,000 per square meter;and because the urban centers remain to be the primarysource of economic opportunities for the poor, itbecomes expedient for them to occupy idle lands toenable them to take advantage of these prospects.Unfortunately, being informal settlers with no legalclaim to the lands they occupy also deprives them of

access to basic services such as legal water andelectrical connections, resulting to blighted and unsafecommunities (Karaos and Nicolas, 2008b).

While there are no comprehensive data to combine themany aspects of poverty in urban areas, statistics citedabove provide a picture of the multi-faceted nature ofthe issues and problems faced by households andindividuals in urban areas whose incomes areinsufficient to meet their families’ basic needs.Government’s poor capacity in delivering adequatesocial housing, the blighted conditions in the slums andthe lack of housing security that the informal settlersdeal with are worsened by their inability to generateenough income to meet their basic needs and improvetheir living situation. It was this gamut of basic needsand inability of accessing them that catalyzed them toband together and address common issues such assecure and adequate housing.

c. Brief History of the Urban Poor SocialHousing Movement

The proliferation of NGOs and POs arose as a responseto the repressive Marcos dictatorship. Broad protestmovements formed during this time eventuallytransformed into issue-based movements advocatingfor specific social reform policies. The 1986 PeoplePower and the 1987 Philippine Constitution enabledand strengthened civil society groups (NGOs and urbanpoor POs) to participate in political processes and gainpolitical leverage for their housing concerns.

The urban poor movement in particular, was a responseto demolitions and evictions that the nationalgovernment undertook to clear certain public landsoccupied by illegal settlers to make way fordevelopment projects. Its beginnings can be tracedback to the “successful” lobbying for the enactment ofRepublic Act (RA) 1597 – an act that allowed squattersin Tondo, Manila to purchase the land they occupied atP5 per square meter – by the Federation of TondoForeshoreland Tenants’ Association to then-PresidentMagsaysay in 1956. Owing to Magsaysay’s death theyear after the law was passed, its provisions were notimplemented and the group disbanded in 1959.

Demolitions of squatters’ settlements in Intramuros,Tondo and North Harbor in Manila in the 60s and thelack of organized opposition resulted in the relocation

Chap

ter



of hundreds of families to far-off resettlement sites inSapang Palay, Bulacan, Carmona, Cavite and San Pedro,Laguna. Another group emerged, the Council of TondoForeshoreland Community Organizations (CTFCO),which attempted to resist the demolitions but wasunsuccessful as the first one.

In 1970, the Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO) wasformed; owing to the phenomenal growth in itsmembership (from twenty organizations in 1970 to 113associations in five years – an increase of more than400 percent in such a short span of time), expansionand strength, it was able to gather from its sheernumber, considerable gains in advocating for housingrights. Karaos (1993) referred to the group as therepresentation of “the first real organization ofsquatters into an urban social movement.”

ZOTO gave rise to noteworthy organizations, most ofwhich started out as issue-based and formed to opposeimpending demolitions or government projects expectedto have adverse effects on their community. Theseorganizations include: Sangguniang KristiyanongKomunidad (SKK), Ugnayan ng Maralitang Tagalunsod(UMT), Pagkakaisa ng mga Maralita sa Lungsod(PAMALU) and Alyansa ng mga Maralita Laban saDemolisyon (ALMA) located in different cities andrelocations sites in and near Metro Manila. As ImeldaMarcos escalated the eviction efforts of the government,the movement shifted its focus to resist it as a policy,rather than on a project- or site-specific manner; thishelped to consolidate the anti-eviction movement of thesector.

After the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship in 1987,the sector continued its advocacy with people powerfervor very much in the air and with high expectationsfrom the newly-installed democratic government ofPresident Corazon Aquino. At that time, a broadcoalition of urban poor organizations whichparticipated in the 1986 People Power Revolution ofEDSA, came together under the National Coalition ofUrban Poor Organizations (NACUPO) and a commonagenda of pushing for the establishment of agovernment agency that would protect and serve theurban poor sector. In response, President CorazonAquino created the Presidential Commission for theUrban Poor (PCUP), where some reform-minded NGOactivists were appointed as Commissioners. As variousbroad tactical urban alliances were formed, some

working on urban poor issues did not last long enoughto make an impact as they eventually disbanded due toideological differences.

With reform-minded persons entering government anddemocratic spaces opening up, some urban poororganizations and NGOs decided to work together for amore strategic sectoral legislative agenda. From a drafturban land reform bill formulated and advocated by anurban poor PO federation called Pambansang Kilusanng Maralitang Tagalunsod Para sa Panlunsod naReporma sa Lupa or PAKSA-LUPA, other similarfederations and NGOs expressed their interest toparticipate and join the lobby for the urban land reforminitiative. Thus, the Urban Land Reform Task Force (ULR-TF) was launched, precisely to galvanize more urbanpoor organizations, NGOs and the Church to lobby foran urban land reform law that would protect andbenefit the sector. In the next few years, the ULR-TF POsspearheaded the lobbying in Congress, backed up by atechnical working group composed of NGO and churchrepresentatives (through its Bishop and Businessmen’sCommittee). This eventually culminated into the UrbanDevelopment and Housing Act (UDHA) in March 1992, alandmark social reform legislation.

Organizing the urban poor sector can be traced back tothe history of “activist community organizing” NGOs inthe Philippines. Owing to the formation of the ZOTO inthe seventies, the urban poor slum movement was notonly jumpstarted, but at the same time, the seeds of theSaul Alinsky’s “conflict confrontation” organizingtradition was also planted. Veteran communityorganizers and activist urban poor leaders were trainedin this mold through the Philippine Ecumenical Councilfor Community Organization (PECCO). This eventuallypaved the way for the propagation of NGOs committedto organizing and empowering the urban and rural poorin various parts of the country from the 70s until today.

Issues and Concerns of the UrbanIssues and Concerns of the UrbanIssues and Concerns of the UrbanIssues and Concerns of the UrbanIssues and Concerns of the UrbanPoor SectorPoor SectorPoor SectorPoor SectorPoor Sector

1. Macroeconomic factors

Escalating population growth rates in regionalgrowth corridors such as CALABARZON,SOCCSKARGEN and Davao City have greatly

Chap

ter

2

73



increased the demand for housing in secondarycities (Porio, 2004). Given the current pace of thegovernment’s housing delivery, this phenomenonfurther widens the gap between the demand for andsupply of housing. The current land administrationsystem of titling and documentation was labeled asthe “single-most important factor slowing down theimplementation of the Community MortgageProgram (CMP)”, thereby posing a hindrance to itsimplementation and a threat to the overalleffectiveness of the program (Porio, 2004). Thecontradictory issues of the urgency to decongest theurban areas and the need for the urban poor to benear places of employment and basic services oftenlocated in cities have resulted in ineffectiveprograms of the government (i.e., Balik ProbinsyaProgram, which provides a lumpsum amount tourban poor families willing to go back to theirrespective provinces of origin). It is not uncommonfor the families to take the money and “relocate”(squat) in another informal settlement area in themetro). Lastly, the high price and scarcity of land inurban areas is a hindrance for urban poorcommunities to look for affordable parcels of landthey can purchase.

2. The need for disaster-safe, accessible andaffordable social housing sites within thecity

For the year 2010, the Task Force-Anti Evictiongroup estimates that 370,000 urban poor informalsettlers residing in danger zones and public land inMega-Manila alone due for clearing would requirelarge tracts of social housing sites within or nearthe city. Unfortunately, available and disaster-safeland in the city is scarce and very expensive;finding them has been a major challenge resultingto the socioeconomic dislocation of urban poorfamilies.

3. Adequate basic social services forinformal settlements

Informal settlements are blighted and oftendeprived of basic social services as providing themservices are perceived to be tantamount totolerating them. Hence, illegal electricalconnections, clogged drainages and lack of

sewerage have made the urban poor settlementsvulnerable to fires, health outbreaks and floods.

4. Demolitions, far-flung resettlement andlack of political will to effectivelyimplement programs and policies for theurban poor

Continuing practice of evicting informal settlerfamilies without proper relocation and resettlingthousands of urban poor families in distantrelocation sites with highly inadequate basicservices is an indication of government’s lack ofpolitical will to address the housing problems ofthe urban poor. In some instances, thesedemolitions are done in clear violation of Sec. 28 ofthe UDHA (RA 7279), which discourages evictionand demolition as a practice, except when there isan impending or on-going governmentinfrastructure projects or a court order is issued.Even then, it is expected that the homeless are given30 days notice, and are consulted on the matter oftheir resettlement. Also, enforcement of andcompliance to the sustainable housing provision ofthe same law is random at best. In terms ofhousing programs like the CMP, Porio (2004) statesthat some government officials perceive it aslegitimizing the existence of squatters and low-quality neighborhoods, thus, withholding theirsupport and budget for its implementation. It wasalso reported that the local government units orLGUs, in their effort to undertake devolved functionsof service delivery including housing, find nationalgovernment agencies unresponsive to their needs.In addition, the numerous documentaryrequirements and slow processing of securing aloan through the CMP (average of 1.5 years) makesit a very tedious land acquisition process for urbanpoor groups, especially for communities faced withimminent demolition.

Policy environment and public institutionsrecognizing the sector’s housing rights

Marcos’ Presidential Decree 772, which criminalizessquatting, served as the impetus for households inurban poor communities to rally against a commonenemy and work towards a common cause. The policy

Chap

ter



environment in the post-Marcos era was more favorablefor POs to assert their rights and be accommodated inthe decision-making processes of the government. Theright to organize NGOs and community- or sectoral-based POs is stipulated in the 1987 PhilippineConstitution, specifically: Article II, Sec. 23, Article XIII,Sec. 15 and Article XIII, Sec. 16, which mandate theparticipation (of civil society groups) in decision-making processes of the state.

Other policies and laws enacted in favor of or related tothe welfare of the urban poor sector are the following:

• Executive Order 82, creating the PresidentialCommission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), which shallserve as a direct link of the urban poor to thegovernment in matters of policy formulation andprogram implementation addressing their needs.

• Executive Order 90, effectively shifting thegovernment policy from direct production ofhousing units for middle-class families to anenabling strategy that focused on the urban poor.The National Shelter Program shifted to mortgagefinance and significantly reduced directproduction, substituting them with sites andservices and slum upgrading projects.

• Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) servesas the overarching policy instrument within whichefforts to engage local governments and actors toincrease current housing efforts are based. It alsoeffectively transfers the responsibility of housingprovision from the national to the localgovernments.

• Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA7279) marked the departure from eviction andrelocation to the adoption of a more decentralizedapproach towards housing and urban development(Porio, 2004); a result of various civil societygroups’ active engagement with and involvement indecision- and policy-making processes.

• Comprehensive Integrated Shelter Finance Act(CISFA) of 1994, which seeks to resolve the problemof social housing need by ensuring the flow offunds to implement housing programs.

• The Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act (RA8425), which identifies the urban poor as a basicsector and creates the National Anti-PovertyCommission (NAPC), mandated to serve as thecoordinating and advisory body for the

implementation of the Social Reform Agenda.• Executive Order 272 establishes the Social Housing

Finance Corporation (SHFC) to implement andlocalize the CMP, in lieu of the National HomeMortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).

Given its beginnings and the policy context withinwhich the sector operates, the next two (2) sections willoutline the identified strengths, weaknesses,opportunities and threats of the sector while thesucceeding section details the prominent groupscomprising the sector.

External Assessment: OpporExternal Assessment: OpporExternal Assessment: OpporExternal Assessment: OpporExternal Assessment: Opportunitiestunitiestunitiestunitiestunitiesand Threatsand Threatsand Threatsand Threatsand Threats

a. Opportunities

Venues for participation at the local level (barangayalliances, local housing boards, etc) serve as the POs’ linkto the local government as well as other groups theycan tap for assistance.

The Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) whereurban poor PO and NGO representatives are seatedprovides a venue to develop social housing policies andprocedures that would be more accessible to the sector.

The covenant with the urban poor that was signed byPresident Noynoy Aquino during the May 2010campaign period provides the basis for followingthrough on the urban poor sector’s agenda in thecurrent administration. Likewise, reform-minded allieswithin the current Aquino administration (e.g.,Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)Secretary Jesse Robredo and Department of SocialWelfare and Development (DSWD) Secretary DinkySoliman) have become the crucial link of the sector infollowing through and lobbying within government.

b. Threats

Social housing delivery for the urban poor is notprioritized by most politicians and/or local governments.This translates into small budgets earmarked for socialhousing and a widening gap of the need for and supplyof decent and affordable housing and security of tenurein urban areas.

Chap

ter

2

75



Some local governments are ill-equipped to undertakesocial housing activities and get very little fund andtechnical support from the national government. Whilethis problem may be traced to the premature devolutionof national government functions in accordance with RA7160, Porio (2004) reports that local governmentsactually find central government agencies unresponsiveto their needs in the implementation of the CMP, inparticular.

Sustainability of social housing program is threateneddue to insufficient government funding for its socialprogram and low repayment rates for CMP and otherhousing programs involving monthly amortizationpayments from the urban poor. The search for viablesocial housing programs for the urban poor, especiallythe food and income poor still need to be addressedand developed. Likewise, the need to provide livelihoodand employment to the urban poor social housingbeneficiaries becomes imperative so as to prevent theurban poor from defaulting in their amortization andultimately selling their housing slots.

Geo-Hazards implications for areas occupied by theurban poor: Typhoon Ondoy that hit Manila lastSeptember 2008 have made areas where the urban poorare located – along the riverside (i.e., danger zones),earmarked social housing sites (Montalban) and eventhose communities with security of tenure (Novaliches)– vulnerable to geo-hazard conditions. Thus, accessibledisaster-safe social housing sites have become evenmore difficult to find or for the urban poor to afford.The capacity of urban poor POs and NGOs to craftviable and environmentally-safe social housingsolutions needs to be developed.

Decrease in Funding for Community Organizing:Notwithstanding the need to organize the growing urbanpoor informal settlers facing demolitions, decliningfunding for community organizing have reduced thenumber of NGOs doing community organizing, forcingsome of them to shift to more project-based programssuch as CMP or micro-finance. Consequently, thisresults to a huge and increasing lack of trainedcommunity organizers who can organize the fastgrowing number of urban poor households.

Internal Assessment: Strengths andInternal Assessment: Strengths andInternal Assessment: Strengths andInternal Assessment: Strengths andInternal Assessment: Strengths andWWWWWeaknesseseaknesseseaknesseseaknesseseaknesses

a. Inherent and gained strengths of thesector

The urban poor POs, together with its partner-NGOs,have been able to successfully push for legislation,institutions and programs that cater to the needs of theurban poor. The enactment of RA 7279, provisions inthe Local Government Code, the creation of the PCUP,local housing boards (LHBs) with PO/NGOrepresentation, the Social Housing Finance Corporation(SHFC) and even the un-operational Metro ManilaInteragency Committee (MMIAC), are venues forengagement for the urban poor and considered gains ofthe sector in ensuring civil society participation inpolicy- and decision-making processes. However, thecapability of POs needs to be honed so they can asserttheir rights and monitor implementation and/orcompliance.

The continuous support of partner NGOs, Church groupsand academe have helped in providing the technicaland logistical support for the POs to continue with theiradvocacy efforts. Most policy and program gains of theurban poor have been achieved through PO-NGOpartnerships. POs’ regular interaction with the latterhas enabled them to: come up with concrete solutionsthey can put forward to decision-makers (politicians);implement effective strategies in addressing theirissues (i.e., community organizing, savingsmobilization, and advocacy) and allowed them toengage more effectively with the government.

The presence of the Urban Poor Alliance (UP-All): Thealliance serves as the sector’s broad representationand constituency in pushing for the adoption andimplementation of the Urban Poor Agenda. It gives thesector a semblance of a national identity as a united(urban poor) political force and provides them withmore leverage during negotiations and advocacyactivities. Moreover, UP-ALL provides the mechanismfor feed-forward communication, consultation,consensus building and coordination among urbanpoor POs and NGOs in crafting and advocating their

Chap

ter



sectoral agenda. In the last May 2010 elections, thealliance has been successful in securing the support ofthen-Presidential candidate Noynoy Aquino for itsagenda; this is the most recent and significant victoryfor the sector.

b. Weaknesses of the sector

The inability of POs and their partner-NGOs to addressthe other needs of the sector: Other than housing, thelack of livelihood programs, employment and/orincome generating opportunities has not beenaddressed sufficiently by the POs and NGOs. The lackof expertise and networks in enterprise developmentand employment generation appears to be one of theweak points of the urban poor POs and NGOs.

Thinning and over-burdened community leaders: First-line leaders tasked with alliance work, networking andengaging with various levels of government lament thelack of support for their almost full-time leadershipand organizing work. The need to augment theirincome, provide livelihood to their families and foodand transportation allowance for them were raised as afelt need to enable the leaders to continue their sectoralleadership and organizing tasks. Likewise, generatingsecond-line leaders is a problem when they perceivethat their first line leaders are not adequatelysupported financially.

While POs are generally united in its stand on housingrights, consensus in other political issues and/ormatters of ideological principles that a certain group oralliance adhere to are avoided. In the beginning, effortsof the sector can be described as fragmented andreactionary at best; and the presence of differingideological groups among their ranks have createdconfusion, factions and at times, breakaway groups andbreakdown of negotiations. This disunity, if and whenapparent, can and may be used to thwart efforts of thesector.

Lack of the PO’s technical capacities to draft projectproposals and comply with donor reporting and projectrequirements: The POs’ incapacity to comply withdonors’ requirements for submitting and at timesimplementing project proposals put POs at adisadvantage in accessing funds for their organiza-tions’ programs. This incapacity, coupled with thelimited PO funding windows available, tend to make

POs compete with NGOs for grants and/or loans madeavailable by funding organizations.

Dependence on NGOs: POs with partner-NGOs areperceived to be more fortunate as they have moreaccess to funding, logistical and technical support fortheir organizational, project and capacity buildingneeds. Likewise, such perception has caused somedissatisfaction among POs who perceive NGOs to befavoring, if not limiting their support to their partnerPOs. Also, there is a perception that POs with partner-NGOs have better chances of getting more programs andprojects.

Opportunism among the urban poor in times of localelections: Opportunism is a function of poverty. As longas the people are poor, with highly insufficient andirregular income, they will always be vulnerable toopportunism especially during local elections. Unitingon a common sectoral issue like demolitions, access tobasic services and housing is possible for urban poorcommunities, but local elections have been divisiveand problematic for the sector as their poverty caneasily make them vulnerable and easy victims to votebuying, empty promises and economic opportunism.

Mapping of Urban Poor POsMapping of Urban Poor POsMapping of Urban Poor POsMapping of Urban Poor POsMapping of Urban Poor POs

1. National Urban Poor Coalition: The UrbanPoor Alliance (UP-All)

As of this writing, UP-ALL is currently recognized as themajor advocacy coalition and unity center of POs andNGOs working on social housing and the urban poorsector agenda since 2004. UP-ALL defines itself as asocial movement consisting of NGOs and urban poorPOs working for the rights of the urban poor to housingtenurial security, decent shelter, social services andsustainable livelihoods. It is composed of 700coalitions and organizations spread over 35 cities andmunicipalities throughout Mindanao, Visayas, Bicoland Mega Manila (Partnership of Philippine SupportServices Agencies, Inc., 2007).

Its composition (see Annex B) ensures that thegroup’s sectoral agenda are a product of local, regionaland national consultations and assemblies. Current keyadvocacies of the alliance include: effectiveimplementation and strengthening of the UDHA, CISFA,

Chap

ter

2

77



SHFC, proclamation of socialized housing sites, follow-through of the Covenant Signing of President NoynoyAquino with the Urban Poor and even the ConstitutionalConvention through the guidance of UP-ALL’sKahugpungan sa Mindanao (KAMI) formation.

2. Urban poor alliances within a nationalmulti-sectoral movement

These groups are mobilized and connected with theirrespective national multi-sectoral movements. Theyparticipate in campaigns ranging from sector-specific,multi-sectoral and political issues spearheaded by thenational movements they are identified with. Some ofthe more prominent urban poor alliances are theKalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY) and theKongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang Lungsod (KPML).The former is a national alliance of urban poorassociations, workers, semi-workers and neighborhoodassociations aligned with the transportation group,Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at OperatorNationwide (PISTON) and the women’s group, Samahanng Maralitang Kababaihang Nagkakaisa (SAMAKANA)organized in 1998. KPML, on the other hand, is themilitant national urban poor federation aligned withPinagkaisang Lakas ng Mamamayan or SANLAKAS, amilitant nationwide multi-sectoral organization.

3. National Urban Poor Sector Federations

In a National Steering Committee Meeting of the UP-ALLlast August 10-11, 2010, it was decided that a nationalurban poor federation should exhibit the followingcharacteristics: a) With at least twenty (20) dulyregistered or accredited member POs for at least two (2)regions in each island group of Luzon, Visayas,Mindanao and are active in UP-ALL; b) Having andpursuing a national urban poor housing agenda; and c)Has a working national urban poor organizationnational structure.

a. Homeless People’s Federation of thePhilippines, Inc.

The Homeless People’s Federation (HPFPI) is anetwork of 200 urban poor community association(CAs) and savings groups in fourteen (14) cities andsixteen (16) municipalities nationwide. Formed in

1998, HPFPI’s main strategy is anchored onmobilizing community savings to enhance thefinancial capacity at the grassroots level and usethis as leverage in negotiating with the governmentto contribute to their effort of addressing theircommunity’s problems.

The Federation also implements the followingstrategies and programs: community mobilization,land tenure security, disaster intervention andmulti-sectoral citywide slum upgrading projects. Itis supported by its partner-NGO, Philippine Actionfor Community-led Shelter Initiatives, Inc. (PACSII),established primarily to provide technical supportto HPFPI.

b. Urban Land Reform Task Force (ULR-Task Force)

ULR-TF is the urban poor network that led efforts tosuccessfully lobby for an urban poor-led initiativethat resulted in the enactment of the UrbanDevelopment and Housing Act (UDHA) of 1992 andthe repeal of Marcos’ Anti-Squatting Law. It takespride in putting into government positions theirleaders from their PO and NGO networks – in PCUP,two (2) sectoral representatives in Congress and theSHFC. ULR-TF is the partner PO of the Adhikain atKilusan ng Ordinaryong-Tao, para sa Lupa,Pabahay, Hanapbuhay at Kaunlaran (AKO-Bahay)Party List organization.

Launched in 1991, it began as an ad hoc socialmovement composed of various urban poor POs,NGOs and church allies that came together to lobbyfor an urban land reform program. Its membershipbase is in cities and municipalities all over thecountry. Unfortunately, its President, AudieLavador, admits the network’s difficulty inconsolidating and mobilizing its membership dueto lack of sufficient and regular funds to maintainits operations. Nevertheless, its leaders continue toparticipate in advocacies and engagement relatedto UDHA implementation, social housing andpushing for the urban poor agenda.

c. CMP PO Network (in partnership) with theNational Congress of CMP Originators andSocial Development Organizations for LowIncome Housing (CMP Congress)

Chap

ter



The CMP-PO Network is the PO counterpart of theNational Congress of NGO CMP originators. Todate, the CMP-POs counterpart formations arelocated in Metro Manila, Regions 3, 4, 5 of Luzon,Regions 6, 7, 8 of the Visayas and Regions 9, 10, 11,12, Caraga and the Autonomous Region of MuslimMindanao (ARMM) in the south. The National CMPCongress has regional counterparts to facilitatecoordination and monitoring; these are: the LuzonCMP Network composed of eight (8) NGOs, theVisayas Alliance for Social and Poverty Housing(twelve organizations) and Kahugpongan saMindanao with fifteen (15) NGOs. The nationalsecretariat of the CMP Congress is housed at theFoundation for the Development of the Urban Poor(FDUP). The CMP PO and NGO Network takes thelead in lobbying for improvements in the SHFC, inthe sufficient and timely release of the socialhousing budget and the delivery of social housingprograms such as the CMP.

d. Damayan ng Maralitang Pilipinong Api (DAMPA)

DAMPA is a people’s organization formed inDecember 1995; a response to the massivedemolitions in Smokey Mountain and other areas inMetro Manila. It is comprised of 217 memberorganizations of 79,197 households in MetroManila, Regions 3, 4A and the Visayas. DAMPAaims to contribute viable solutions to basic povertyproblems such as adequate and affordablehousing, humane evictions and relocation. Itimplements programs and advocates policies onthe provision of basic services, disaster riskreduction and management (DRRM), reproductivehealth (RH), literacy and livelihood development forthe urban poor. DAMPA is also an UP-ALL member.

4. Regional (Island Group) Urban PoorFederations

4.1. Mega-Manila (NCR, Rizal, Bulacan, Cavite andLaguna)

a. Task Force Anti-Eviction (led andrepresented by Ugnayang Lakas ng mgaApektadong Pamilya sa Baybayin ng IlogPasig or ULAP) and the TriCorp NGOs

The TF-Anti Eviction (TF-AE) PO coalition are thepartner POs in Mega-Manila areas organized by theTri-Corp NGOs [CO-Multiveristy, CommunityOrganization of the Philippine EnterpriseFoundation, Inc. (COPE) and the Urban PoorAssociates (UPA)], Philippine Support ServiceAgencies (PHILSSA) network members that have beenorganizing urban poor communities since the1980s. These POs all face the imminent threat ofdemolition and eviction as their communities arelocated in danger zones (e.g., riverside), on publiclands (e.g., infrastructure projects like the R-10 andMetropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System orMWSS pipeline) and government lands intended forpurposes other than housing. The Task Forcerepresents around 370,000 families that will beaffected by the government’s clearing operations indanger zones.

Its lead PO, ULAP, represents communityorganizations residing in riverside communities inMega Manila. The group is advocating the right tohousing of some 100,000 families on the 10-metereasement, along the Pasig River and its tributaries.The group is ruled by the following basic tenets: 1)All decisions regarding their housing should beinformed decisions anchored on the options of thepeople; 2) Solutions sought should not causesocioeconomic dislocation; and 3) Off-site and off-city relocation should be the last recourse but onlyafter basic social services have been provided.

b. CMP PO Luzon / Luzon CMP Originators’Network

The CMP PO Luzon is comprised of POs in NCR andLuzon responsible for organizing and convening cityalliances in Mega/Metro Manila. Its NGOcounterpart is the Luzon CMP Network composed ofthe Center for Community Assistance andDevelopment, Foundation for the Development ofthe Urban Poor (FDUP), Foundation for DevelopmentAlternatives (FDA), Foundation for Empowerment,Economic Development and EnvironmentalRecovery, the Muntinlupa Development Foundation(MDF), Filipinas Maunlad Livelihood Foundationand Tulong at Silungan sa Masa Foundation.

Chap

ter

2

79



c. Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO)

The group that that started it all, ZOTO wasorganized in the 1970s by PECCO, composed of 182local urban poor organizations in fourteen (14)relocation sites in Metro Manila and other nearbyareas. Given its long history of resisting evictions,its work has evolved to politically andeconomically empowering communities inrelocation sites through various strategies such ascommunity organizing, education and community-based socio-economic programs. To date, it has notparticipated in any UP-All activities.

4.2. BicolBicol Urban Poor Coordinating Council (BUPCC)and the Bicol Urban Poor Colloquium (BUPC)

The Bicol Urban Poor Coordinating Council(BUPCC), a regional network of some 158 POs andfederations in Camarines Norte and Albay, coveringsome 21,709 households. It is the partner PO of theBicol Urban Poor Colloquium, (BUPC). The BUPC iscomposed of COPE-Bicol, Sentro ng AlternatibongLingap Panligal (SALIGAN), the Ateneo Social ScienceResearch and Social Action Center and Diocese ofLegazpi and the Parish Social Action Center of St.Rafael Parish. Both groups are active members ofthe UP-ALL.

4.3. Mindanao: Kahugpungan sa Mindanao (KAMI)KAMI is a Mindanano-based network of POs andNGOs involved in poverty and social housingissues. It serves as the Mindanao network of theUP-ALL and the CMP Congress. Its PO/NGO partner/members are in the provinces of Butuan, Cagayando Oro, Davao, Digos, General Santos, IGACOS,Iligan, Mati, Pagadian, Panabo Surigao, Tagum, andZamboanga.

4.4. Visayas: Visayas Alliance for Social and PovertyHousing (VASPHI) and Visayas UP-ALL

VASPHI is the Visayas NGO network of the CMPCongress, while the Visayas UP-ALL is its partner POand NGO movement for the urban poor and socialhousing concerns. Its member- partners are found

in Bacolod, Calbayog, Cebu, Lapu-lapu, Mandaue,Talisay, Iloilo and Tagbilaran.

5. City Level –– Forming Urban Poor CityAlliances

These are the basic units of coordination andmonitoring of the national and regional federationslike the UP-ALL and the Homeless People’sFederation. Likewise, to ensure the effectiveimplementation and localization of UDHA andsocial housing delivery, these have become crucialplayers in engaging LGUs to create and activate thelocal housing boards. PO members of these cityalliances are encouraged to form barangay alliancesto strengthen the city alliances and involve thebarangays in delivering basic social services to thecommunities within their jurisdiction.

6. Issue-Based (Land Tenure) Alliances

These are composed of community associations incontiguous communities, barangays or cities thathave a common land tenure issue in a shared site(e.g., a site identified and proclaimed by thePresident for social housing) and target agencyresponsible for their land tenure issue (e.g.,Samahang Maralita para sa Makatao atMakatarungang Paninirahan (SAMA-SAMA),Alyansa ng Maralita sa Novaliches, and San RoqueConsultative Council or SRRC in North Triangle).

7. Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)and Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)

CBOs or HOAs are the base organizational units ofurban poor POs as their creation is the minimumrequirement in entering a social housing projectlike the CMP. The CBOs / HOAs are required by theCMP to register with the HLURB, submitorganizational by-laws, list of officers and itsmasterlist of beneficiary- members. Theseorganizations play the lead role in selecting projectbeneficiaries, negotiating with the landowner,collecting payment and selecting their originator asthey undergo the process of securing a loan throughthe CMP.

Chap

ter



RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

The Urban Poor Movement has always been apartnership of the POs with the NGOs. Yet, the urbanpoor POs are not as sustainable and even at par, astheir NGO counterparts. Though the POs recognize andappreciate the role and support of the NGOs, admittedly,the POs need to be supported as they could provide thebigger pool of leaders, local organizers and networkthat could mobilize and organize the fast increasingnumber of urban poor and informal settlers. Affirmativeaction has to be undertaken to take the POs to task, withNGOs partnering with them if so needed, and requested.The following are the recommendations for the supportof the urban poor POs

1. Capacity Building for POs

• There is a need to build the capacity of POs indrafting good project proposals that meets thetechnical requirements and quality standardsof donors;

• Provide support for the livelihood andemployment needs of the families of localleaders.

• Provide two (2) separate funds for POs andNGOs to access separately.

• Establish a PO funding window whererequirements are PO-user friendly

• Establish a resource and training center for PO

leaders and a library that will containinformation and “best practices” of and for theurban poor.

• Provide trainings on how to use the computerand internet so as “empower the urban poorthrough the ‘net”

• Provide opportunities for PO-to-PO exchanges.• Provide geo-hazards and DRRM training for

POs and NGOs

2. Continue to fund / support community organizingand training of community organizers

3. Support / Fund an Urban Research Consortium thatcan provide the information, policy and researchsupport in developing urban poor PO advocacies,solutions and programs

4. Policy advocacy and lobbying

• Support the covenant signed between UP-ALLand President Aquino to be the basis foradvocacy support for the urban poor sector(refer to Annex)

• Eliminate or minimize donor-driven projects.Rather, institutionalize consultation with andparticipation of POs in crafting policies andguidelines for project proposal requirementsand project implementation.

Chap

ter

2

81



Berner, Erhard. 2000. “Poverty Alleviation and theEviction of the Poorest: Towards Urban LandReform in the Philippines”. InternationalJournal of Urban and Regional Research 24: 3.

Castro, L. V. 2009. “2006 Poverty Statistics for the BasicSectors”, Presentation to participants of theUsers’ Forum on the 2006 Poverty Statistics forthe Basic Sectors and 2006 Child DevelopmentIndex at the Dusit Thani Hotel, Makati City.

Caucus of Development NGO Networks. 2008. “NPOSector Assessment: Philippine Report”, Reportprepared for the NPO Sector Review Project,Charity Commission for England and Wales.

Etemadi, Felisa U. 2000. “Civil Society Participation inCity Governance in Cebu City”. Environmentand Urbanization 12: 1.

Fabros, Aya. 2004. “Civil Society Engagements in LocalGovernance: The Case of the Philippines inCitizen Participation in Local Governance:Experiences from Thailand, Indonesia and thePhilippines. Manila: Institute for PopularDemocracy.

Homeless People’s Federation of the Philippines, Inc.Website. 2010. www.hpfpi-pacsii.org

Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Website.2010.http://hlurb.gov.ph/services/homeowners-association/list-of-registered-homeowners-association/.

Institute for Popular Democracy. “Brief on DamayangLagi: A Case of Mixed-Use of Land forCommercial and Residential Buildings butOpposed by the Urban Poor from NationalUrban Poor Coalition” Institute for PopularDemocracy, http://ipdprojects.org/nupco/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:brief-on-damayang-lagi&catid=59:damayan-lagi&Itemid=56

Jimenez, Emmanuel. 1983. “The Magnitude andDeterminants of Home Improvement in Self-Help Housing: Manila’s Tondo Project”. LandEconomics 59: 1.

References

Karaos, Anna Marie. 1993. “Manila’s SquatterMovement: A Struggle for Place and Identity”.Philippine Sociological Review 41: 1-4.

Karaos Anna Marie et al. 2008a. “Urban Land Reform”in Philippine Asset Reform Report Card. QuezonCity: Philippine Partnership for theDevelopment of Human Resources in RuralAreas (PhilDHRRA).

Karaos, Anna Marie and Gerald Nicolas. 2008b.“General Situation of Housing in thePhilippines” in SALINDIWA.

Karaos, Anna Marie and Gerald Nicolas. 2010. “CivilSociety Assessment of the Medium-TermPhilippine Development Plan Performance inHousing” in Civil Society Assessment of the2005-2010 Medium-Term PhilippineDevelopment Plan (MTPDP). Quezon City:CODE-NGO.

Murphy, Denis et al. 2001. “A Social Movement of theUrban Poor: The Story of Sama-Sama”. ResearchDigest No. 1. Ateneo de Manila University:Urban Research Consortium.

Murphy, Denis (ed). 2008. Philippine NGO Report on theImplementation of the International Covenanton Economic, Social and Cultural RightsConcerning the Right to Adequate Housing,Report submitted to the Human RightsCommittee on Economic, Social and CulturalRights.

Partnership of Philippine Support Service Agencies, Inc.2009. Civil Society Demands for GoodGovernance in Socialized HousingImplementation. Quezon City: PHILSSA.

Partnership of Philippine Support Services Agencies,Inc. 2007. Urban Poor Colloquium Bulletin,January-December. Quezon City.

Porio, Emma. 2002. “Urban Poor Communities in State-Civil Society Dynamics: Constraints andPossibilities for Housing and Security ofTenure in Metro Manila”. Critical Reflections onCities in Southeast Asia. Singapore: TimesMedia Private Limited.

Chap

ter



Porio, Emma. 2004. “The Community Mortgage Program:An Innovative Social Housing Programme in thePhilippines and Its Outcomes in EmpoweringSquatter Citizen: Local Government, CivilSociety and Urban Poverty Reduction” inEmpowering Squatter Citizen: Local Government,Civil Society and Urban Poverty Reduction.Mitlin, Diana and David Satterthwaite (eds).London: Earthscan.

Ramirez, Maria Anna Rita. 2003. Who are the “FoodPoor” Pinoys in NCR?, WP January-December.http://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=155

Rocamora, Joel. 2004. Legal and Policy Frameworks forParticipation in Thailand, Indonesia and thePhilippines” in Citizen Participation in LocalGovernance: Experiences from Thailand,Indonesia and the Philippines. Manila: Institutefor Popular Democracy.

Rüland, Jürgen. 1984. “Political Change, Urban Servicesand Social Movements: Political Participationand Grass-roots Politics in Metro Manila.”Public Administration and Development 4.

Songco, Danilo. 2003. “Civil Society amidstDemocratization and Decentralization: ASynopsis of Case Studies on Civil Society andState Relations in the Philippines andThailand” in People’s Initiatives: Engaging theState in Local Communities in the Philippinesand Thailand, edited by Ma. Glenda Lopez-Wuiand Chantana Banpasirichote. Quezon City:Third World Studies Center and Center forSocial Development Studies.

Chap

ter

2

83



A. NGOs

Name Designation/Organization or Affiliation Date of Interview

Nicasio de Rosas Staff, Partnership of Philippine Support ServiceAgencies, Inc. (PHILSSA) 2 August 2010

Benedict Balderrama National Coordinator, PHILSSA 9 August 2010

Jessica Amon Community Organizer, COM 12 August 2010

Lita Asis-Nero Executive Director, Foundation for DevelopmentAlternatives (FDA) & Luzon CMP Network 19 August 2010

Luz Malibiran Executive Director, CommunityOrganizing Multiversity (COM) & Tri-Corp 16 August 2010

Dr. Mary Racelis Board member, COM, Institute of PhilippineCulture (IPC) & Ateneo de Manila University 23 August 2010

B. POs

Name Designation/Organization or Affiliation Date of Interview

Audie Lavador Chairman, Urban Land Reform Task Force (ULRTF) 9 August 2010

Jose Morales President, Ugnayang Lakas ng mga ApektadongPamilya sa Baybayin ng Ilog Pasig (ULAP) & 10 August 2010Task Force Anti-Eviction

Ping Fampulme Spokesperson, Luzon CMP PO Network 10 August 2010

Ric Domingo Former Urban Representative, National UrbanPoor Sectoral Council (NUPSC), SecretaryGeneral, Pederasyon ng Bungang Sikap, Caloocan City 16 August 2010

Ruby Haddad President, Homeless Peoples Federationof the Philippines 17 August 2010

C. Materials Used

1. Urban Poor Colloqium Bulletin, 20072. CMP Bulletin, Nov 20083. Minutes of meeting, Fourth UP-All General

Assembly, 30 Mar 20094. Kyusi UP-All Bulletin, Covenant with the Urban

Poor, Feb-May 20105. Minutes of meeting, UP-All National Steering

Committee Meeting, 9-10 Aug 20106. DAMPA profile provided by Ms. Femie Duka

through email, 23 Aug 20107. UP-All statement in preparation for the

meeting with Pres. Aquino, “Panawagan Parasa Tunay na Pakikilahok ng mga MaralitangTagalungsod sa Paghanap ng Angkop naSolusyon at Alternatibo sa Ebiksyon tungo saMakatao at Makatarungang Lipunan”

8. Websites:

a. COPE-Bicol:b. Homeless Peoples Federation of the

Philippines: www.hpfpi-pacsii.orgc. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board:

http://www.hlurb.gov.phd. Housing and Urban Development

Coordinating Council: http://www.hudcc.gov.ph

e. National Statistics Coordination Board:http://www.nscb.gov.ph

f. National Statistics Office: http://www.census.gov.ph

g. Presidential Commission for the UrbanPoor: http://www.pcup.gov.ph

Annex AList of Key Informants and Materials Used

Chap

ter



A. National

1. Urban Land Reform Task Force2. Partnership of Philippine Support Service

Agencies, Inc.3. Homeless Peoples Federation of the Philippines4. National Congress of CMP Originators and

Social Development Organizations for Low-Income Housing (CMP Congress)

B. Regional networks

1. UP-ALL Mega-Manila (includes CMP Luzon POand NGO Networks, Task Force Anti-Evictionled by ULAP, DAMPA)

2. Bicol Urban Poor Coordinating Council(BUPCC)

3. Bicol Urban Poor Colloquium (BUPC)4. Visayas Alliance for Social and Poverty

Housing (VASPHI)5. Visayas UP-All6. Kahugpungan sa Mindanao (KAMI)

Annex BList of National and Regional Urban Poor-Alliance

(UP-All) Network Members

Chap

ter

2

85



Annex C

Chap

ter 2


People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesWaning in Power? Workers’ Organizations in the Formal and Informal Labor Sectors

Chap

ter

2

87

Waning in Power? Workers’ Organizationsin the Formal and Informal Labor Sectors

Jeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. Opiniano

This paper aims to assess the organizing work ofgroups in the labor movement. It covers workers in theformal (as trade unions) and informal labor sectors(covered by various types of informal sectororganizations, spanning various employment sectors inthe informal economy). Trade union veterans refer totrade unions as “labor unions.” Thus, this paper willuse the terms “trade unions” and “labor unions”interchangeably. It should be noted, however, that Book5 of the 1974 Labor Code of the Philippines uses theword “trade unions” and the words “labororganizations as a generic term to refer to unions andother labor groups.

Unionism is currently a hot topic. The current labordisputes in the Philippine Airlines (the country’s flagcarrier), which affect its pilots, flight attendants, andground staff, is one of the conflicts that highlights it.Earlier this year, operations of a leading confectionarycompany, Goldilocks, were stifled for some days by theorganizing efforts of the confectionary’s workers(organized as the Bukluran ng Independenteng Samahanna Itinatag ng Goldilocks or BISIG). They protested thedismissal of 129 workers. In the end, some eightworkers in the picket line were hurt and the Departmentof Labor and Employment is still hearing the case.

Data were gathered from published sources, keyinformant interviews, and a roundtable discussion. Thereader may assume that union leaders, labor activists,informal workers, veterans in the labor movement andkey informants mentioned in this paper refer to thoseinterviewed or those who participated in theroundtable discussion.

Sectoral Context: Job DeficitSectoral Context: Job DeficitSectoral Context: Job DeficitSectoral Context: Job DeficitSectoral Context: Job Deficit

The Philippines has a high unemployment rate of 7.1percent (as of 2009). But what hampers the Philippinesis underemployment (an indicator of low-paying, low-quality jobs): Nearly a fifth (19.4 percent) of thecountry’s labor force is underemployed, and theseinclude workers in the agriculture sector where most ofthe Filipino poor may be found (Table 1 in Appendix).Some economists have observed that underemploymentfurther drags Filipinos, especially those from the ruralareas, into poverty.

Since 2005, the country’s unemployment rate has notgone down below 6.8 percent. However, the biggerproblem is that amid episodes of Philippine growth, notmuch quality jobs are generated. Even if the country, asof the first half of the year, has generated over-7 percentgrowth in gross domestic product, not much jobs aregenerated (Table 2 in Appendix). While the servicessector have been the topmost performing sector in thePhilippine economy, a stagnant industrial sector and adeclining agricultural sector have contributed to theinability of the Philippine economy to generate morejobs (Figure 1 in Annex).

With a new government in tow, one major economicchallenge is how to generate jobs. Estimates (Aldabaand Hermoso, 2010) show that if the Philippines wantsto bring down its unemployment rate within the range of2-to-6 percent to cover jobless, underemployed, andreturning overseas workers, the Philippines mustgenerate some 13.628 million to 15.166 million qualityjobs (Table 3 in Annex).

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

88

As pointed out many times by analysts in the country’slabor and employment sector, the Philippines does nothave a viable job generation strategy. Overseasemployment has been seen as the country’s safety valve.The Philippines, in fact, is a global leader in the area ofsending workers abroad. Filipinos, whethertemporarily, permanently, or illegal migrants abroad,are some 8.1 million strong in more than 220 countries(Opiniano, 2010). Yet, not even overseas employment inparticular, or temporary and permanent overseasmigration in general, can significantly bring down thecountry’s unemployment and underemployment figures(Table 3 in Annex).

Economic conditions, especially a rise in the number ofFilipino poor (if results of the 2003 and 2006 FamilyIncome and Expenditures Surveys are compared), havealso led to the ballooning of the informal sector to over-14 million workers currently. Most of these workers arein the “Farmers, Forestry Workers and Fishermen”occupational group (34 percent) and in the “Laborersand Unskilled Workers” occupational group (29.5percent, including domestic workers) of the surveys(Figure 2 in Annex).

Formal and InfFormal and InfFormal and InfFormal and InfFormal and Informal Labor: Diformal Labor: Diformal Labor: Diformal Labor: Diformal Labor: Difffffferenceserenceserenceserenceserences

Differences in definition and scope

As defined by the 1974 Labor Code of the Philippines(Presidential Decree 442), labor organizations refer to“any union or association of employees which exists inwhole, or in part, for the purpose of collectivebargaining or of dealing with employees concerningterms and conditions of employment.” The Labor Codefurther says that a “legitimate” labor organization is agroup that is registered with the Department of Laborand Employment. The Code gives to the Bureau of LaborRelations (BLR) (an agency attached to the Departmentof Labor and Employment or DOLE) the duty to registerlabor organizations such as independent unions,national federations, labor centers, and others. At thesame time, BLR exercises a regulatory function overlabor-management issues and disputes.

At the time the Labor Code was formulated, the conceptof informal labor sector was nonexistent. TheInternational Labor Organization (ILO) defined informalsector only in 1993. The Philippines, for its part, passed

in 1998 an anti-poverty law, Republic Act 9485 (SocialReform and Poverty Alleviation Act), that defined of whobelongs to the informal sector: “poor individuals whooperate businesses that are very small in scale and notregistered with any national government agency, andworkers in such enterprises who sell their services inexchange for subsistence wages or other forms ofcompensation…” (Sibal, 2007).

The National Statistical Coordination Board defined theinformal sector as consisting of

“units” engaged in the production of goods andservices with the primary objective of generatingemployment and incomes to the personsconcerned in order to earn a living. These unitstypically operate at a low level of organization,with little or no division between labor andcapital as factors of production. It consists ofhousehold unincorporated enterprises that aremarket and non-market producers of goods aswell as market producers of services. Laborrelations, where they exist, are based on casualemployment, kinship or personal and socialrelations rather than formal contractualarrangements (NSCB in Sibal, 2007).

Workers in the informal economy not only includefarmers and fishermen, or domestic helpers tendingindividual homes, but also cover market vendors,hawkers, operators of public transport (e.g. bus,tricycle, and jeepney drivers), and constructionworkers, among many others.

Since no law similar to the 1974 Labor Code gives theinformal sector recognition when these workersorganize themselves into groups of workers, the Bill ofRights under the 1987 Philippine Constitution mayprovide these informal sector organizations the legalrecognition. Article 3, Section 8, of the PhilippineConstitution provides: “The right of the people,including those employed in the public and privatesectors, to form unions, associations, or societies forpurposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”

However, informal sector organizations may betechnically classified as “workers’ associations.” Thephrase “workers’ associations” is not in Book 5 of the1974 Labor Code. BLR, on the other hand, identifiesworkers’ associations as working youth, overseas

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

89

Filipino workers, persons with disabilities, displacedworkers and all other workers, including ambulant,intermittent workers, the self-employed, rural workers andthose without definite employers (www.blr.dole.gov.ph).

BLR claims that according to the 1974 Labor Code, it isthe agency mandated to process the application forregistration of workers’ associations, referred here asgroups “organized for the mutual aid and protection oftheir members, or for other legitimate purposes exceptcollective bargaining in order for them to acquire legalpersonality.”

This means that given labor laws and regulations,“labor organizations” refer to the unions in the formallabor sector, while “workers’ associations” refer tothose of the informal labor sector.

Membership and organizational set up

Trade unions, as observed, have a longer history ofbeing structurally organized than informal sectororganizations. Tony Asper (undated) says independentlabor unions have their own constitution and by-lawsthat help draw up the organizational structure of aunion. Usually, a labor union has a general assembly(that meets once a year), an executive committee orboard, and committees that perform specific duties onbehalf of the entire union. Meanwhile, national unionsand federations have national conventions as thehighest structure (similar to the general assemblies),have elected national executive officers or a governingbody (which decides operational policies, programsand projects), an executive committee (whichimplements the programs and policies), nationalexecutive officers (that carry the day-to-day duties ofthe federation), and committees. Trade unions also holdregular elections.

There is no published material available that explainshow informal sector organizations look likestructurally. But some anecdotal evidence shows thatsome of these informal sector organizations have theirown general assemblies, a national board, and somecommittees—similar to how trade unions areorganizationally structured.

While both sets of groups have members, the workplaceset up of trade unions makes it easy for these labororganizations to recruit members and collect annual

membership dues. Informal sector organizations, on theother hand, recruit members from local communities.

Trade unions primarily rely on membership dues to runtheir operations, although they also receive grants inthe form of what is called a solidarity fund coming fromallied trade unions in developed countries. Informalsector organizations, on the other hand, are initiallyformed through grants by donor organizations. Whenthe grants dry up, members pitch in either money or in-kind resources to sustain the operations of theseinformal sector organizations. Non-governmentorganizations (and sometimes, some national laborfederations) also try to help informal sectororganizations build their capacities organizationally.

WWWWWorkorkorkorkorkers’ Organizations in Formalers’ Organizations in Formalers’ Organizations in Formalers’ Organizations in Formalers’ Organizations in Formaland Informal Sectors: A Mappingand Informal Sectors: A Mappingand Informal Sectors: A Mappingand Informal Sectors: A Mappingand Informal Sectors: A Mapping

Decline of Unionism

Like any country, the Philippines continues to havetripartite arrangements, called by Asper (2009) labor-management cooperation (LMC) schemes, to addresslabor concerns, such as the Tripartite VoluntaryArbitration Advisory Council, Tripartite Wage Boards,and Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.This means that the Philippine government, inadherence to similar tripartite arrangements that aremandated by the ILO, values the role of not just theprivate sector but as well as trade unions and workers’organizations. This is so even if organizing workers intotrade unions for the purpose of collective bargainingwas observed to be on the decline in the past decade(Asper, 2009).

It is commonly believed that the peak of the trade unionmovement in the Philippines was in the periodfollowing the EDSA I revolution of 1986 that ended theMarcos dictatorship and restored freedom in thecountry... There was a groundswell of efforts for non-government organizations and peoples’ organizations toorganize themselves and to help address the manyneeds of the country. According to a key informant,trade unions also joined the fray, especially sinceforeign funds for development projects anddevelopmental activities (including organizing workers)were coming to the Philippines.

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

90

True enough, looking at historical data on collectivebargaining agreements (CBAs), the period 1985 to 1991had an annual average of 1,559.8 CBAs filed, coveringan annual average of 149,964 workers. After 1993(when there were 1,084 CBAs filed), CBAs filed neverreached the 1,000 mark; workers covered (except for theyears 1995 (109,380 workers) and 1996 (131,446workers) never reached the 100,000 mark from 1993until 2009 (Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics,2009).

There is a growing number of labor organizations over a29-year period, but the percentage to workers coveredwas at its lowest in the year 2009 (Table 4 in Annex).Latest data from the Bureau of Labor and EmploymentStatistics (BLES) show there are 17,665 existing tradeunions (private sector unions, public sector unions,national labor federations, and labor centers) in thecountry (Table 4 in Annex). Also on the decline are thetrade union members who are covered by collectivebargaining agreements, and the number of CBAs filedand the number of workers covered (Table 5 in Annex).

In BLR’s database of registered labor organizations,there are 133 labor federations, 26 workers’associations operating in more than one Philippineregion, 10 labor centers, and three industry-wideunions (covering the automotive, metal workers, andbuilding and construction workers’ sectors) (Asperundated, 29). Among the major trade union centers andfederations are the Trade Union Congress of thePhilippines (TUCP), the Federation of Free Workers(FFW), the Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL), theKilusang Mayo Uno (KMU, the May One Coalition), theNational Federation of Labor (NFL), the National Unionof Workers in Hotel, Restaurant and Allied Industries(NUWHRAIN), Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawang Pilipino(PMP), and others (Appendix 1).

Amid these numbers, the field of organizing workersinto traditional unions is said to be narrow (Asper,2009). Out of 35.061 million workers who are part ofthe country’s labor force, only 18.681 million workersreceive wages and salaries and 10.724 million are self-employed workers. Of these over-18 million workers,only about five million belong to the 800,000-or-soformal sector enterprises and the rest is found in theinformal economy. From that 800,000 formal

enterprises, a ninth of them are considered micro-enterprises that employ less than 20 workers (Asper,2009; Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics data).With only 225,000 workers covered by CBAs as of 2009vis-à-vis 18.681 million wage and salaried workers, thePhilippines has a “very low” trade union density rate ofonly 1.2 percent (Asper, 2009; Bureau of Labor andEmployment Statistics data).

Forming and registering trade unions

Tony Asper (2009) observes that traditional tradeunions in the Philippines are concentrated in large- andmedium-scale enterprises. Examples of theseenterprises with trade unions include tertiaryeducational institutions, hospitals, banks andinsurance companies, hotels, electronics companies,fruit export-oriented companies (e.g. banana,pineapple) and sugar exporters.

But Asper (2009) also notices the legal complexities fortrade unions to formally organize and participate inCBA with employers. He counts five major steps, witheach step having sub-steps along the way until one goesto the next step — covering affiliation of the union withBLR, filing for a certification election or consentelection, formally submitting the CBA to managementonce they got certified by BLR as an exclusivebargaining agent, formal negotiation of the CBA, untilthe formal agreement by the union and managementover the contents of the CBA. Given these difficultiesassociated with organizing workers into a trade union,some informants observe that it is “easier;’ to organizewhat they call workers’ associations.

Developments that affect organizing workersin the formal employment sector

Many trade union activists have lamented the fact thatexisting work arrangements in companies, includingthose that globalization has brought about, make itdifficult to organize workers — even just to give workerssecurity of tenure. One major issue is the rise ofcontractualization where even workers with long yearsof service in the workplace are not given regularcontracts. According to some trade union leaders,workers are retrenched for reasons such as redundancyof work and project-based appointment. Trade union

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

91

activists give examples of foreign companies in thePhilippines that have a large pool of workers but only ahandful of regular workers (the rest are contractual).

The diminishing numbers of regular workers to organizeformally into trade unions leads to decline in unionmembership and decline in union membership dues.These declines in membership and membership duesalso affect the national unions, national federationsand trade union centers.

Veterans in the labor union movement also observe thatemployers are now more skilled than before in bustingtrade unions. A survey by TUCP of 202 companiesreveals that almost all companies surveyed have, inone way or another, violated the freedom of associationembodied in the Philippine Constitution (TUCP 2002).Companies resort to tactics such as hiring outsideconsultants or using companies’ human resourcesdepartments to provide “perks” to employees. Otherways to combat trade union organizing include: a)terminating workers, mostly officials of trade unions,en masse when workers reach a certification election; b)no-union, no-strike policies; c) militarization ofworkplaces (Center for Trade Union and Human Rights,2010); and d) interference by DOLE in forging industrialpeace between the striking workers and the companies.

Strikes in the Philippines are getting less frequent (Table6 in Annex). Some trade union leaders say that today’senvironment is not friendly to strikes compared to theMartial Law era. Having less number of strikes mayhave a positive correlation “with the deterioration ofthe Philippine economy” – the worse the economy is, theless frequent strikes are. Even during periods of macro-economic growth, observed a labor leader, the desire toorganize workers “is getting weak.” The latterobservation is related to the growth of unemployment.

An extreme way of discouraging organization of tradeunions is through violence. From 2001 to 2009, thenonprofit Center for Trade Union and Human Rightsdocumented a total of 1,757 cases of trade union andhuman rights violations, affecting 158,909 workers.During the same nine-year period, there were 88reported killings and many of the victims were membersof left-leaning trade unions and workers’ or farmers’organizations (Center for Trade Union and HumanRights, 2010). These extra-judicial killings are a

violation of human rights, an issue that prevailedduring the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

At the same time, Asper (2004) lists other employment-related factors that impact on workers’ employment andon trade unionism.

• Displacement, where corporate restructuring bycompanies has led to the loss jobs;

• Flexibilization of work arrangements, that gaverise to non-standard forms of employment orjobs; that is, rather than being fully employedand enjoying regular wage and job security,workers are “non-regular workers,” says alabor leader;

• Informalization of work, hitting workers who, onaccount of their age or lack of required skills,are forced to seek employment in the informaleconomy;

• Poverty, impacting on many in the employedworkforce, especially those in the rural areasand in the country’s agriculture and informalnon-agriculture sectors;

• Overseas migration, where workers try tomaximize their skills by going abroad for moregainful and remunerative work; and

• Core-periphery work arrangements in the formalemployment sector. Here, there are a few,highly-educated and skilled employees whoform the core of a company as regular, securedand better paid workers and, in the periphery,there is a workforce that are casual, flexible,unsecured and poorly paid.

Nevertheless, trade unions still have venues for policyreform lobbies. For one, the tripartite councils co-convened with private employers and with theDepartment of Labor and Employment have remained.Formal labor is also represented as a basic sector(together with overseas migrant workers) grouping inthe National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). Tradeunions and other labor organizations have alsoparticipated in the party-list elections, and some havebeen elected (e.g. Partido ng Manggagawa, Trade UnionCongress of the Philippines).

Organizing workers in the informal sector

The first Informal Sector Survey, done by the NationalStatistics Office in 2008, estimates that there are some

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

92

10.454 million informal sector operators who are eitherself-employed without any paid employees (around9.111 million) or employers in family-owned operatedfarms or businesses at around 1.343 million (NationalStatistics Office, 2009). This number is more than thenumber of workers in the formal employment sector. Theballooning of the informal sector providedopportunities for some people or community-basedorganizations of informal workers to organizethemselves.

These organizations, according to a labor leader, are notin a position to affiliate with trade unions simplybecause the workers are not part of the formal laborsector, and they cannot pay trade union dues.

But some trade unions have had previous projects wherethey organized informal sector workers. The TUCP, forone, had a previous project that led to the formation ofa network of informal sector organizations called theInformal Sector Coalition of the Philippines (ISP). Andaccording to a key informant, TUCP revised itsconstitution in 1986 to include farmers. Other unionssuch as FFW and APL are currently exerting efforts toorganize informal workers.

Some informal sector workers are currently active inorganizing. The most active informal sectororganizations in the country are composed of domesticworkers. Some of their organizations are registered withBLR and with other government agencies such as theDepartment of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).Some of these informal sector organizations wereinitially organized as cooperatives.

One of them, technically organized as a people’sorganization, is the National Network of Homeworkersof the Philippines, or the Pambansang Kalipunan ng mgaManggagawang Impormal sa Pilipinas (PATAMABA).PATAMABA was formed in 1989 as a registered group ofhome-based workers. Ninety five percent of the membersthen were women. They are involved in small-scaleproduction and enterprises (Edralin 2001). ByPATAMABA’s estimate, there are 7-to-9 million home-based workers in the country. Its 2003 registry ofmembers lists around 16,295 members in 276 chapters,covering 34 provinces (www.homenetseasia.org/philippines). In this year 98 percent of the memberswere women. Some 2,567 members are in sub-contractedwork; 12,069 are self-employed; and 1,524 are both sub-

contracted and self-employed. PATAMABA became asolid organization (Appendix 2) because of itsrecruitment efforts and because it availed itself ofinternational grants to implement projects. Forexample, in 1995, it got a grant from the Netherlands forits project titled “Homeworkers in the Global Economy.”The project, formally titled “Strengthening theCapacities of the National Network of Homeworkers inthe Philippines: Coping with Globalization,” wasdesigned to strengthen the internal capacity ofPATAMABA to extend business and entrepreneurshipdevelopment assistance to members. The project servedhomeworkers based in the provinces of Camarines Sur.Laguna Tarlac, Zambales, Bulacan, Benguet, La Union,Rizal, Iloilo, and Antique (Edralin, 2001).

Another important informal workers organization is theKababihan Kaagapay sa Hanapbuhay (KAKASAHA). Itsleader is recognized as among the experts on theinformal sector in the Philippines. KAKASAHA’s leaderwas previously a vice president at TUCP. KAKASHA wasalso an associate member of TUCP’s women’s committeecalled the Development Action for Women in TUCP —DAWN. According to its current leader, it has amembership of over-2,000 home and productionworkers. This DSWD- and Securities and ExchangeCommission (SEC)-registered people’s organization,formed in 1997, started out as a cooperative that hadsome 360 families as members. Currently, KAKASAHAhas members from Metro Manila, the CordilleraAdministrative Region, and the Caraga region(www.winner-tips.org/article/). It is active in organizingother alliances of informal sector organizations, aswell as in policy advocacy.

Market vendors and pedicab and tricycle drivers alsohave their own organization, called the KalipunangMaraming Tinig ng mga Manngagawang Impormal(KATINIG), formed in 1995 in coordination with the legalnon-government organization (NGO) Sentro ngAlternatibong Lingap Panlipunan (SALIGAN). KATINIG iscurrently active in family planning activities.

It is important to mention that these informal sectorworkers’ organizing efforts are currently beingsupported by trade unions and non-governmentorganizations. An example would be Women in InformalEmployment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO) whichis a global research-policy network advocating forwomen in the informal economy worldwide

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

93

(www.wiego.org). WIEGO has 150 active members andseveral hundred associate organizations covering 100countries. Another example, PATAMABA is a member ofthe Homeworkers Network Southeast Asia, a regionalnetwork of national federations of informal sectorworkers. (Note: Homenet’s regional secretary general isa Filipina professor at the University of the PhilippinesCollege of Social Work and Community Development,and the regional headquarters is in the Philippines.Homenet launched its Philippine network in 2006, withPATAMABA and KAKASAHA being among the foundingmember organizations.)

Other NGOs that are putting up informal sectororganizations include the Women’s Institute forSustainable Economic Action (Wise Act,www.wiseact.org.ph) and the Democratic SocialistWomen of the Philippines (DSWP, www.dswp.org.ph), anational federation of 157 accredited grassroots,community, and sector-based women’s organizations.Other NGOs that are involved, says a key informant, arethe Kamalayan Development Foundation (whose focusis on child labor), SALIGAN, and the Balikatan saKaunlaran Foundation (which assists multiple sectorsof women, men and youth workers).

Motivations for organizing the informalsector, and achievements

Since informal sector organizations do not have enoughfunds, pot-luck meetings have become part of theirculture. In these meetings, informal sector workers havethe opportunity to articulate issues that they wish willbe brought to the attention of the government.

Among the problems facing the informal sector are: lackof access to credit, lack of social protection, such associal security and health programs, lack of access tojustice, and child labor. Moreover, while the Philippineshas a host of labor laws, there is no law coveringworkers in the informal sector. To address at least someof these issues, various informal sector organizationswere motivated to undertake the following policy-related activities:

• Persistent advocacy for a formal definition inPhilippine labor laws of what the informalsector is and its composition;

• Since workers in the informal sector (WIS) isalready recognized as a separate basic sector

in the National Anti-Poverty Commission, someof the leaders of workers’ groups such asKAKASAHA and KATINIG have become leadconvenors in the Informal Sector grouping ofNAPC. WIS currently has six representatives.

• Informal sector organizations engage in activedialogues with government agencies relevant tosocial protection issues, such as the SocialSecurity System (SSS), the Philippine HealthInsurance Corporation (PHIC), and the DSWD.The organizations lobby DSWD for the informalsector to become beneficiaries of the MinimumBasic Needs (MBN) for after all, DSWD has amajor anti-poverty program, the Kapit-BisigLaban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive andIntegrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS).

• Informal sector organizations were amongthose who lobbied for the passage of two laws,Republic Act (RA) 7192 (Women in Developmentand Nation Building Act) and RA 7882 (An ActProviding Assistance to Women Engaging Microand Cottage Business Enterprises), the latterimpacting on home-workers’ enterprise-relatedactivities.

• Currently, a broad informal coalition ofinformal sector organizations and NGOscollaborating with the informal sector islobbying for the passage of a Magna Carta forthe Informal Sector. The coalition is calledMAGCAISA (Magna Carta for the InformalSector Alliance) and it currently has 19member-organizations (Appendix 3). Thecoalition developed a “People’s SocialProtection Agenda” in 2010 to lobby for theprovision of social security and protection toall Filipinos facing various risks andvulnerabilities (Ofreneo, 2010).

• Currently, the leader of KAKASAHA is organizingan alliance of leaders of informal sectororganizations. Called the Alliance of Workersin the Informal Economy Sector (ALLWIES), ittrains the second generation of leaders in theinformal sector. Its founder hopes for ALLWIESto become an “institutional partner” of NAPC’sWorkers in the Informal Sector group.

There are an estimated 540 informal sectororganizations (alliances included) in six Philippineregions. Many of these organizations are groups of

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

94

home-workers, transport workers, and farmers. Many ofthese informal sector organizations rely on members’voluntarism.

Trade unions have sustained the efforts to organizeinformal sector workers especially in identifiedmunicipalities. These organizing efforts are have grantsfrom overseas donors. Trade unions, recognizing theunique nature of informal sector workers, realize thatthere are various venues through which the informalsector workers can organize and negotiate. For example,one trade union points to a project it has with a groupof market vendors to influence a local ordinance. Othertrade unions try to link with what they call “community-based organizations,” such as groups for transportoperators, market vendors, and families of ruralworkers.

On the other hand, these trade unions also recognizethat all workers, whether formal or informal, should beorganized, whether as unions or as another form of agroup. But, trade unions acknowledge that their limitedresources constrain them from organizing the informalsector workers. On the part of the informal sectororganizations (at least during the interview for thispaper), they dream of organizing themselves into atrade union. This trade union, they hope, will form amembership-based organization of the poor (MBOP).This group would be different from an NGO, acooperative, or a trade union. Roughly, an MBOP wouldbe a group of members who are from the poor, butoperates like any professionally-run nonprofitorganization. An example of a model MBOP is the Self-Employed Women Association (SEWA) based in India,whose members are poor informal sector women. SEWAcurrently has a range of economic-related activities,such as a SEWA Bank, a SEWA Insurance, a SEWA MahilaHousing Trust, and a SEWA Cooperative Federation.SEWA as a trade union was formed in 1972 (HomenetSoutheast Asia, 2010).

A SWOT Analysis of Trade Unions andA SWOT Analysis of Trade Unions andA SWOT Analysis of Trade Unions andA SWOT Analysis of Trade Unions andA SWOT Analysis of Trade Unions andInformal Sector OrganizationsInformal Sector OrganizationsInformal Sector OrganizationsInformal Sector OrganizationsInformal Sector Organizations

Trade unions and informal sector organizations aredifferent in many respects. The former is formally

organized and has a history of organizing workersunder the protection of labor laws that guarantee thefreedom of association. The latter, on the other hand, islargely uncovered by labor laws and operate in aneconomic sector noted for poverty or near-poverty andlow-quality, low-paying jobs.

In some respects, they share many similarities. A majorsimilarity is that both trade unions and informalworkers’ organizations arose in response to manyinefficiencies, both macro and micro, of the Philippinelabor market. And both stress the important role of theworker in Philippine economy.

Strengths

1. High level of awareness about inadequate socialprotection. The high level of awareness amongthe public about the need to improve thecountry’s social protection of the vulnerablesegments of the society makes organizing theinformal sector workers easy. The need hasbecome a basis of unity. Connected with this isthe representation that the informal sectorgroups enjoy in various governmentalconsultative bodies (e.g. NAPC, DOLE,consultative bodies within other governmentagencies). Such representation accords themrecognition and legitimacy.

2. Growing confidence among informal sectorworkers. NGOs, microfinance institutions andcooperatives help informal sectororganizations meet their economic needs,satisfy their desire for empowerment, andadvocate for issues. Such help has increasedthe sector’s confidence, as evidenced by theircollective and broad-based lobbying for aMagna Carta.

3. Adoption of various ways to organize workers.A strength trade unions continue to display istheir ability to organize informal workersthrough various strategies despite difficultiesassociated with the informal sector. They haveemployed strategies beyond the traditional andlegalistic frame.

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

95

Weaknesses

1. Fragmented labor union movement and weakbargaining power. Trade union membership andthe number of workers covered by CBA aredeclining. And, even though trade unionmembership is small, it is still plagued by theproblem of fragmentation. A survey done by theUniversity of the Philippines School of Laborand Industrial Relations (SOLAIR) shows thatsuch fragmentation affects the efficiency oftrade unions (Table 7 in Annex). Fragmentedtrade unions are easy prey to employers, says akey informant.

The break-up of left-leaning politicalorganizations in the early 1990s heralded thedecline of trade unionism. But the break-upwas only the culmination of a deeper problem,which is internal dispute in the trade unions.The challenge for Philippine trade unions ishow to go back to the “glory days” of the 1980s.One way of doing this is to strengthen industry-level unions. Many resource personsinterviewed for the purpose of this paperbelieve this is crucial for the Philippine tradeunion movement to reassert its influence. Somelabor unions with overseas funding are alreadytrying to organize workers in the automotiveand metal industries, as well as in the massmedia. On the other hand, much harder thanforming industry-wide unions is the challengefor trade unions with varied political leaningsto get together with the end in view of workingtogether to resolve common issues.

With prodding from DOLE or any third-partyfacilitation, trade union activists are stillhopeful that trade unions of varying politicalviews will transcend their ideologicaldifferences. For example, trade union leadersremember that various trade unions havestaged welga ng bayan to increase wages (e.g.during the 1980s, calling for a PhP10 wageincrease) or to call off planned increments tothe costs of basic commodities such as oil.

2. Image problem of labor unions. Anotherweakness of trade unions is its poor public

image. Lack of unity is part of this publicimage.

3. Informal sector groups are also fragmented.Informal sector organizations, like tradeunions, also compete with each other. Thisweakness is exacerbated by limited capabilityto instill sound internal governance,transparency and accountability in theirorganizations. These weaknesses contribute tothe weak bargaining power of the informalsector. Some non-government organizations(e.g. Homenet) are trying to address theseweaknesses.

Opportunities

1. Existing conditions of Filipino workers as amotivation to organize. Some trade unionleaders think that given today’s conditions –contractualization, occupational hazards,displacement due to new work arrangements —now is the time for workers to organize.

2. Opportunities from the new Philippinegovernment. The government, under PresidentBenigno Aquino III formulated a 22-point laboragenda for both homeland and overseasworkers. The new president is seen asprogressive and his term is seen as anopportunity for the trade unions to reconstitutethemselves and work on issue-based laborconcerns. The opportunity can come fromAquino’s anti-corruption and job generationagenda, the latter covering the goal of“investing in the country’s top humanresources, to make the Philippines morecompetitive and employable while promotingindustrial peace based on social justice”(Department of Labor and Employment, 2010).

3. Overseas workers’ opportunities for labororganizing. Since overseas Filipinos havebecome a major economic sector, trade unionsshould take the phenomenon as an opportunityto organize them either abroad or in thePhilippines. In some countries, some tradeunions and labor federations are pilotingprojects to make overseas Filipino workers

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

96

(OFWs) in some destination countries becomemembers of trade unions in host countries.That way, distressed OFWs and other foreignmembers can seek help from trade unions tofight for their rights as workers. At the sametime, there is also an increasing recognition ofmigrant workers in the global trade unionmovement.

In the Philippines, the Overseas WorkersWelfare Administration (OWWA) facilitates theformation of what it calls Overseas FilipinoWorkers Family Circles, which are community-based associations of current and formeroverseas workers and their family membersand relatives. There is room for trade unions tohelp organize these informally-formed groups,which number to around 2,246 (as of 2008)scattered nationwide. Abroad, Filipinosorganize themselves into various types ofgroups.

4. Opportunities arising from various socialprotection programs benefiting the informalsector. Informal sector organizations havefound opportunities in the government’scontinued efforts to improve various socialprotection programs (e.g. conditional cashtransfer programs, health insurance coveragefor the poor, affordable social securitypayments). Informal sector organizationsinclude in their advocacy the monitoring ofthese social protection programs.

5. Successor generation in informal sectororganizing. If properly trained, second-lineinformal sector leaders will continue theadvocacy efforts and, an informant hopes,introduce new sets of reforms to further benefitthe sector (especially if the Magna Carta for theInformal Sector is passed).

Threats

1. Existing work arrangements that threatenformal workers. For trade unions, a gravethreat comes from the current workarrangements that would lead to furtherdisplacements, contractualization, andinformal work arrangements. The US-patternedlabor relations system of the Philippines,which has given the country legalistic barrierscontinues also to be a threat to organizationefforts and forging CBA agreements. Sometrade union activists even perceive DOLE as anenemy, because of its interventions in strikes.

2. Incapacity to address labor problems, coupledwith companies’ union busting. One way tominimize employers’ resistance to unionism isto create a more facilitative legal environmentthat will transform employers’ attitude fromblind resistance to accommodation. Employersshould understand, a key informant says, thatlabor unions can help make labor relationsand company operations more efficient.

3. Dwindling resources. Trade unions in thePhilippines have enjoyed a history of receivingfunds from foreign-based trade unionsolidarity centers and political foundations,but these resources are dwindling. Theinformal sector, on the other hand, is hamperedby dwindling resources as well as no resourcesat all. (Note: These “donors” are mostly basedin Europe, while there are some that are basedin Japan, Australia, and the United States ofAmerica.)

4. Limited organizational capacities. Informalsector organizations still feel they are notacceptable to trade unions; trade unions lookat the informal sector as “project-based”clients. The informal sector organizations haveyet to solidify their organizing principles.

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

97

Conclusion and RecommendationConclusion and RecommendationConclusion and RecommendationConclusion and RecommendationConclusion and Recommendation

Amidst observations that the labor movement isfragmented; that membership and number of workerscovered by collective bargaining agreements aredeclining; that because of the ongoingcontractualization of labor, local displacements andoverseas migration, Filipino workers have tounceasingly adjust, one may ask: is the power of labormovements in the Philippines waning?

The answer is there is still room for trade unions andinformal sector organizations to play a role inimproving the country’s labor situation. The search foran environment that embraces quality jobs continues.

It is therefore recommended that support for tradeunions and informal sector organizations be continued.A let up in support would also a let up in improving theability of the country’s most important resource, labor.

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

98

Aganon, Marie et. al .2008. Revitalizing Philippineunions: Potentials and constraints to socialmovement unionism. Quezon City: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and University of the PhilippinesSchool of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Asper, Antonio. 2009. FFW (Philippines) report onorganizing. Paper submitted to the ITUCSeminar on Organizing, 28-September-1October, Bangkok, Thailand.

____________ (undated). Legal framework, scope andcharacteristics of unionism in the Philippines.Manuscript.

____________ (undated). “The internal workings of tradeunions.” Manuscript.

Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (BLES).2009. 2009 Yearbook of Labor Statistics.Manila: BLES.

Bureau of Labor Relations. http://www.blr.dole.gov.ph/PDFs/Registration_Workers Association.pdf.

Center for Trade Union and Human Rights. 2009.Hunger, repression and resistance. http://w w w . c t u h r . o r g / f i l e s / H u n g e r ,%20Repression,%20and%20Resistance.pdf.Accessed on 15 September 2010.

Chan Robles. The Labor Code of the Philippines (Book5). http://www.chanrobles.com/legal4labor5.htm. Accessed on 6 October2010.

Department of Labor and Employment. “22-Point Laboragenda of President Benigno Aquino III.”Manuscript.

Bibliography

Edralin, Divina. 2001. Strengthening the capacities ofthe National Network of Homeworkers in thePhilippines: Coping with Globalization. Anevaluation report prepared for theInternational Labor Office.

Homenet Southeast Asia. 2010. “SEWA shows theway forward.” Homenet Southeast Asia newsmagazine 9, 1 (April), p. 3.

Homenet Southeast Asia. 2010. http://www.homenetseasia.org/philippines/about_intro.

Kababihan Kaagapay sa Hanapbuhay. 2010. http://www.winner-tips.org/article/ articleview/198/1/22/index.html.

National Statistics Office. 2009. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2009/pr0905tx.html.

Ofreneo, Rosalinda. Ed.2010. People’s Social Protectionagenda: Towards Social Protection for All.Quezon City: Center for Labor Justice, Schoolof Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR),University of the Philippines.

Sibal, Jorge. 2007. Measuring the informal sector inthe Philippines and the trends in Asia. Paperpresented at the 10th National Convention onStatistics, 1-2 October, Mandaluyong City.

Trade Union Congress of the Philippines. 2002. Workers’Perceptions of Companies’ Compliance withCore Labor Standards and Codes of Conductin Selected Economic Zones and Industrialareas in the Philippines. Manila: YC PublicationConsultants.

Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing andOrganizing.2010.www.wiego.org.

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

99

Marlon Quesada Regional Coordinator, Trade Union Solidarity Center of Finland (SASK), South East Asia OfficeAntonio Asper Execuitve Assistant to the President, Federation of Free WorkersS. Tesioma Alliance of Workers of the Informal Economy Sector (ALWEIS)

ANNEX AKey Informants

Participants in the Round Table Discussion on the the Philippine Trade UnionsAugust 24, 2010

Ernie Arellano President, National Federation of Labor (NFL)Sonny Matula Vice President, Federation of Free WorkdersEdwin Bustillos Deputy Secretary General, Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL)Rafie Mapalo Director for Education, Trade Union Congress of the Philppines (TUCP)Fr. Noel Vasquez, S.J. Fellow, Ateneo School of Government (ASOG)Fernando Aldaba President, Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI)

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

100

Table 1: Domestic employment, unemployment and underemployment in the Philippines

Domestic Employment Data, all in 000(below are end-October figures of the Labor Force Survey)

Employment Unemployment Underemployment

Year Employed Rate Unemployed Rate Underemployed Rate(in 000) (in 000) (in 000)

1997 27,888 92.1 2,377 7.9 5,805 20.8

1998 28,262 92.6 3,016 9.6 6,701 23.7

1999 29,003 90.6 2,997 9.4 6,415 22.1

2000 27,775 89.9 3,133 10.1 5,526 19.9

2001 30,090 90.2 3,271 9.8 4,995 16.6

2002 30,252 89.8 3,423 10.2 4,628 15.3

2003 31,553 89.8 3,567 10.2 4,989 15.8

2004 31,733 89.1 3,886 10.9 5,357 16.9

2005 32,876 92.6 2,620 7.4 6,970 21.2

2006 33,185 92.7 2,621 7.3 6,761 20.4

2007 33,671 93.7 2,248 7.4 6,104 18.1

2008 34,533 93.2 2,525 6.8 6,028 17.5

2009 35,477 92.9 2,719 7.1 6,875 19.4

Table 2: Homeland job generation

Number Estimated number of jobs Number of Gap betweenof generated, in 000 unemployed, annual jobs GDP

Year employed, (difference from in 000 generated and growthin 000 previous year) unemployed, in 000

2001 30,090 2,315 3,271 956 1.7

2002 30,252 162 3,423 3,261 4.4

2003 31,553 1,301 3,567 2,266 4.9

2004 31,733 180 3,886 3,706 6.3

2005 32,876 1,143 2,620 1,477 4.9

2006 33,185 309 2,621 2,312 5.3

2007 33,671 486 2,248 1,762 7.1

2008 34,533 862 2,525 1,663 3.8

2009 35,477 944 2,719 1,775 0.9

Sources of data: October rounds of the Labor Force Survey data — National Statistics Office (various years)

Economists compute the jobs generated by the country by subtracting the numbers of employed in a given year and in theprevious year

Author’s computations based on data from the October rounds of the Labor Force Survey (National Statistics Office)

Annex BPhilippine labor and employment statistics

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

101

Figure 1: The value added contributions of agriculture, industry and servicesto Philippine GDP (Data from the World Bank, 2009)

Table 3: Annual homeland job generation and overseas job generation in the Philippines (2001-2009)

[B] [G]Estimated [D] [E] Estimated gap

[A] number of [C] Estimated Estimated between new [H]Number homeland Deployed number of difference of homeland and Gross

of jobs new-hire homeland jobs homeland [F] overseas jobs domestichomeland generated, contract generated plus overseas Number of generated, and product

Year in 000 in 000 workers plus overseas jobs (difference unemployed, the number of growth(difference abroad 1 jobs filled from previous in 000 homeland rates

from previous year) unemployed (in %)year (G = D–F)

2001 30,090 2,315,000 258,204 2.057 million 2.054 million 3,271 1.217 million 1.7

2002 30,252 162,000 286,128 0.448 million (1.609 million) 3,423 1.814 million 4.4

2003 31,553 1,301,000 241,511 1.542 million (0.067 million) 3,567 3.500 million 4.9

2004 31,733 180,000 280,475 0.460 million 0.393 million 3,886 3.493 million 6.3

2005 32,876 1,143,000 284,285 1.427 million 1.034 million 2,620 1.586 million 4.9





Estimates done by Jeremaiah Opiniano (2010). Annual data in column A, the number of homeland employed, are cumulative. Columns B, D, E, andG are estimates.Sources of data: Labor Force Surveys (end-of-October figures); Philippine Overseas Employment Administration

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

102

Figure 2: The informal sector in the Philippines(Source: Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics)

Table 4: Number and membership of existing labor unions (1980-2009)

Total Existing Labor Organizations Local/Independent Unions Federations Public Sector Unions

% to TotalYear Wage No Members No. Members No. Members Labor

No. Members and salary CentersWorkers

1980 1,747 1.92 million 27.0 1,630 412,649 110 1,507,974 - - 7

1990 4,636 3.05 million 29.7 4,292 718,023 145 2,241,398 192 95,670 7

2000 10,296 3.78 million 27.2 9,430 883,515 166 2,727,595 691 177,194 9

2005 17,132 1.91 million 11.7 15,526 1,627,480 127 838,834 1,469 282,686 10

2008 17,305 1.94 million 10.9 15,536 1,598,250 131 872,703 1,628 343,477 10

2009 17,665 1.98 million 10.6 15,848 Not available 141 1,676 10

Source of data: Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

103

Source of data: Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics

Table 6: Strike / lockout notices handled/filed/disposed, disposition rate, and no. of workers involved

Rating F %

Effectiveness rating of own union?

1 to 3 4 3.67

4 to 6 39 35.78

7 to 10 48 44.04

No response 18 16.51

Effectiveness of unions in the country?

1 to 3 15 13.76

4 to 6 62 56.88

7 to 10 18 16.51

No response 14 12.84

Need to revitalize unions?

Strongly agree 62 56.88

Agree 31 28.44

Undecided 5 4.59

Disagree 2 1.83

No response 9 8.26

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Strike/lockout noticeshandled 918 808 683 815 685 629 538 404 384 406

New strike/lockoutnotices filed 849 734 623 752 606 558 465 353 340 362

Cases disposed 844 748 620 736 614 556 487 360 340 365

Materialized into actualstrike/lockout - - - - - - 22 10 5 4

Settlement rate (%) 76.9 73.5 69.0 69.9 73.0 70.1 75.0 72.3 75.5 77.3

Rate of Disposition (%) 91.9 92.6 90.8 90.3 89.6 88.4 90.5 89.1 88.5 89.9

Workers Involved 164,291 149,186 142,706 159,142 108,546 124,605 109,724 80,302 72,901 74,797

Source of data: Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (2009 Yearbook of Labor and Employment Statistics)

Trade union members covered by CBAs

Year Union membership Covered by CBAs

1990 3.05 million 497,317

1995 3.58 million 363,514

2000 3.78 million 484,278

2005 1.91 million 571,176

2006 1.85 million 252,713

2008 1.94 million 227,000

2009 1.98 million 225,000

Coverage of registered CBAs

Year CBAs filed Workers covered

1980 773 139,158

1990 2,481 230,025

2000 419 73,109

2005 459 82,925

2006 536 60,790

2007 318 44,375

2008 307 55,290

2009 453 74,924

Table 5: Trade union membership and CBA coverage in the Philippines Table 7: Effectiveness of trade unions

Chap

ter 2



Chap

ter

2

104

Appendix 1:Appendix 1:Appendix 1:Appendix 1:Appendix 1:Links to Directories of workers’ union and related organizations

Directories can be found on the following links:

a. national trade union centers, http://blr.dole.gov.ph/PDFs/DIRECTORY-National_Trade_Union_Centers.pdf;b. registered federations, http://blr.dole.gov.ph/PDFs/DIRECTORY-Registered_Federations.pdf;c. industry unions, http://blr.dole.gov.ph/PDFs/DIRECTORY-Industry_Unions.pdfd. workers’ associations operating in more than one Philippine region, http://blr.dole.gov.ph/PDFs/DIRECTORY-

Workers_Association_Operating_in_More_than_One_Region.pdf.

Appendix 2:PATAMBA Organizational Structure

Organizationally, PATAMABA has barangay, municipal/city, provincial and regional coordinating councils —all of whichare members of a Congress. PATAMABA also has a National Executive Committee (as well as appointed committees onorganizing/membership, education and training, fundraising, advocacy/networking/para-legal, and health and socialprotection), that provides the policy directions of the PATAMABA congress of members. The PATAMABA Congress has alsoidentified five sub-sectors of the informal sector: youth, small transport, small vendors, small construction workers, andthe service sector. PATAMABA holds its Congress every three years. (http://www.homenetseasia.org/philippines/about_council.html)

Appendix 3:MAGCAISA Members

MAGCAISA members include: PATAMABA, KAKASAHA, Aksyon ng Kilusang Kababaihan sa Informal Sector (AksyonKababaihan), Alyansa ng Mamamayang Naghihirap (ALMANA), Association of Construction and Informal Workers (ACIW),Balikatan sa Kaunlaran.Rizal Informal Sector Coalition (BSK/RISC), Damayan San Francisco (DAMAYAN), DSWP, HomenetSoutheast Asia, Katipunan ng Bagong Pilipina (KaBaPa), Manngagawang Kababaihang Mithi ay Paglaya (MAKALAYA),Marketing Association of Groups and Individuals in the Small-Scale Industries (MAGISSI), Nagkakaisang Kabataan parasa Kaunlaran (NKPK), National Union of Building and Construction Workers (NUBC), Pagkakaisa ng mga Manggagawa saKonstruksiyon sa Pilipinas (PAMAKO), Pambansang Koalisyon ng Kababaihan sa Kanayunan (PKKK), Partnership forMutual Benefit Association (PMBA), Samahang Pangkabuhayan sa Kamaynilaan (SANGKAMAY), and Workers in theInformal Sector Enterprise (WISE) (Center for Labor Justice/Association of Construction and Informal Workers andHomenet Southeast Asia, 2010).

Note: Informal construction workers are lucky because formal trade unions in the construction sector have adopted theminto their fold. The Association of Construction and Informal Workers (ACIW), for example, is linked to the NationalUnion of Building and Construction Workers (NUBC) and even enjoys funding from a trade union and solidarity center inDenmark.

Chap

ter

2


People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesPhilippine Social Sector Organizations: Opportunities and Imperatives for Growth


This paper provides a brief overview of the state ofspecific types of people’s organizations, specifically,those of children, youth and students, senior citizensand persons with disabilities. They are part of thefourteen “basic sectors” identified as marginalizedgroups under, the Social Reform and Poverty AlleviationAct (Republic Act 8425).

People’s organizations (POs), according to Korten(1999), are characterized by: a) a mutual benefitassociation that bases its legitimacy on the ability toserve its members; b) a democratic structure that givesmembers ultimate authority over its leaders; and c)self-reliance so that its continued operations does notdepend on external initiative or funding. Buendia(2005) notes that the terms associated with structureare “associations” or “groups;” with purpose, “publicgood” and “welfare of members”, and with membershipbasis, “basic sectors,”, “common bond,” “citizens,”“voluntary,” and “‘spatial.”

POs are usually defined as membership-basedorganizations formed largely on a voluntary basis(occasionally having full-time staff). Community-sector,or issue-based primary groups at the grassroots (e.g.,trade unions, environmental advocacy groups, peasantgroups, etc.), are bona fide POs. They havedemonstrated capacity to promote the public interestand identifiable leadership, membership and structure.These organizations undertake various activities, fromprovision of basic services, such as health, educationand nutrition, water and sanitation, environmentalservices, including protection and conservationactivities, to participation in local government affairs.

The organizations examined in this paper are groupsthat belong to “socially marginalized” or “sociallyexcluded” groups. According to Saith (2007), one of thedistinguishing dimensions of social exclusion is that itis “relational,” that is, one cannot examinemarginalized or excluded sectors without examining thecircumstances in which they live and withoutcomparing them with the rest of the society. The sectorsthat are examined in this paper are “socially excluded”in the sense that the aspect of marginalization is basedon social or community relations, rather than on thelack of ownership of means of production, whichcharacterizes the marginalization of the labor, farmersand fisherfolk sectors.

Profile of the Social SectorsProfile of the Social SectorsProfile of the Social SectorsProfile of the Social SectorsProfile of the Social Sectors

Definition of the Sector

Three of the four sectors being examined aredistinguished by their age group. Senior citizens aredefined as individuals who are 60 years and above(Republic Act 7432). There is usually some overlap inthe definition of ‘“children” and “youth.” However, thelaw that created a government agency for the youth(Republic Act 8044) defines them as those between theages of 15 and 30, and therefore by deduction, thosebelow the age of 15 are defined as belonging to thechildren sector. Victims of disasters and calamities arenot formally defined, but according to a law that wasrecently adopted by Congress (Republic Act 10121),“vulnerable and marginalized groups” are those that“face higher exposure to disaster risk and poverty

Philippine Social Sector Organizations:Opportunities and Imperatives for Growth

Chap

ter

2People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesPhilippine Social Sector Organizations: Opportunities and Imperatives for Growth


including, but not limited to, women, children, elderly,differently-abled people, and ethnic minorities.”

Demographic and social indicator

The four socially marginalized sectors discussed hereare demographically significant. Using the 2010 Censusof Population and Housing results and extrapolatingfrom the age group proportions in the 2000 census, itmay be estimated that there are around 26.5 millionFilipino children (or those aged 15 years or below),around 21 million youth (or those aged between 16 and30 years), and 6.6 million Filipinos whose ages are 60years and above. The Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment estimated that the total number of seniorcitizens would have reached 7 million by this year(Taradji, 2006). These sectors combined comprise morethan half of the population in the country. According tothe International Disaster Database (2010), during the2006 to 2009 period, the Philippines had 3 to 6 millionaffected by various natural disasters yearly.

Poverty incidence is significant among these sectors.Castro (2009), using data from the 2006 Family Incomeand Expenditure Survey (FIES), reported that theNational Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB)estimated poverty incidence at 40.8 percent forchildren, 20.3 percent for senior citizens, and 25.4percent for youth between age 18 to 30.

Some of the major issues of these sectors include thefollowing:

Education: There are problems of access to primaryand secondary education. Access to earlychildhood care and development services remainlow — only 34 percent of those aged 5 years andbelow have regular access to pre-school and daycare programs. Elementary net enrolment ratioshave declined from 96.8 percent in 2000 to 85.1percent in 2008, while secondary net enrolment hasonly increased marginally from 57.6 percent to 60.7percent in the same period. Secondary achievementrates are less than 50 percent, which means, only asmall minority of students in high school achievethe required standards in specific subjects(Government of the Philippines, 2008; PhilippineInstitute for Development Studies, 2009;Department of Education, 2010).

Health: Health survey statistics show some declinein the pattern of mortality among the young. Under-five mortality has declined from 48 deaths per 1000births in 1998 to 34 deaths per 1000 births in 2008,while infant mortality has declined from 35 deathsper thousand births to 25 per thousand birthsduring the same period. There has been a decline inthe proportion of children receiving fullimmunization, according to the 2002 Family andChild Health Survey. A substantial majority of youngadults have been undertaking risky sexualbehaviour; more than three fourths of thosesexually active did not use any contraceptives(National Statistics Office and ICF Macro, 2010).

Employment: According to employment statistics(Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics, 2010),majority of senior citizens work without pay infamily operated farms or businesses. On the otherhand, child labor continues to be a problem in thePhilippines; around three quarters of a millionchildren below the age of 15 are working.Employment prospects for the youth are limited dueto the high underemployment rates in the agecohort.

Political participation: While there are manyinstitutional mechanisms for youth participation inthe country, a study notes that “young people whodo get involved in formal political processes areoften co-opted by conservative” forces andsometimes even by corrupt politicians (Velasco,undated). There are some mechanisms forparticipation by children and senior citizens insome local government units, but not in all.Participation by victims of disasters and calamitiesin local disaster councils is negligible or even nonexistent (Velasco, undated; interview with BongMagsaca).

Policy environment and publicPolicy environment and publicPolicy environment and publicPolicy environment and publicPolicy environment and publicinstitutions afinstitutions afinstitutions afinstitutions afinstitutions affffffecting the sectorecting the sectorecting the sectorecting the sectorecting the sector

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly recognizesthe role of the people in democratic development andenshrines their right to participate on all levels of

Chap

ter

2



decision-making in various provisions, such as thefollowing:

• Article II, section 23, promotion of “non-governmental, community-based or sectoralorganizations” by the State;

• Article XIII, section 3, the right to and fullprotection of self-organization by workers;

• Article XIII, section 15, people’s organizations’pursuit of their collective interests throughpeaceful means;

• Article XIII, section 16, the right of the peopleand their organizations to participate indecision-making, and the obligation of thestate to establish adequate consultativemechanisms.

At the international level, the Philippine governmenthas signed major international instruments that respectthe rights of citizens to organize and bring theirlegitimate concerns to the government. According toBuendia (2005), these include the Universal Declarationof Human Rights (adopted in 1948), which consists of30 articles of rights that all human beings are entitledto; and two attendant global agreements, theInternational Convention on Economic, Social andCultural Rights (1966) and the International Conventionon Civil and Political Rights (1976). The InternationalConvention on the Elimination of all Forms ofDiscrimination (1965) provides the framework for theabolition of hatred and intolerance among specificpopulation groups.

Children

The Convention on the Rights of Children provides theglobal framework for the protection of the welfare andinterests of people aged under 18, and for the minimumrequirements of services for the sector. The Philippinesis a signatory to the convention. Presidential Decree603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code provides thenational framework for the recognition of the rights ofchildren and the youth, and provides for specificprocesses for the adoption of children and provision oftheir foster care, assistance to parents for child care,and care for youth offenders. The Code also providesthe regulatory framework for child welfare services andcreates local councils for the protection of children at

the barangay level. The Council for the Welfare ofChildren, created by the Code at the national level,oversees the implementation of the Code.

The Philippine National Plan of Action for Children,also known as the National Strategic Framework for theDevelopment of Children for 2000- 2005 (also calledChild 21) is the national development map for theprovision of services to the sector. The plan supportsthe development of child-related MillenniumDevelopment Goals for the Philippines. The NationalPlan of Action for Children 2005- 2010 is the second inthe set of implementing action plans to strengthen thecapacity of government agencies and non-governmentorganizations to respond to the needs of children,enhance the monitoring systems for focused targeting ofprograms, and develop a research agenda on the needsof children.

The Council for the Welfare of Children is the agencytasked to monitor the Philippine National Action Plan atthe national level. The Council is attached to theDepartment of Social Welfare and Development. It has aboard consisting of ten government agencies threeprivate sector representatives, and an executivedirector. At the local level, local councils for theprotection of children exist but their functions vary(Government of the Philippines, 2008).

Some laws relevant to child welfare are the following:

• Republic Act 7610 (Special Protection ofChildren Against Abuse, Exploitation andDiscrimination Act of 1993), whichcriminalizes child prostitution, childtrafficking and other forms of abuse, andprovides for special programs for children ofindigenous peoples and children in situationsof armed conflict.

• Republic Act 7658 (An Act ProhibitingEmployment of Children Below the Age ofFifteen Years), passed in 1993, which strictlyforbids the hiring of children except inextraordinary circumstances.

• Republic Act 8980 (Early Childhood Care andDevelopment Act of 2000), which creates anational system of education and socialservices for children under the age of six, and

Chap

ter



created the National Early Childhood Care andDevelopment Coordinating Committee to planand monitor various programs.

• Republic Act 9231 (Elimination of the WorstForms of Child Labor Act of 2003), whichprovides for stronger measures to protectworking children.

• Republic Act 9262 (Anti-Violence AgainstWomen and Children Act of 2004), whichprotects women and children from physical,emotional, sexual, psychological and economicabuses.

• Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and WelfareAct of 2006), raising the minimum age ofcriminal responsibility from 9 to 15 years;prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment, introduces“restorative justice” provides for diversionprograms for children in conflict with the law;prohibits detention of youth offenders belowthe age of five.

Youth and Students

The United Nations World Program of Action for theYouth provides a policy framework for national andinternational programs and policies that wouldstrengthen youth welfare around the world. This wasadopted by the United Nations during its 1995 GeneralAssembly, and covers fifteen priority areas, includingeducation, employment, hunger and poverty, health,environment, drug abuse and juvenile delinquency.

Republic Act 8044 (Youth in Nation Building Act of 1995)provides for the implementation of a comprehensiveprogram for youth development in the country. Thisincludes regular formulation and implementation of theMedium Term Youth Development Program, nationalstudies on the youth situation, assessment of theprograms being provided by different youthorganizations, and comprehensive delivery system ofprograms for the youth. The National Youth Commission(NYC) of the Office of the President was created underthis act in order to monitor youth-oriented programs. A“Parliamentary of Youth Leaders” was created toprovide recommendations to the Commission, and anadvisory council, composed of cabinet members andlegislators, was created to provide advice.

The 2005- 2010 Medium Term Philippine YouthDevelopment Program is the current national programfor youth development. The plan envisions the creationof youth development councils in different localgovernment units in the country, formulation of specificpolicies and local ordinances to improve the quality oflife of the youth, deepen the level of involvement of theyouth in community and national concerns, generateresources for youth programs, and improve thecapacities of youth organizations to undertakeprograms.

Laws relevant to the youth are the following:

Republic Act 9063 (National Service Training ProgramAct of 2001), which establishes a voluntary welfareprogram for students of baccalaureate degree coursesand students of two - year technical vocational courses.The program includes the Reserve Officers TrainingCorps program, the literacy training service and thecivic welfare training service.

Republic Act 9547 (An Act Strengthening the Coverage ofthe Special Program for the Employment of the Youth),which strengthens and expands the public employmentopportunities of poor students aged 15 to 25 years ingovernment offices.

The 1991 Local Government Code established theSangguniang Kabataan (SK), which became thelegislative assembly for those aged between 15 to 21years at the barangay level. Each SK consists of tenmembers, including its chair, who is automatically amember of the Sangguniang Barangay, the body thatimplements youth programs at the local level.

Senior Citizens

The Madrid International Plan on Ageing of 2002, or theSecond World Assembly, is the current global frameworkfor policy and program development andimplementation for senior citizens. This plan is basedon the United Nations Principles for Older Persons,adopted at the 1991 general assembly, replacing thefirst international plan of 1998. The global goals of theplan include full realization of human rights,eradication of poverty, increasing senior citizens’participation in economic, social and political lives,

Chap

ter

2



improving opportunities and commitment to genderequality.

The Philippine Plan of Action for the Senior Citizens2005- 2010 is the current national developmentframework for the sector. The plan pinpoints specificprograms for developing holistic care approaches,ensuring appropriate community - based care, andimplementing health, education and employmentservices. The Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment is the focal agency at the national level formonitoring and implementing the action plan. At thelocal government unit level, the Office for SeniorCitizens handles the registration of senior citizens andimplements and monitors programs for the elderly.

The following are the relevant laws for senior citizens:

• Republic Act 7432 (An Act to maximize theContribution of Senior Citizens to NationBuilding of 1992) defines senior citizens asthose who are at least 60 years old. It givessenior citizens the right to enjoy discounts oncertain purchases, such as food, tourismservices, medicines, and amusements. The lawalso exempts the elderly poor from individualtaxes and authorizes the creation of Office ofSenior Citizens Act in every municipality.

• Republic Act 7876 (Senior Citizens Center Act of1995) authorizes the DSWD to create a seniorcitizens center in every city and municipality, incoordination with the local government unit.

• Republic Act 9257 (Expanded Senior CitizensAct of 2003) widens the scopes of discounts forsenior citizens, including those ontransportation services and educationalassistance for senior citizens. It provides forcertain tax exemptions of establishmentsemploying senior citizens, and for health,education, and housing programs.

• Republic Act 9994 (Expanded Senior CitizensAct of 2010) further increases senior citizens’benefits and privileges. These includeexemption of the elderly from payment of valueadded taxes, bigger discounts on medical andhealth services, transportation services, andutilities. The law also widens the services forsenior citizens such as health, education andsocial services.

Victims of Disasters and Calamities

Republic Act 8425 (Social Reform and PovertyAlleviation Act) recognizes victims of calamities anddisasters as a socially marginalized sector. TheNational Anti-Poverty Commission, the governmentagency in charge of poverty reduction and basic sectorparticipation covers victims of disasters andcalamities., The National Disaster and Risk Reductionand Management Council (formerly called The NationalDisaster Coordinating Committee), supported by theOffice of Civil Defense, serves as the coordinatinggovernment agency for the sector.

Republic Act 10121 (Philippine Disaster Risk Reductionand Management Act of 2010) adopts a holistic,comprehensive and integrated disaster risk reductionand management approach and establishes localdisaster risk reduction and management councilsaround the country.

SizeSizeSizeSizeSize, characteristics and activities of, characteristics and activities of, characteristics and activities of, characteristics and activities of, characteristics and activities ofthe sectoral people’the sectoral people’the sectoral people’the sectoral people’the sectoral people’s organizationss organizationss organizationss organizationss organizations

Youth organizations

The National Youth Commission (NYC) classifies theyouth sector into four sub-sectors, namely, 1) in-schoolyouth (students in various primary, secondary, tertiaryand vocational educational institutions), 2) out – of -school youth (those of school age but not in school), 3)working youth (those who have part-time or full-timeemployment) and 4) youth with special needs, such asthose differently abled, youth in conflict with the law,displaced youth, and youth with other needs. There aremore than 3,000 different youth organizations. Someare involved with political participation of youth innational and local governance and in schools; othersare concerned with improving the state of educationand health; and still others are involved in programs ofemployment and livelihood generation.

Two party list organizations with overt youthorientation occupy one seat each in the currentFifteenth Congress; the Kabataan Party List, associatedwith the progressive left, and the Bagong HenerasyonParty List, a youth welfare organization.

Chap

ter



The national organizations that are involved with youthand student issues include the Student CouncilAssociation of the Philippines, the Confederation ofStudent Governments in the Philippines, the Union ofCatholic Student Councils of the Philippines, and theNational Union of Students in the Philippines. They arenetworks of student councils in the country. Othergroups include the Youth for Sustainable Development(a network of youths involved in environmental issues),the League of Filipino Students, Anakbayan and theAkbayan Youth ( all three are national networks ofyouths and students), the College Editors Guild of thePhilippines (a network of student publications intertiary institutions), the Aksyon Kabataan, and theKabataan ng Liberal ng Pilipinas (the youth arm ofAksyon Demokratiko and the Liberal Party, respectively,which are established political parties in the country).Most of these organizations are based either in MetroManila or in other urban areas of the country.

There are also national organizations that are moreinvolved in socio-civic activities than in politicaladvocacy. Two examples are the 4-H club and thePhilippine Rural Reconstruction Movement. There arealso organizations that are involved inentrepreneurship, such as the Philippine SocialEntrepreneurship Club, and business organizations indifferent universities and colleges.

Children’s organizations

According to the Council of Welfare of Children, therearound 500 children’s organizations, admittedly anunderestimate, given numerous organizations located indifferent municipalities and cities in the country.Children’s organizations are those whose members arebelow 18 years, but most leaders are those belonging tothe 12 to 18 year age bracket.

Many established children’s organizations are thosethat have been organized by non-governmentorganizations and foundations associated with theNational Council for Social Development (NCSD), one ofthe oldest networks involved with children, youth andwomen issues. Many of the organizations areconcentrated in Metro Manila, although there areseveral organizations in other regions in the country.This is due to the fact that most children’s non-

government organizations and funding agencies are inQuezon City and other areas in Metro Manila.

Many children’s organizations are involved in nationalgovernance, specifically, in the National Anti-PovertyCommission (NAPC) children sectoral council. In the midto the late 1990s, many funding agencies, including thebiggest groups funding child services programs(including the Christian Children’s Fund, now theChildfund, World Vision; and Plan International), wereinstrumental in allowing their partners to join NAPC.Thus, for children, the NAPC sectoral council is one of themore important focal points of involvement ingovernance. Most of the children sectoral representativesoriginate from the Educational Research andDevelopment Assistance Foundation, which is one of theoldest non-government organizations involved withchildren, and the Childfund partners.

Senior citizens organizations

Because of the presence of senior citizens centers inmany local government units and the support given bylocal social welfare offices, it is relatively easy toorganize the elderly in the country. Organizations of theelderly are involved in advocacy for greater access tohealth, education and transport facilities, socio-civicinvolvement and others. Many of these organizations areheaded by retired professionals who have the skills andtime to be involved. Most elderly organizations belong tothe Federation of Senior Citizens Association of thePhilippines (FSCAP), which has chapters in differentareas in the Philippines.

Other senior citizens’ organizations are organized by theCoalition for Services to the Elderly (COSE), the onlyestablished non-government organization for seniorcitizens in the country. COSE is involved in organizingmainly poor and lower income older persons in order toresolve issues affecting them. It has helped establishorganizations mainly in Metro Manila, Southern Tagalogand Bicol regions and Negros provinces. Theseorganizations are affiliated with the Confederation ofOlder Persons Associations of the Philippines (COPAP)and many are outside the purview of FSCAP. There is aparty list organization representing the senior citizens inthe House of Representatives, the Coalition ofAssociations of Senior Citizens of the Philippines, whichhas two seats in Congress.

Chap

ter

2



Organizations representing victims ofdisasters and calamities.

There is no national network of disasters victimsgroups but there are provincial networks of victims andservices providers, such as the Pampanga DisasterResponse Network. Some groups have been organized inthe wake of armed conflicts in Zamboanga and otherparts of Mindanao. The Philippine National Red Cross,and other non-government organizations and socio-civic action and emergency groups also represent thesector in national and regional fora.

Sectoral TSectoral TSectoral TSectoral TSectoral Trendsrendsrendsrendsrends, Strengths and, Strengths and, Strengths and, Strengths and, Strengths andWWWWWeaknesseseaknesseseaknesseseaknesseseaknesses

This section presents a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of theorganizations for the four sectors. The analysis,although far from being complete and perfect, mayserve as a stepping stone towards a deeper analysis ofthe problems and issues. If further developed, it mayalso provide a guide for selected peoples’ organizationsto map their strategic roles in the Philippines.Preceding the analysis is a sketch of trends in thesectors.

Continuing and recent trends in the socialsectors.

There has been a recent expansion of services that couldbe available to the sector. For example, the TenOutstanding Youth Awards (TAYO) of the National YouthCommission has been instrumental in initiating andputting into focus the activities undertaken by youthorganizations for their own sector. Some of theactivities that have been undertaken by the awardeesare organizing summer camps for the youth to improvetheir self-esteem (Guided and Unified Interaction for theDevelopment of Children), health and environmentalprograms in a Mindanao city (Dipolog Youth forProgress Movement), provision of physical therapyactivities for the disabled in Davao (Kapansanan ayAkibat sa Kaunlaran ng Bayan) and book drives fordeserving children in Region 2 (Youth Policy Forum).Foreign donors, such as the United Nations, andFilipino migrant organizations have also beenundertaking several award programs for the youth sector.

Greater awareness response to natural and socialcalamities. Children, youth and student, and seniorcitizen local groups were active during the TyphoonOndoy disaster, and since then have become moreaware of the impacts of disasters and naturalcalamities on their lives. Organizations affiliated withCOSE provided relief services to more than 35 urbanpoor areas in Metro Manila during the aftermath ofTyphoon Ondoy in 2009; elderly urban poor leadershave become more aware of the need to implement riskreduction mechanisms in their respective areas. Studentorganizations were active during the relief efforts,gathering food and clothing in their respective schoolsand distributing them to the neediest areas. The UnitedNations Emergency Fund for Children have supportedlocal efforts for organizing young persons affected byarmed conflict.

Increasing receptiveness of local government units tosectoral issues. COSE notes that there are Bulacan localgovernment units or LGUs (for example, in San Jose delMonte and Hagonoy) that have integrated senior citizenparticipation in their decision-making and that they aredeveloping programs for older persons in theirrespective areas. Other local government units havebeen organizing their respective councils for youth andchildren.

External opportunities of the differentorganizations are the following:

Continuous monitoring of Philippine commitments tointernational sectoral agreements. The Philippines is asignatory to many global rights commitments, such asthe Convention of the Rights of the Child and the WorldPrograms for Children and the Youth, and it has beenregularly issuing monitoring reports on the country’sadherence to specific provisions in the agreements. Thisis an opportunity for sectoral organizations to lobbythe government for sectoral programs and to advocatefor a wider participation of the sectoral groups.

Presence of national and local offices for protection ofthe rights of the sector. NYC has been promoting theorganization of Local Youth Development Councils indifferent relatively successful municipalities and citiesin Bulacan, Nueva Ecija and Quezon. The council wouldinclude local chief executives, LGU department heads,and representatives of the youth. The effort aims to

Chap

ter



strengthen policy and program formulation at thehighest levels of the local government. According to therecent report on the progress of commitments tochildren (United Nations, 2010), local child protectioncouncils have been organized in more than 90 percentof all types of local government units in the country.However, these councils are functional only in around athird or less of different municipalities and barangaysin the country.

The number of Office of Senior Citizens Affairs has beenincreasing in the different local government units in thecountry.

Presence of new partners. In many sectors, there arenew institutions or organizations that have beeninvolved in organizing the sector. The Center for YouthAction and Network is a new non-governmentorganization created in 2009 that is actively organizingstudents and young persons for political involvement.It was active in network activities especially ininvolving the youth in the 2010 national and localelections. The Save the Children local office is alsohelping in deepening political awareness of children intheir own local communities, especially in selectedareas in Makati and Manila.

The external threats to these groups are thefollowing:

Decline in financial resource support for direct politicalparticipation. There is a perception that resourceagencies supporting political participation of childrenare fewer in number in the mid 2000s, compared to themid to late 1990s. Most resource agencies for childrensince the 2000s have been focusing on social servicedelivery and providing for interventions for families.There are very few agencies that support communityorganizing of senior citizens.

National agencies’ support for the agenda of the sectorsseem to be declining.. The politicization of nationalbodies supposed to promote participation bymarginalized groups has adversely affected themarginalized groups’ agenda in the executive branch ofthe national government. The president’s failure toappoint sectoral representatives to NAPC in 2005 hasresulted in inaction on many of the requests broughtforth by sectoral organizations. This has created anatmosphere of skepticism regarding the ability of these

executive bodies to push forward the interests of thesocially marginalized. However, for some of the socialsectors, such as the senior citizens and the victims ofdisasters and calamities, government support,including that of the Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment and the National Council for DisabilityAffairs, for sectoral activities has been reported to bestrong.

The marginalized sectors can capitalize onmany internal strengths:

The groups enjoy an adequate level of training andcapability building. Children’s organizations, forexample, are reported to be extremely well trained andare capable of running their own educational,environmental and social welfare programs in theirrespective areas. The involvement of organized youth inthe past electoral exercises was quite high because oftheir skills and knowledge of how the youth caninfluence the elections. These groups linked with themore established electoral watch groups.

Experience in advocacy, especially when done withother networks and support groups. The number oflegislative acts passed in the past ten to twenty yearsattests to the effective advocacy of, many non-government organizations and sectoral organizations.And they have gained skills and experience in pushingfor better laws for the benefit of the marginalized socialgroups. Senior citizens have pushed for legislativereforms that have resulted in higher discounts for moreitems.

Good level of Information and CommunicationsTechnology (ICT) resources and use. Children and youthgroups have increasingly used information andcommunication technologies in order to advocate forpolicies, network with other groups, and increase theirconstituencies’ and other groups’ awareness aboutthese policies. This was evident during the lastelections where groups such as First Time Voters andYouthvote pushed for the youth’s increased awarenessabout elections.

Connection with networks and associations. TheNational Council for Social Development organizeschildren’s groups according to geographical locationfor better coordination. The Youthvote, a campaign forelectoral involvement, was a focal point of different

Chap

ter

2



student and youth organizations who worked togetherduring the 2010 national polls. This effort continues tobe sustained through the My Streets project beingundertaken by the Young Public Servants group, inassociation with different youth and student groups inthe country. Children’s organizations are associatedwith either the Convention on the Rights of the ChildNetwork, or the Juvenile Justice Network in thePhilippines.

However, the sector continues to suffer froma number of internal weaknesses:

Dependence on NGOs and on financial grants. Sincechildren’s organizations are dependent on non-government organizations for advice and resources,non-government organizations tend to intervene in theiractivities. Victims of disasters and calamities alsodepend on their partner service providers forassistance.

Quick turn-over of leaders compromises thesustainability of these organizations. Children have onlythree years, from 12 to 15 years old, to provide

leadership for the sector. It is therefore imperative thatnew leaders for the sector be trained. This is also truefor the youth sector, where it is rare for student leadersin national organizations to remain in position formore than five years. In the case of the victims ofdisasters and calamities sector, there are very fewleaders who come from their ranks because of thetransitory nature of the sector. Many of those who sit innational and local bodies for the sector are serviceproviders.

Persistent traditional view of development. Majority ofthe organizations in the different social marginalizedsectors have a very limited view of the possibilities ofpolitical engagement in the national and local levels.They prefer to undertake service delivery activities,rather than engage in activities that will empower thesectors.

It is clear that based on the Philippine developmentexperience, participation of the basic sectors is animportant aspect of governance. Thus, it may benecessary to examine specific cases of sectoralparticipation at the local government level.

Chap

ter



Aldaba, Fernando, Leonardo Lanzona and RonaldTamangan. 2004. A National Policy Study on ChildLabor and Development in the Philippines.Philippine Institute for Development StudiesDiscussion Paper 2004-15.

Buendia, Emmanuel. 2005. Democratizing Governance inthe Philippines: Redefining and Measuring theState of People’s Participation in Governance.Quezon City: University of the Philippines.

Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics.2010.Yearbook of Labor Statistics 2009. Bureau ofLabor and Employment Statistics Website,http://www.bles.dole.gov.ph/2009%20Publications/2009%20YLS/index.html.Accessed August 30, 2010.

Castro, Lina. 2009. 2006 Poverty Statistics for the BasicSectors. Presentation made at the Users’ Forumof the 2006 Poverty Statistics for the Basic Sectorsand the 2009 Child Development Index, Makati.

Department of Education. 2010. Fact Sheet: BasicEducation Statistics.” Department of Educationwebsite, http://www.deped.gov.ph/factsandfigures/default.asp. Accessed August21, 2010.

Economic and Social Commission for the Asia andPacific. 2000. Youth in the Philippines: AReview of the Youth Situation and NationalPolicies and Programs. United NationsEconomic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific website, http://www.unescap.org/esid/hds/youth/youth_philippines.pdf.Accessed August 22, 2010.

Galon, Margarita, Florita Villar, Ma. Suzette Agcaoiliand Kenneth Ronquillo. 2007. PhilippineCountry Report: Community Services for theElderly in the Philippines. Paper for the 5th

ASEAN and Japan High Level Officials Meetingon Caring Societies, Tokyo, Japan.

Bibliography

Government of the Philippines (undated). The FilipinoChild of the Millennium: National Plan ofAction for Children 2005- 2010. Council for theWelfare of Children website, http://www.cwc.gov.ph/downloadables/NPAC%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed on August 18,2010.

Government of the Philippines. 2006. Philippine Plan ofAction for Senior Citizens 2005- 2010: BuildingA Society for All Ages. Department of SocialWelfare and Development website, http://www.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/downloads/category/36-?download=104%3App-2006-2010.Accessed August 17, 2010.

Government of the Philippines. 2008. Committee on theRights of the Child: Consideration of ReportsSubmitted by States Parties Under Article 44 ofthe Convention: Philippines. Paper Presented tothe United Nations General Assembly. UnitedNations High Commission on Human Rightswebsite, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/ docs/CRC.C52.1.pdf. AccessedAugust 21, 2010.

International Disaster Database. 2010. Philippines.http://www.emdat.be/database. AccessedAugust 30, 2010.

Korten, David. 1990. Getting into the 21st Century: VoluntaryAction and the Global Agenda. West Hartford, CT:Kumarian Press.

National Statistics Office and ICF Macro. 2009. Resultsof the 2008 National Demographic and HealthSurvey. United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment website, http://philippines.usaid.gov/resources/key_documents/NDHS_2008.pdf. AccessedAugust 22, 2010.

Chap

ter

2



National Youth Commission (undated). The MediumTerm Youth Development Plan 2005- 2010.National Youth Commission website,http://www.youth.net/ph/policies/local1.php.Accessed August 22, 2010.

Ogena, Nimfa. 2000. How Are the Filipino YouthChanging: The Shifting Lifestyles Of OurNation’s Young 1970s to 1990s. PaperCommissioned by the Philippine Council forPopulation and Development.

Philippine Institute for Development Studies. 2009.Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities:The Case of the Philippines. PhilippineInstitute for Development Studies DiscussionPaper No. 2009- 27.

Racelis, Mary and Angela Desiree M. Aguirre. 2002.“Making Philippine Cities Child Friendly:Voices of Children in Poor Communities,”Environment and Urbanization 14, 2: 97-114.

Saith, Ruhi. 2007. “Social Exclusion: Concept andApplication to Developing Countries,” in FrancesStewart, Ruhi Saith and Barbara Harris-White,eds. Defining Poverty in the Developing World.Basingstoke, England: Palmgrave Macmillan.

Sanchez, Nicamil. 2008. The Filipino Senior Citizen: At AGlance. Paper Presented to the Sociology ofAging Course, Oxford University Institute ofAgeing. Oxford Sociology of Aging Course, http://www.rc11-sociology-of-aging.org/system/files/Philippines.pdf. Accessed August 22,2010.

Taradji, Parisya Hashim. 2007. Philippine CountryReport at the High Level Meeting on theRegional Review of the Madrid InternationalPlan of Action on Ageing, Macao, China. UnitedNations Economic and Social Commission forAsia and the Pacific website http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/meetings/ageingmipaa2007/philippines.pdf. AccessedAugust 20, 2010.

Velasco, Djorina. undated.Rejecting “Old Style” Politics?Youth Participation in the Philippines.Freidrich Ebert Stiftung Manila website, http://library.fes.de/pdffiles/bueros/philippines /04526/countrypapers_philippines.pdf.Accessed August 23, 2010.

Chap

ter



Name (area of expertise/involvement) Institution Contact Information

Ma. Elena Caraballo (Children sector) Deputy Executive Director, 10 Apo Street, Quezon CityCouncil for the Welfare of Children

Marian Opeña (Children sector) Executive Director, National Council 4/F 900 United Methodist Church,of Social Development Foundation Headquarters Building, United Nationsof the Philippines, Inc. Avenue, Ermita, Manila

Marilou Von Arx (Children sector) Coordinator, Sun for All Children Foundation

Christopher Arnuco (Youth and Chairperson, National Youth Commission 4/F Bookman Building, 373 Quezonstudents sector) Boulevard, Quezon City

Bianca Lapuz (Youth and students Former Chairperson Student Council Association of thesector) Philippines

Ching Jorge (Youth and students Chair, Young Public Servants International Center for Innovation,sector) Transformation and Excellence in

Governance, 11/F Prestige Tower, OrtigasRoad, Ortigas, Pasig

Fransiskus Cupang Executive Director Coalition for the Services to the Elderly,(senior citizens sector) 717 Mariwasa Building Aurora Boulevard,

Quezon City.

Bong Masagca (victims of disasters Executive Director Pampanga Disaster Response Network,and calamities sector) MacArthur Highway, Maimpis, Pampanga

Annex AList of Key Informants

Chap

ter

2



Note: The paper is by the Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI) written for the Australian Aid Agency Manila Office to inform thedesign process of the Australian Aid Agency (Ausaid) future initiative that will help support the engagement of Philippine civil societyin national and local governance. Thanks to Joji Abot-Camelon of Ausaid and Nandy Aldaba and Annie de Leon of CSRI for usefulcomments. The paper also benefited from useful comments provided by Elena Caraballo, Mark Dasco, Justin Castillo, Ed Gerlock,Salvacion Baciono, Eda Conda, Ann Barerra, Teddy Bonitez and other participants at a discussion on this paper at the Institute onChurch and Social Issues last September 1, 2010

Annex BSelected list of local and foreign NGOs working with sectoral POs:

Sector Institution Contact Information

Children Childfund Philippines 8/F Strata 100 Building, F. Ortigas Road, 1605 Ortigas Center, Pasig

Plan International 7/F Salustiana D. Ty Towers, 104 Paseo De Roxas, Legazpi Village, Makati

World Vision 389 Quezon Avenue cor West 6th Street, Quezon City

Consuelo Foundation 27/F Citibank Tower, 8741 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City

Educational Research and Development 66 Linaw Street, Sta. Mesa Heights,Assistance (ERDA) Development Foundation Quezon CityUnited Nations Children Emergency Fund

Youth Center for Youth Advocacy and Unit 2, Liberty Place, No. 96 Xavierville Avenue, Loyola Heights,Networking Quezon City

International Center for Innovation, Unit 1110, 11/F Prestige Tower, F. Ortigas Road,Transformation and Excellence in Governance Ortigas Center, Pasig City

Senior Citizens Coalition of Services to the Elderly 717 Mariwasa Building Aurora Boulevard, Quezon CityVictims of People’s Reform Initiative for Social 3/F BDO Building, 2422 Taft Avenue, ManilaDisasters and Mobilization Foundation

Calamities Philippine Red Cross Bonifacio Avenue, Port Area, Manila

Pampanga Disaster Response Network 3/F Landmark Building, MacArthur Highway, Quebiawa,San Fernando, Pampanga

Creative Community Foundation 53 E Barangay Libertad, Lapuz, Iloilo City

Little Children of the Philippines Foundation Claytown Subdivision, Daro, Dumaguete, Negros Oriental

Leyte Center for Development Barangay Libertad, Palo, Leyte

Integrated Resouces Development 35 Crispin R. Atillano St., Tetuan, Zamboanga City for Tri-People

Chap

ter

2


People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesThe Philippine Women’s Movement: Asserting Rights, Claiming Space

Elizabeth Yang and Elena Masilungan

Introduction

The Philippine women’s movement (movement will be theterm used in this paper, instead of sector — women’srights advocates do not consider themselves as a sector.The assertion is that they form half of the population ofthe sectors, thus women form half of the workers’ sector,peasant sector and so on) has come a long way since theAsociacion de Feminista Filipina was organized in 1905.Today, it is acknowledged worldwide for its vibrancy,dynamism and diversity. It is made up of a wide range ofwomen organizations and non-government organizations(NGOs) offering various assistance and services todifferent clients as well as championing variousadvocacies that respond to issues confronting women.

A common thread that runs through the women NGOs ishow they have framed and organized their work withinthe ambit of gender and development (GAD), a paradigmthat recognizes women as agents of economic, socialand political change and considers gender equality andwomen’s empowerment as crucial factors todevelopment. GAD contends that the unequal genderrelations between women and men are barriers that limitwomen’s access to and control over productiveresources, recognition and valuation of theirreproductive roles, their participation in decisionmaking, and their equitable share of the benefits ofdevelopment. Women must organize themselves so theycan avail of opportunities to influence what happens insociety, to make decisions and set priorities, andparticipate in political processes that would allow themto promote and protect their rights.

With GAD as the framework, this paper maps out thediverse range of groups and organizations thatcomprise the women’s movement. It identifies externalfactors, both enabling and disenabling, that affect itsgrowth. Organizational strengths and weaknesses arealso identified. Recommendations to identify the stepsin strengthening the role of the women’s movement inthe Philippine development process are also generated.

Herstory

The Philippine women’s movement traces its beginningsto the babaylans and catalonas — high priestesses,healers, and counsels to datus (local chieftains) beforethe coming of the Spanish colonizers. Pre-Spanishsociety was relatively egalitarian, where women enjoyequal status and relative freedom (Jimenez-David,1999).

The Spanish colonizers, however, introduced their ownlegal code, social norms and culture, by force andpersuasion, which resulted in the subjugation ofwomen. The babaylans and catalonas were eithercoopted as church servers or continued to practicehealing skills in hiding (Ibid). Under the Spanishcolonizers, women challenged the authorities byforming their own indigenous religious orders, as in thecase of Mother Ignacia del Epiritu Santo, who foundedthe Religious of the Virgin Mary (RVM) in defiance of theBishop’s order; the women of Malolos who wrote apetition letter to the Governor-General to grant them thesame right to education as the men; and the women of

The Philippine Women’s Movement: AssertingRights, Claiming Space

Chap

ter

2People’s Organizations (POs) in the PhilippinesThe Philippine Women’s Movement: Asserting Rights, Claiming Space


the Katipunan, the revolutionary movement that foughtfor independence from Spain (Jimenez-David, 1999).

During the American period, the Asociacion FeministaFilipina (AFF) was founded in 1905 and a year after, theAsociacion Feminista Ilongga (AFI). These twoorganizations led the dauntless 30-year struggle for thewomen’s right to vote until it was won through anoverwhelming affirmative vote of more than 400,000 ina women’s plebiscite on 30 April 1937 (Sarabia, 2005).

The AFF and AFI spawned several other women’sorganizations. These groups composed the present-dayNational Council of Women in the Philippines (NCWP),which remains as the largest network of women’sgroups in the country.

Women’s groups with a more activist stance or feministorientation were formed in the 1960s until the height ofMartial Law in the ‘70s and the early ‘80s (Santos andEstrada-Claudio, 2006).

The assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. on 21August 1983 galvanized a broad citizens’ protestmovement, including the middle- and upper-classwomen who formed the Alliance of Concerned Womenfor Reconciliation (later changed to Reform) or AWARE.AWARE formed the core of campaigners in thepresidential campaign of Aquino’s widow, Corazon,against the dictator Ferdinand Marcos (Javate-de Dios,1996).

The General Assembly Binding Women for Reform,Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action (GABRIELA)was formed in 1984 as a broad multi-class, multi-sectoral coalition of women’s groups united to oust thedictatorship. Because its membership was composed ofgroups coming from different political persuasions,tensions and debates within it were inevitable. Thegroup was further divided during the 1984 snapelections between those who wanted to participate inthe polls and those who opted to boycott them (Javate-de Dios, 1996).

When the democratic government under the leadershipof President Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino was installed,more women’s groups were formed that focused onaddressing issues and were independent from socialblocs or movements. The reasons for this trend

included: (1) the challenge to translate feminist theoryinto action; (2) the felt need to respond to issuesaffecting women, such as sexual violence/rape,reproductive rights, sexuality and legislative reformsfor women, which were not being responded to by thebroad social movement; and (3) the growing interest ofdonors to address gender issues (Santos and Estrada-Claudio, 2006).

Today, these factors continue to play a pivotal role inthe growth and evolution of the Philippine women’smovement.

Situation of Women in the PhilippinesSituation of Women in the PhilippinesSituation of Women in the PhilippinesSituation of Women in the PhilippinesSituation of Women in the Philippines

The country had a population of about 89 million in2006 (National Statistical Coordination Board or NSCB,2010). It is estimated that by 2009, the number wouldhave reached 92.23 million, with women comprising49.72 percent, or around 46 million, of the totalpopulation.

Filipino women enjoy relatively more freedom andrights than their Asian sisters. But discrimination andan unequal status are never far from their lives,especially when confronted by the following persistentissues that continue to burden them:

A. Feminization of poverty

In 2006, 30.1 percent of Filipino women wereconsidered poor (NSCB, 2010).In 2008, the total employed population labor forceparticipation rate (LFPR) number for women was49.3 percent while men’s LFPR was 78.8 percent(NSCB, 2010). Millions of women workers areemployed in the service sector that is known for itslow wages, poor working conditions, and lowproductivity.

In the face of global competitiveness, womenworkers in manufacturing have to accept laborsubcontracting and contractualization. In such anenvironment, women are paid below minimumwages, are required to keep long hours and forcedto work overtime, and are even subjected to sexualharassment.

Chap

ter

2



In agriculture, a significant number of women areunpaid family workers who perform bothproductive work in the farm and domestic work athome. In 2009, 56 percent of unpaid family workerswere women (NSCB, 2010).

According to the 2005 Labor Force Survey, ownaccount and unpaid family workers involved ininformal work comprised over 75 percent of allemployed women and men (Democratic SocialistWomen of the Philippines or DSWP, 2009). They donot enjoy social protection.

Of the two million overseas Filipino workers in2008, some 968,000, or 48.4 percent, were women.More than half of them, or 58.3 percent, wereemployed as laborers and unskilled workers,making them vulnerable to abuse anddiscrimination (Philippine Commission on Womenor PCW, 2010).

B. Globalization

Globalization has led to the exploitation of Filipinowomen as cheap labor and victims of internationaltrafficking.

Women overseas workers continue to be victims ofillegal recruitment and trafficking, some of themfalling prey to international sex syndicates.

To remain globally competitive, companies tend toresort to flexible labor arrangements, includingflexible employment schemes such as part-time orhome-work arrangements and temporary or casualemployments. These schemes are not usuallybeyond the reach of labor laws and socialprotection and mostly employ women workers.

C. Indigenous and Moro women

Indigenous women are among the mostmarginalized of Filipino women. They engagelargely in subsistence agricultural production andsmall-scale home-based handicraft industries fortheir livelihood. Their rights to their ancestrallands have been undermined, especially since theselands are seen as a resource base by largeindustrial corporations. When these encroach intotheir lands and extract their natural resources,

indigenous communities lose control over theirresources and indigenous knowledge. Theenvironment also suffers and their food security isthreatened as a result of these large-scaleindustrial activities. Their indigenous economiesbecome unsustainable so that many resort tomigration for their families’ economic survival.

Moro women, on the other hand, facediscrimination in a male-dominated culture as wellas a Muslim in a largely Christian population.Women from the Autonomous Region of MuslimMindanao (ARMM), in particular, suffereconomically, socially and psychologically becauseof the armed conflict that periodically breaks out inthe region. Many of those displaced by the conflictand living in evacuation camps are women andchildren.

ARMM’s maternal mortality rate is also twice ashigh as the national average of 162 per 100,000live births, according to the 2008 National Healthand Demographic Survey. The survey also notesthat nine out of 10 births in the ARMM take place athome under the supervision of a traditional birthattendant compared with the national average ofsix out of 10 births.

D. Women’s health

Women’s maternal mortality rate is alarmingly highwhere more than four thousand mothers die frompregnancy and childbirth every year, or 11 Filipinomothers dying every day (Save the Children, 2008).

Reproductive health services are unreliable andsometimes not even available. There is yet nocomprehensive policy, legislation nor programaddressing women’s reproductive health rights.There is also a need for widely available care,services and information on women’scomprehensive health needs across their life spans,including reproductive health.

E. Violence against women (VAW) andarmed conflict

Progressive laws addressing VAW and giving justiceto victims and survivors have been enacted andgovernment agencies have formed themselves into

Chap

ter



task forces for their implementation. Yetimplementation remains a problem. Even if there isalready a law against trafficking in persons, thecountry remains in the “tier 2 watch list” categoryof the US State Department for its inability to curbwidespread trafficking. Being categorized as tier 2means the country has not yet complied fully withthe minimum standards of the Trafficking VictimsProtection Act, but significant efforts to meet themare being made (US State Department, 2009).

The justice system is the weakest link in the fight toprosecute crimes on VAW. Some judges are not evenaware of the provisions of the laws on VAW andcontinue to factor in age-old stereotypes of womenin their decisions. To them, women are to blame forthe violence done to them if they fail to actaccording to the stereotypical standard of thetimid, unassuming woman that society expects ofthem.

Civilians, including women and children, areheavily affected whenever armed conflict breaksout between government and rebel forces. Womenmust have a seat at the negotiating table,representing the unarmed population who are alsoaffected by the armed conflict and who may haveborne its heaviest costs.

F. Low participation of women in politicaldecision making

Philippine politics is still elitist and male-dominated. Women’s representation in electedpositions at the national and local levels fallsshort of the 30-percent quota recommended by theUnited Nations.

Mapping of OrganizationsMapping of OrganizationsMapping of OrganizationsMapping of OrganizationsMapping of Organizations

Women’s organizations come in different forms. It maybe big (such as a coalition) or small (desk of an NGOwith multiple programs). It could be a women’sorganization catering to women clients or a women-ledorganization working to infuse gender perspective on abroader issue such as peace or migration.

Level of autonomy

Autonomy is a fundamental principle espoused bywomen’s organizations. Organizational autonomymeans an organization is able to undertake its analysisand pursue its own goals and strategies independentlyfrom a broader perspective or goals of a larger groupand is able to critically and independently engage statepower.

The expression of autonomy varies among differentgroups, depending on the perspectives and context ofthe group.

1. Women’s units within a bigger movement ororganization

A classic example is the Malayang Kilusan ngBagong Kababaihan or MAKIBAKA (Free Movementof New Women) organized in 1964 as a women’sorganization espousing a national democraticideology. MAKIBAKA initially took up women’sissues but eventually succumbed to the pressuresof the male-dominated leadership and subsumeditself under the national democratic movement. Itremains active to this day as the women’s armedcomponent of the Communist Party of thePhilippines – National Democratic Front – NewPeoples’ Army (CPP-NDF-NPA).

GABRIELA is a member of the broader BagongAlyansa Makabayan or BAYAN (New Alliance ofPatriots), while its legislative arm, the GABRIELAWomen’s Party (GWP) is a member of theMAKABAYAN Party.

GWP has consistently supported bills in Congresspromoting gender equality and women’s rights. Inthe present Congress, the party re-filed the divorcebill.

Other women’s groups belonging to broader ormixed political formations or mixed coalitionsinclude the Katipunan ng Bagong Pilipina orKaBAPa (Association of New Filipinas); theDemocratic Socialist Women of the Philippines(DSWP) and the Women’s Committee of the Freedomfrom Debt Coalition (FDC)

Chap

ter

2



2. Autonomous women’s organizations

Women’s organizations with a feminist perspectiveand asserting their identity independent from apolitical force include PILIPINA, the Katipunan ngKababaihan para sa Kalayaan or Kalayaan (Women’sCollective for Freedom), the Women’s Education,Development, Productivity and ResearchOrganization (WeDpro, Inc.), and Kasarian-Kalayaanor Sarilaya (gender liberation).

Issue-focused

1. Addressing feminization of poverty

Organizations working on this issue include thoseaddressing the continuing poverty andmarginalization caused by unfair trade and gender-blind macro policies, asserting the rights ofmarginalized women in development processes andprograms and integrating a gender perspective insocioeconomic programs.

The Pambansang Koalisyon ng Kababaihan saKanayunan or PKKK (National Coalition of RuralWomen) asserts the rights of rural women while thePambansang Kalipunan ng mga ManggagawangImpormal sa Pilipinas or PATAMABA (National Networkof Informal Workers in the Philippines) pushes forthe rights of informal workers.

The Women’s Initiative for Sustainable EconomicAction, Inc. (WISE-ACT) was set up to integrate thegender perspective in socioeconomic andentrepreneurship endeavors.

The Women’s Committee of the FDC began in the early1980’s to conduct a gender analysis of the country’sdebt problem and structural adjustment programs. Ithas successfully influenced the entire FDC to adopt amore socialist-feminist economic framework in theadvocacy of the coalition. The Women’s Committeealso formed the Welga ng Kababaihan (Women’sStrike), a national movement of women coming from50 organizations and formations that addresseconomic issues affecting women, particularlypoverty and globalization.

2. Indigenous and Moro women

Several women’s organizations have taken thecudgels of engaging the sociocultural practices thatreinforce discrimination against indigenous andMoro women. Among these are PKKK affiliates,Mindanao Council of Lumad Women and TedurayLambangian Women’s Organization (TLWO), whileGABRIELA members include the Cordillera Women’sEducation and Resource Center (CWERC), Innabuyogand Khadidja.

Other organizations include the Igorota FoundationInc. (IFI), working on the issues of Cordillerawomen; the Al Mujadillah Development Foundation(AMDF) and Nisa Ul Haqq fi Bangsamoro, (Arabicfor Women for Justice in the Bangsamoro),advocating for women’s rights in the context ofIslam and culture.

The Foundation of Bangsamoro Women and theFederation of United Mindanawan BangsamoroWomen’s Multi-purpose Cooperative (UMBWMP)were organized by women leaders of the MoroNational Liberation Front (MNLF).

3. Asserting women’s right to health

All progressive women’s groups are united in theadvocacy of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. Thelegislative lobby is led by the Reproductive HealthAdvocacy Network (RHAN) anchored by DSWP andthe Philippine Legislators Council on Populationand Development (PLCPD). Aside from this, variousother women’s organizations undertakegroundbreaking initiatives to advance the issue ofsexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR).Among these are Woman Health Philippines,Reproductive Rights Resource Group (3RG),Engenderights, Inc. and the Mindanao WorkingGroup on Reproductive Health, Gender andSexuality and Institute for Social Studies and Action(ISSA).

The Women’s Health Care Foundation and theLikhaan Center for Women’s Health undertakeclinic-based and/or community-based educationand delivery of gender-responsive heath services.

Chap

ter



4. Addressing different forms of violence againstwomen (VAW)

Starting from the 8th Congress, women’s groupsengaged in legislative advocacy for laws to eliminateall forms of violence against women. It is largely dueto these efforts that these measures are presenttoday.

Several organizations carry out a range ofintervention programs to respond to VAW. Theseinclude the following: the Women’s Crisis Center(WCC), Kababaihan Laban sa Karahasan (Kalakasan),the Third World Movement Against the Exploitationof Women (TW-MAE-W), the Visayan ForumFoundation and the Coalition Against Trafficking inWomen–Asia Pacific (CATW-AP).

Lihok-Pilipina Foundation, Inc. (LPFI), in Cebu Citypioneered in setting up community-based responsesto VAW called Bantay-Banay (Family orNeighborhood Watch); Development through ActiveWomen Networking or DAWN Foundation, Inc. inBacolod City helps barangays in setting up QuickResponse Teams (QRT).

The Women’s Desk of Sentro ng Alternatibong LingapPanlegal or SALIGAN (Alternative Legal AssistanceCenter), Women’s Legal Bureau (WLB) andWomenlead provide legal assistance to VAWsurvivors who wish to pursue their cases in courts.

CATW-AP takes the lead in the Congress lobby for thepassage of the anti-prostitution bill, while VisayanForum has been lobbying for the past years for thepassage of the kasambahay bill or the Magna Cartafor Domestic Workers.

5. Addressing concerns of women migrant workers

Women migrant workers are vulnerable to gender-based abuse and exploitation. A number of NGOshave been set up to respond specifically to theseconcerns. These include the Batis Center for Womenthat helps women migrant workers who go throughthe legal process in securing their rights and assistsdistressed Filipino migrant women and theirchildren to return to the country as well as theDevelopment Action for Women Network (DAWN) thathelps Filipino women migrants in Japan and their

Japanese-Filipino children by promoting andprotecting their rights and welfare.

6. Addressing armed conflict and militarism;Promoting peace

Other women’s groups address the unabated andprotracted armed conflict in the country. AlMujadillah, by including hygiene kits in thedistribution of emergency packages ,pioneered inproviding gender-sensitive relief assistance towomen internally displaced by war. The MindanaoCommission on Women was established in 2001 toadvocate for a Mindanao peace and developmentagenda from women’s perspective;

The Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute (GZOPI), theWomen and Gender Institute (WAGI) and the Centerfor Peace Education, the last two both based inMiriam College, lead the advocacy on the UnitedNations Security Council Resolution 1325 providingfor the protection of women from sexual violence inarmed conflict situations and women’sparticipation in the peace process.

WeDpro, on the other hand, formed the PhilippineWomen’s Network for Peace and Security (PWNPS),and was active in the Task Force Subic Rape (TFSR)condemning the rape of a Filipina by six U.S.military servicemen.

7. Promoting women’s human rights

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination against Women (CEDAW) isconsidered the international treaty on women’shuman rights. While it was ratified by thePhilippines nineteen years ago in 1981, awarenessabout the Convention remains low.

Advocacy on the CEDAW was given a boost when theUnited Nations Development Fund for Women-Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women-Southeast AsiaProgram (UNIFEM-CEDAW-SEAP) was implementedfrom 2005 – 2008 (UNIFEM, 2009). Some of theprojects undertaken included the following: NGOadvocacy campaign for the Philippine ShadowReport conducted by the Women’s Legal Bureau(WLB); popularizing CEDAW through creative multi-

Chap

ter

2



media campaign anchored by the Women’s FeatureService (WFS); formation of CEDAW-WatchPhilippines which engaged in information,education and advocacy to make national laws andpolicies consistent with CEDAW; legislativeadvocacy for the Magna Carta of Women led byPILIPNA; and integration of CEDAW into thecurriculum initiated by the University of thePhilippines Center for Women Studies.

8. Engaging politics and pushing for gender-responsivegovernance

The work to improve women’s politicalrepresentation and participation is not limited toincreasing the number of women in decision-makingand consultative bodies. It also means demandingmore transparency and accountability ingovernance. It is ensuring that power and resourcesare allocated judiciously to those who need it themost, including women.

The range of work on women in politics andgovernance involves the following:

8.1 Strengthening women’s constituency andcapability building: PILIPINA implements agraduated leadership training and formationcalled Women’s Empowerment in the Barangay(WEB); DSWP is involved in strengthening andconsolidating women’s organizations and hasfocused for the past five years on young womenand women workers in the informal sector;

8.2 Consciousness-raising and training of localpublic officials: The Women Involved in NationBuilding undertakes annual congresses andtraining on gender-issues; and GAD for locallegislators; while the DAWN Foundation, Inc.,based in Negros Occidental, provides trainingand technical assistance on GAD to local publicofficials, not only within the province but alsoin the whole of the Visayas region.

8.3 Forming a women’s party: GABRIELA fielded itswomen’s party and has consistently won twoseats in the House of Representatives since2004.

8.4 Drafting and passing local women’s/GAD codes:Davao City pioneered the first local WomenDevelopment Code (Ordinance No. 5004) on 27July 1998. Women NGOs were consulted andactively participated in its drafting.

Davao’s initiative happened way before theMagna Carta of Women was passed inCongress, where one of its provisionsmandated all LGUs to “develop and pass a GADCode to support their efforts … toward theattainment of women’s empowerment andgender equality in their locality.”

8.5 Formation of local women/GAD councils/committees/ commissions: The provincialgovernment of Bulacan pioneered in thecreation of the Panlalawigang Komisyon parasa Kababaihan ng Bulakan or PKKB (ProvincialCommission for the Women of Bulacan) in1994, which serves as recommendatory andadvisory body to the governor on gender issuesand concerns. Other LGU’s have since set uptheir own councils.

8.6 Claiming the GAD budget: Women’s ActionNetwork for Development (WAND) piloted thecapability-building of local women’sorganizations and LGUs in gender-responsiveand results-based budgeting (GRRB) in nine (9)areas. It continues to hone the knowledge,skills and expertise of its members in thisarena (Honculada, 2009).

9. Engaging the gendering institutions

The academe and media are potent tools forreinforcing gender bias and discriminationagainst women. Systematic interventions areneeded to ensure that these institutionspromote gender equality and women’sempowerment.

The Women Studies Association of thePhilippines (WSAP) was formed in 1987 topromote gender perspectives in the Philippineeducational system; while Women’s FeatureService (WFS) and Women’s Media Circle(WMC) focus on gender sensitization of media.

Chap

ter



Strengths and WStrengths and WStrengths and WStrengths and WStrengths and Weaknesses; Threatseaknesses; Threatseaknesses; Threatseaknesses; Threatseaknesses; Threatsand Opporand Opporand Opporand Opporand Opportunitiestunitiestunitiestunitiestunities

Opportunities

1. Favorable policy and legal environment

The 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article II, Section14) guarantees the fundamental equality of womenand men before the law and recognizes the role ofwomen in nation-building.

Since its ratification, landmark laws (see Annex A)promoting women’s rights to development, such asthe Women in Development and Nation-Building Act(Republic Act 7192), protecting them from all formsof violence and improving their participation inpolitical decision making, have been passed.

In 1995, the Philippine Plan for Gender-responsivedevelopment (PPGD), 1995 to 2025, was adopted asa thirty year perspective plan to fully integrategender and development concerns in thedevelopment process. This was followed by theFramework Plan for Women (FPW), 2001-2004,which was approved to promote women’s economicempowerment, protect women’s human rights, andadvance gender-responsive governance (PhilGADportal).

To ensure that government allocates the necessarybudget for GAD programs and services, the GADbudget policy was instituted in the GeneralAppropriations Act beginning in 1995. The GADbudget mandates all departments, bureaus, officesand agencies as well as LGUs to set aside aminimum of five percent of their total budgets forGAD programs and projects.

The aforementioned laws and policies provided theinstruments for women’s groups to hold thegovernment accountable in implementing programsand projects that serve women’s needs and seek toprotect women’s rights.

2. International commitments

The Philippine government is a signatory tointernational treaties and conventions advancing

gender concerns and women’s rights. Among theseare the Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Discrimination Against Women’s Rights (CEDAW),the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA), and theMillennium Development Goals (MDG).

Responding to the reports of the Philippinegovernment and women’s groups to the U.N. CEDAWCommittee on 15 August 2006, the Committeerecommended in its Concluding Comments to thePhilippine government that the Convention be fullyapplicable in the national legal system, and “that adefinition of discrimination in line with article 1 ofthe Convention [be] included in national law(Concluding Comments of the CEDAW Committee,2006).”

In line with this, work went in earnest forlegislative advocacy of a gender equality law. Theintensive lobby by PILIPINA, PKKK, CEDAW-Watch,SALIGAN and PCW from 2006 to 2009 led to theenactment of the Magna Carta of Women (MCW) orRepublic Act (RA) 9710 on 14 August 2009.

The U.N. CEDAW and its national translation, in theform of the MCW, provide yet another policyinstrument by which women’s rights advocatescould anchor their advocacy.

3. Influence from the international women’smovement

Much of the development work related to theassertion of gender equality and promotion ofwomen’s rights is influenced by the internationalwomen’s movement, where Filipino women leadersare also prime movers.

The shifts in development approaches relating towomen were informed by the progressive thinkingof gender experts. In the 1970’s, the Women inDevelopment (WID) approach focused on treatingwomen as mere recipients of projects and providingthem with access to resources and opportunities. Atpresent, the Gender and Development (GAD)perspective harnesses women’s participation sothat they are empowered to transform unequalstructures and all forms of discriminatory policiesand practices.

Chap

ter

2



4. Commitment of international developmentagencies

The support of international development agenciesalso serves as a positive factor in integratinggender perspective in development programs andprocesses.

The technical and financial assistance provided bythe Canadian International Development Agency(CIDA), Deutsche Geselleschaft fuer TechnischeZusammenarbeist (German-GTZ) and the UnitedNations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)helped in the firming up of gender mainstreamingas an institutional framework and strategy ofNCRFW in the 1990’s (Honculada and Pineda-Ofreneo, 2000).

The Women in Nation Building Act or R.A. 7192provides that women shall equally benefit and fullyparticipate in programs and projects supported byofficial development assistance (ODA) fundsreceived from foreign governments and multilateralagencies.

The harmonized GAD guidelines for projectdevelopment, implementation, monitoring andevaluation were developed by the NationalEconomic Development Authority (NEDA), PCW andthe Official Development Assistance Gender andDevelopment (ODA-GAD) Network. The joint effortaims to ensure that ODA funded projects contributepositively to the attainment of gender equality andwomen’s empowerment (Asian Development Bank orADB, 2008).

5. Partnership between the government machineryand women NGOs

NCRFW’s adversarial relationship with thegovernment during the Martial Law years shifted toone of critical collaboration when Corazon Aquinoassumed the presidency. The first PhilippineDevelopment Plan for Women (PDPW), 1987-1992was crafted as a companion plan to the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP), 1987-1992, with the participation of a broad spectrum ofwomen’s groups.

Despite institutional limitations and rockyrelationships with women NGO’s, the lattercontinue to critically engage the NationalCommission on the Role of Filipino Women(NCRFW), renamed the Philippine Commission onWomen (PCW) by virtue of MCW or R.A. 9710. Somepossible areas of cooperation between PCW andwomen NGOs include: (1) advocacy for women -friendly law and policies such as the Magna Cartaof Women; (2) advocacy against violence onwomen; (3) increasing women’s publicrepresentation in the highest decision-makingbodies; (4) raising issues on globalization and itsimpact on women and women’s economicempowerment; and (5) claiming the GAD budget forwomen’s projects at the community level (Javate-deDios 2001).

Threats

1. Conservative religious groups

While the women’s movement continues to makeadvances in promoting gender equality in allspheres of life and women’s rights, a segment ofsociety, particularly those who firmly believe that awoman’s place is always in the home and with thefamily, remains a hindrance

For example, while the crafting of the 1987Constitution was in progress, two ConstitutionalCommissioners, a Roman Catholic bishop and amember of the Opus Dei, introduced a provision onthe protection of the life of the unborn. Women’sgroups vigorously opposed the inclusion of thisprovision.

It was in this context that a broad alliance calledWoman Health, was formed. In the end, acompromise provision, i.e., equal protection of thelife of the mother and the life of the unborn, washammered out by the Constitutional Commission.

Some Roman Catholic bishops, particularly theEpiscopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL)and conservative lay groups, formed a strong lobbyagainst the passage of the bill on reproductivehealth, a measure so direly needed in order to curbthe high maternal mortality rate in the country.

Chap

ter



The same groups and the Roman Catholic bishopslobbied against the passage of the Magna Carta ofWomen while it was still pending in Congress. Theyargued that CEDAW, which forms the basis of thebill, is anti-life and anti-family and that thesections on “gender” and “gender development”open up the floodgates for the right to sexualorientation, which is against the law of God andnature.

Conservative Muslim scholars continue to be waryabout advancements on women’s rights. This,despite a “fatwah” (edicts written by Muslimreligious leaders) that family planning is anchoredon the teachings of Islam.

2. New forms of exploitation of women

Advances in technology have brought about fasterand easier ways of communication and access toinformation. Unfortunately, this also result in newforms of exploitation of women, e.g., proliferation ofinternet pornography sites and cyber sex dens.

Even as women still have to break from the bonds oftraditional customary practices, they have to dealwith these new forms of exploitation as well.

3. Gender still at the margins

Gender mainstreaming efforts have been done formore than thirty years, yet advocates lament thatgender concerns remain at the fringes of bothgovernment plans and programs and the advocaciesof the broad social and sectoral movements.

Gender blind macro-policies that negatively impingeon women’s lives continue to be crafted and policy-makers remain insensitive to women’s issues andconcerns.

While there is an acceptance, in principle, that alldevelopment issues should be looked at with agender lens and that all issues affect women, veryfew women leaders in the other social sectors lackthe capacity to do gender analysis and integrategender perspectives in their sectoral advocacies.

Strengths

1 Resilience and dynamism

The mapping shows the width and breadth of thePhilippine women’s movement and the capacity ofgender equality and women rights advocates to putgender issues in the center of public discourse. It isdue to their persistent advocacies that issues suchas sexual harassment and violence in the homesare considered public/development issues today.

2. Leadership, expertise and capacity

Gender equality and women’s rights advocates areknown for their articulateness, technical andadvocacy skills not only within the country but alsointernationally. Three Filipina diplomats haveserved as chairs of the United Nations Commissionon the Status of Women (UNCSW) at various times.During the Fourth World Conference on Women heldin Beijing, China on September 1995, two Filipinasplayed key roles in both the official U.N. Conferenceand the NGO forum held in Huairou, Beijing.(Honculada and Pineda-Ofreneo, 2000)

Advocates have also shown the capacity to managedevelopment funds to implement projects. WANDand another women’s formation called the Group ofTen, co-managed the Development Initiatives forWomen and Transformative Action (DIWATA), anNGO funding mechanism for women ondevelopment (WID) programs under the CanadianInternational Development Agency (CIDA). DIWATAwas able to fund and implement a total of 200projects from 1991 to 1996 (Honculada, 1999).

The UNIFEM-CEDAW-SEAP mentioned above isanother example of how women NGOs were tappedto successfully carry out key projects andcampaigns in attaining the strategic objectives ofimproving awareness and deepening understandingof CEDAW; strengthening capacities of State partiesand civil society groups to promote human rightsunder CEDAW and strengthening political will forimplementation (UNIFEM, 2009).

Chap

ter

2



Because of their capacities and expertise, Filipinasare tapped as gender advisers and technicalexperts in various multilateral agencies andinternational NGOs.

Weaknesses

1. Politics over merit in the leadership selection of thestate machinery on women

PCW, ,being the government entity mandated toserve as an oversight agency and authority onwomen’s concerns and the lead advocate onwomen’s empowerment and gender equality, isgreatly expected to appoint women who will bringtheir expertise, time and even resources into theCommission. Yet, advocates often point out that thewomen leaders who are chosen as commissionersare those who have not been part of the women’smovement but have personal and politicalendorsements.

There have been attempts to institutionalize a moretransparent and inclusive selection process butthese have not been pursued.

2. Internal dynamics among women’s groups

Women movements are fraught with debates andtensions that often lead to break-up ofrelationships and organizational splits. With suchdiverse groups, it is expected that conflicts inopinions and perspectives will arise. There is aneed to manage these conflicts to facilitate healthydebates.

Nevertheless, there have been instances of unifyingand working together on common issues, such asthe advocacy on the reproductive health bill.

3. Government-organized organizations versusautonomous organizations

The issue on whether government should intervenein organizing women is always raised. UnderMarcos, NCRFW was engaged in the organizing ofBalikatan sa Kaunlaran (BSK) which was largelycriticized as a political tool of the Marcosgovernment because its entry points in organizingBSK chapters were the local politicians’ wives.Nonetheless, the BSK experience showed howgovernment support and investment could go a longway in improving women’s conditions (Honculadaand Pineda-Ofreneo, 2000).

The debate resurfaced when the Department of theInterior and Local Government (DILG) issuedmemorandum circulars enjoining all local chiefexecutives to organize local councils of women(LCW) in their respective areas, raising thepossibility that the women’s councils would beused for vested political interests. The circularscreated further controversy when it gave theNational Council of Women of the Philippines(NCWP) a prominent role in the screening ofwomen’s organizations applying for membership inthe LCW.

Many women’s organizations raised their concernsabout this issue arguing that the memorandumimpinged on the autonomy and empowerment ofwomen’s organizations.

4. Need for capability-building intervention forsectoral and grassroots women leaders

Through the years, training programs and tools foranalysis and advocacy have been developed. Thereis a need to make these available to a wideraudience, especially among women at thegrassroots/community level and other sectoralorganizations.

More grassroots and sectoral women leaders needto be organized and empowered so that theythemselves can stake their rights and entitlements.

Chap

ter



Conclusion and RecommendationsConclusion and RecommendationsConclusion and RecommendationsConclusion and RecommendationsConclusion and Recommendations

Women’s struggle for gender equality and women’srights has gone through a long and colorfulengagement. Women advocates have proven theirresilience in raising their voices in the public discourseon issues confronting them. It is for this reason thatlaws and policies seeking to improve women’s lives arein place.

The following steps are recommended to bring the goalsof the struggle closer to reality:

1. Popularize laws that have been passed so thatthose who are expected to implement the laws willbetter appreciate and understand them;

2. Set standards for enforcement of these laws andconstant monitoring to ensure that these standardsare upheld;

3. Step-up organizing of autonomous women’sorganizations at the barangay level and capacitatewomen to do gender analysis and understand LGU

planning and budgeting processes so that they willbe more able to stake their claim on resources andprograms that would improve their lives;

4. Train trainors in gender sensitivity and GADplanning and budgeting processes at the LGU level;

5. Engender the statistical system down to the localdata generation offices so that planners and policy-makers will be more informed about women’sissues and problems;

6. Continue to work with the media and schools inproviding more positive images of women;

7. Finally, continue legislative advocacy. Aside fromthe bills mentioned earlier, the U.N. CEDAWCommittee has identified existing laws that need tobe reviewed and repealed. These include the maritalinfidelity bill and several other bills aimed atamending the Family Code as well as the Code ofMuslim Personal Laws which allow marriage ofgirls under the age of 18, polygamy, arrangedmarriages (UN CEDAW Committee ConcludingComments, 2006).

Chap

ter

2



Al Mujadillah Development Foundation. http://en.wikipilinas.org; http://bulanobserver.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/yasmin_busran_lao. Accessed August 30 2010.

Asian Development Bank, Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency European Commission,National Commission on the Role of FilipinoWomen, et.al. 2008. Paradox and Promises inthe Philippine – A Joint Country GenderAssessment. Manila: ADB.

Batis Center for Women. http://www.en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Batis_Center_for_Women. Accessed September2 2010.

CEDAW-Watch-Philippines Network. http://www.cedaw_watch.org. Accessed August 302010

Coalition Against Women in Trafficking-Asia Pacific.http://www.catw-ap.org. Accessed August 302010.

Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. 1987.

David, Rina Jimenez. 1999. Overview of the PhilippineWomen’s Movement. Quezon City: PILIPINA, Inc.

Development Action for Women Network. http://www.dawnphil.org/. Accessed September 22010.

Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP).http://www.dswp.org.ph. Accessed August 302010.

Engenderights, Inc.. http://engenderights.org. AccessedAugust 30 2010

Episcopal Commission on Family and Life and CBCP Officeon Women. 2009. Position Paper on the ProposedMagna Cart of Women.

Freedom from Debt Coalition. http://www.fdc.ph.Accessed August 30 2010

Bibliography

GABRIELA. http://www.gabrielaphilippines.org. AccessedAugust 30 2010.

Gabriela Women’s Party. http://gabrielanews.wordpress.com. Accessed August30 2010.

Guiam, Rufa. 2006. “Women Power – Former Rebels Riseto Become Mainstream Leaders.” Newsbreak 6,1, January 2 and 16.

Gull, Cecilia B., “Reaching Out to the Grassroots: ThePanlalawigang Komisyon ng Kababaihan,” inGender-Responsive Local Governance at Work:LGU Experiences in Using the GAD Budget. http://ncrfw.gov.ph/index.php/knowledgebase/3-ogender-mainstreaming-philippines-best-practices/239-gad-best-practice-pkkb.Accessed on September 7 2010.

Honculada, Jurgette A.1999. Pinay Rosebook. Quezon City:PILIPINA, Inc.

Honculada, Jurgette A. and Pineda-Ofreneo, Rosalinda.2000. Transforming the Mainstream, Building aGender Responsive Bureaucracy in the Philippines1975 – 1998. Bangkok, Thailand: UNIFEM.

Igorota Foundation, Inc. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb 4701. Accessed August 30 2010.

Institute for Social Studies and Action. PhilGAD Portal.www.ncrfw.gov.ph. Accessed September 2 2010.

Javate-de Dios, Aurora. 1996. “Participation of Women’sGroups in the Anti-Dictatorship Struggle:Genesis of a Movement” In ProserpinaDomingo Tapales, ed. Women’s Role inPhilippine History: Selected Essays:,pp. 141 –168. Diliman, Quezon City: University of thePhilippines Center for Women’s Studies.

Javate-de Dios Aurora. 2001. “NCRFW and NGOs: AnEnduring Partnership.” Paper read during thePolicy Dialogue on Gender Equality organized bythe Gender Equality Bureau, Cabinet Office andthe Gender Equality Division, Tokyo, Japan, 17November.

Chap

ter



Kasarian-Kalayaan (Sarilaya). http://www.wisearth/org/organization/view; http://women.socioeco.org. Accessed August 302010.

Katipunan ng Bagong Pilipina. http://wikipilipina.org/indexphp?title=Katipunan-ng-Bagong-Pilipina. Accessed September 7 2010.

Lihok Pilipina Foundation, Inc. http://www.lihok.pilipina.com. Accessed August 302010.

Likhaan Center for Women’s Health. http://likhaan.net/. Accessed August 30 2010.

Mindanao Commission on Women (MCW).www.mindanaowomen.org. Accessed onAugust 30 2010.

Mindanao Working Group on Reproductive Health,Gender and Sexuality. http://www.srtdoaddu.com. Accessed August 302010.

National Council of Women in the Philippines (NCWP).http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/title=National_Council_Women_in_the_Philippines; www.ncrfw.gov. AccessedSeptember 7 2010.

Nisa Ul Haqq Fi Bangsamoro http://wwwmusawah.org/np_philippines.asp.Accessed August 30 2010.

Pambansang Kalipunan ng mga ManggagawangImpormal sa Pilipinas (PATAMABA). http://www.homenetseasia.org/philippines.Accessed August 30 2010.

Pambansang Koalisyon ng Kababaihan sa Kanayunan.http://centrosaka.org/rural_woemn/nrwc/general_info.htm. Accessed August 30 2010.

Panlalawigang Komisyon para sa Kababaihan ngBulacan (PKKB). www.bulacan.gov.ph.Accessed August 30 2010.

Reproductive Rights Resource Group, Phil GAD Portal.www.ncrfw.gov. Accessed August 30 2010.

Santos-Maranan, Aida F., et. al. 2007. StrengtheningWomen’s Participation in Politics andGovernance – “Bringing Back” Politics into thePhilippine Women’s Engagement; Reflectionsand Insights on the Status and Directions ofWomen’s Political Participation; Re-imaginingWomen’s Movements and Struggles inConversations with Women. Quezon City:WEDPRO and IPD.

Santos, Aida and Estrada-Claudio, Sylvia. 2009.Women’s Movement and Social Movements:Conjunctures and Divergences, 26 May 2009.www.europe-solidaire.org. Accessed August 222010

Sarabia, Anna Leah. 2009. A Centennial Story We ShouldRemember Today.

Save the Children. 2009. State of Filipino Mothers 2008:Saving Mothers’ Lives, Ensuring Children’s Survival.Manila: Save the Children.

Third World Movement Against the Exploitation ofWomen (TW-MAE-W). http://www.tw-mae-w-org.Accessed September 7 2010.

UNIFEM CEDAW SEAP and Women’s Feature Service.2009. Going CEDAW in the Philippine. QuezonCity: UNIFEM CEDAW South East AsiaProgramme.

U.N. Committee on the Elimination of DiscriminationAgainst Women. 2006. Concluding Comments ofthe CEDAW Committee to the Combined Fifth andSixth Philippine Progress Report on theImplementation of the UN Convention on theElimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women.

Womanhealth, Philippines. http://www.eiserearth.org/organziation/view. Accessed August 30 2010.

Women’s Action Network for Development (WAND). http://wandphilippines.multipy.com/. AccessedSeptember 7 2010.

Women’s Crisis Center. http://www.fsd.qa/common/ngo/ngo/399/html; www.ncrfw.gov.ph/index.ph.Accessed August 30 2010.

Chap

ter

2



Women’s, Education, Development, Productivity andResearch Organization (WeDpro), Inc. http://WEDPRO.multiply.com; http://www.wedpro.phils.org. Accessed August 302010.

Women’s Feature Service (WFS). http://wfstest.weebly.com. Accessed September 72010.

Women’s HealthCare Foundation. http://ww.fhi.org.en/rh/pubs//wsp/carestudies/ philippinecare.Accessed August 30 2010.

Women’s Institute for Sustainable Economic Action.www.wiseact.org.ph/. Accessed September 32010.

Women’s Media Circle Foundation (WoMedia). http://www.wpmensmedia-manilaorg. AccessedSeptember 7 2010.

Women Studies Association of the Philippines (WSAP).shttp://en.wikipilinas.org/index.php?title+Women’s_Studies_Association_of_the_Philippine.Accessed August 31 2010.

Chap

ter



A. Recognition of Women’s Contribution toNation-building

1. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7192, Women inDevelopment and Nation Building Act (enacted on12 February 1992) – Provides for women’sparticipation in the development process,allotment of official development assistance forwomen’s programs and activities. The law alsoallows women of legal age to act and enter intocontracts, conduct bank transactions andnegotiations, apply for travel documentswithout the need to secure the consent of theirspouses. R.A. 7192 further mandates all militaryschools and police academies to open upenrollment for women.

B. Protection from Violence Against Women

2. R.A. 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (enactedon 14 February 1995) – defines sexualharassment as a sexual favor made by anemployer, teacher or any other person withmoral authority or ascendancy to another in awork or training education environment. Thelaw also mandates all workplaces andeducational or training institutions to formulatepolicies to deter or prevent sexual harassmentsand to form committees on decorum andinvestigation to investigate reported cases ofsexual harassment and conduct publicinformation activities on the issue.

3. R.A. 8353, Anti-Rape Law (enacted 30 September1997) – Expands the definition of rape andreclassifying it from a crime against chastity toa crime against persons.

4. R.A. 8505, Rape Victims Assistance and ProtectionAct (enacted 13 February 1998) mandates everyprovince and city to establish and operate a

Annex AList of Landmark Laws Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Rights

rape crisis center that shall assist and protectrape victims in the litigation of their cases andtheir recovery. The law also provides thatpersons handling the investigation andexamination of the case should have the samegender as the rape victim/survivor.

5. R.A. 9208, Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (enacted26 May 2003) – seeks to eliminate trafficking inpersons, especially omen and children and toestablish the necessary institutionalmechanisms for the protection and support oftrafficked persons.

6. R.A. 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women andTheir Children Act (enacted on 8 March 2004) –VAWC is defined as acts involving physical,sexual, and/or psychological violence andsexual abuse committed by any person against awoman who is his wife, former wife, or withwhom he has or had a sexual or datingrelationship or has a common child whetherlegitimate or illegitimate.

C. Strengthening Women’s PoliticalRepresentation and Participation

7. R.A. 7160, The Local Government Code of 1981(enacted on October 1991) provides for theelection of three (3) sectoral representatives inthe local legislative bodies of every city,municipality and province. Out of the three (3), 1seat is reserved for a woman.

8. R.A. 7941, The Party-List System Act (enacted on 3March 1995) provides that 20% of the totalmembers of the House of Representatives shallcome from the marginalized and under-represented sector through a party-list system.Women are considered one of the sectors.

Chap

ter

2



9. R.A. 8425, The Social Reform and PovertyAlleviation Act (enacted on 3 June 1998)articulates the pursuit of a gender-responsiveapproach to fight poverty and, in line with this,the women sector is among the fourteen (14)basic sectors represented in the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC).

D. Promotion of Women’s Rights

10. R.A. 9710, The Magna Carta of Women (enactedon 14 August 2009), is a comprehensivewomen’s human rights law that seeks toeliminate discrimination against women byrecognizing, protecting, fulfilling and promotingthe rights of Filipino women, especially those inthe marginalized sectors (from Magna Carta ofWomen brochure published by the PCW).

Chap

ter



Annex BDirectory and Profile of Women’s Organizations

Name of Organization Nature and Herstory Priority Issues andContact Person(s)Contact Details Membership Area of Coverage Concerns Strategies

and Programs

Al Mujadillah Development Foundation(AMDF), Inc.Ms. Yasmin Busran-Lao4th Street, Commercial Center,MSU, Marawi CityTel/fax nos.: (6363) 520-289 / 354-0589Email: [email protected]

• Community-based NGOadvocating for Muslimwomen’s rights as well aspeace and good governance inMindanao.

• Works on issues affectingwomen and youth in MuslimMindanao as well as Muslimsin diaspora

Community organizing forgrassroots empowerment,particularly Moro women;dialogues with MuslimReligious Leaders (MRL’s);capacitating LGU’s on gendermainstreaming and GAD budget;legal literacy andpopularization of the Code ofMuslim Personal Laws (CMPL)

BATIS Women’s CenterMs. Aida Luisa AnolinRoom 711, Don Santiago Building,1344 Taft Avenue, ManilaEmail: [email protected]

Established in 1998 to provide theneeds of distressed overseasFilipina workers; aims to makewomen overseas workers aware oftheir rights and responsibilities.

Women’s Empowerment Pro-gram; Organizing anddevelopment of children ofwomen migrant returnees,particularly Japanese-Filipinochildren; Social case manage-ment program; Information,Education and Research.

CEDAW-Watch PhilippinesProf. Aurora Javate-de DiosConvenorc/o Women and Gender Institute(WAGI)Miriam College, KatipunanRoad, Quezon CityTel/fax no.: (632) 435-9229Email: [email protected]: www.cedaw-watch.org

National network of individualwomen and groups involved inwomen’s human rights advocacyat the national and internationallevels. Founded on March 2006.

• Raise public awareness onCEDAW and other humanrights instruments througheducation campaigns;Organize local CEDAW-Watchnetworks to monitor imple-mentation and advocate forwomen’s human rights;Conduct orientation briefingfor key legislators andlegislative staff on CEDAWand other legislative initia-tives promoting women’shuman rights; Dialogue withvarious NGO’s and CSO’s oncomplementary initiatives atpolicy advocacy and resourcemobilization.

Coalition Against Trafficking inWomen-Asia Pacific (CATW-AP)

Ms. Jean EnriquezExecutive DirectorRoom 608, Sterten Place

Affiliate of Coalition AgainstTrafficking on Women – Interna-tional and Secretariat of theCATW-Asia-Pacific (April

• Fighting sexualexploitation and promotingwomen’s human rightsthrough raising awareness on

Chap

ter

2




and Programs

116 Maginhawa Street,Teacher’s Village, Quezon CityTelefax no.: (632) 434-2149Email: [email protected]: www.catw-ap.org

1993)

Composed of 26 member –organizations nationwide

• women’s rights and initiatingaction against global sexualexploitation and VAW,particularly trafficking,prostitution andpornography.

• Education, training andorganizational development;Empowerment of survivors(provision of support fundfor direct victims oftrafficking, referral of cases);research and documentationand publication.

• Runs a radio programentitled “Aksyon Kababaihan”every Thursday in a majorradio broadcasting company.

• Legislative advocacy on theAnti-Prostitution bill.

National Convenor of WorldMarch for Women.

Democratic Socialist Women of thePhilippines (DSWP)

Ms. Elizabeth AngsiocoExecutive Director4-A Maalindog Street, UP Village,Diliman, Quezon City,Tel. no.: (632) 925-6395Fax no.: (632) 927-1766Email: [email protected]: www.dswp.org.ph

Socialist-feminist national organi-zation composed of 157 grass-roots, community- and sector-based organizations with around40,000 individual membership.

! Rights-based framework inwomen’s empowerment;women’s economicmarginalization, sexual andreproduction health andrights, violence againstwomen; women’s politicalparticipation.

• Convenor of ReproductiveHealth Advocacy Network(RHAN).

Development Action for Women Network(DAWN)Mrs. Carmelita G. NuquiExecutive DirectorRoom 514 Don Santiago Bldg.,1344 Taft Avenue, ManilaTel. no.: (632) 526-9098Fax no.: (632) 526-9101Email: [email protected]: http://www.dawnphil.org/

Created on February 6, 1996 a non-government organization to assistFilipino women migrants in Japanand their Japanese-Filipinochildren in the promotion andprotection of their human rightsand welfare.

! Social services program –case management andairport/travel assistance fortravels to and from Japan ofdistressed migrant women;temporary shelter;counseling; educational,health, legal and paralegalassistance.

Chap

ter




and Programs

• Provision of alternativelivelihood opportunities.

• Research and advocacy ofcritical migrant women andother related issues andconcerns.

Development through Active WomenNetworking (DAWN) Foundation, Inc.Ms. Celia Matea R. FlorExecutive DirectorLot 12, Block 3, Greenplains 3,Bgy. Singcang Airport, Bacolod CityTel. no.: (6334) 476-5650Email: [email protected]

Started in 1994 as an island-widealliance of grassroots and profes-sional women leaders from Negroswhich evolved into a service NGOworking for gender rights advo-cacy.

• Address the Woman Question(discrimination, subordina-tion, exploitation, oppres-sion and marginalization ofwomen as women) throughgender consciousnessraising and awarenessraising, skills and capacitybuilding and structuraltransformation.

EnGendeRights, Inc.Atty. Ma. Clara Rita PadillaExecutive Director88-A Calumpit Street,Veterans Village, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 376-2578Email: [email protected]: http://ww.engenderights.org http://engenderights.wordpress.com

Legal NGO advancing women’srights through domestic andinternational legal and policyadvocacy; research and publica-tion; training and impact litigationin the Philippines and South EastAsia.

Advocacy on the followingissues: access to emergencycontraceptive pill; reproductivehealth care bill; anti-discrimi-nation against sexual orienta-tion; repeal of penalty imposedon women who induced abor-tion; improved implementationof prevention and managementof abortion complications(PMAC); implementation ofsexuality education for adoles-cents and repeal of discrimina-tory provisions in the Code ofMuslim Personal Laws (CMPL).

Federation of United MindanawanBangsamoro Women Multi-PurposeCooperative (FUMBWMPC)

Hadja Bainon KAronChairpersonKakar, Poblacion 8, Cotabato CityTel. no.: (6364) 421-6776Email: [email protected]

Formed in 1999 by former women-combatants of the Moro NationalLiberation Front (MNLF) after thesigning of the final Peace Agree-ment

Engaged in capacitating andempowering women who wererebuilding their homes andcommunities after the armedconflict.

GABRIELA PhilippinesMs. Lana LinabanSecretary-General35 Scout Delgado Street,Bgy. Laging Handa, Quezon CityTel. nos.: (632) 371-2302/374-3451 to 52

National grassroots-based allianceof 200 women’s organizations,institutions, desks and programs;also maintains internationalsolidarity networks in 7 countries.

• National and internationaleconomic and political issuesaffecting women; women-specificissues such as women’s rights,gender discrimination, VAW,women’s health

Chap

ter

2




and Programs

• and reproductive rights.

• Arouse, organize and mobilizewomen; Promote and conductinformation and educationactivities; Organize actionstowards eliminating unjustand discriminatorystructures; Form local andinternational networks.

Igorota Foundation, Inc. (IFI)Ms. Corazon PindogExecutive Coordinator37 Paraan Street,Quezon Hill, Baguio CityTe/fax no.: (6374) 445-7626Email:[email protected]:http://www.museumsmemory.wikispace.com/IGOROTA+Foundation,+Inc.+(Philippines)

• IFI is a woman’s NGO workingwith women in the Cordilleraregion, based on life-givingvalues and GAD principles

• Works with communities, inpartnership with women, theirorganizations and LGU’s inBaguio City and the provinces ofBenguet, Ifugao and MountainProvince in the CordilleraAdministrative Region

• GAD program – awareness-raising on issues affectingCordilleras women; AncestralDomain Program – undertakeswomen’s initiatives for peaceand development achieved ontransformative indigenousknowledge, systems and prac-tices; Publication of IgorotaMagazine and other journals;Learning Resources Center ofreference materials onCordilleras and women’s issues.

Institute for Social Studies and Action(ISSA)

Dr. Florence M. Tadiar1589 Crispina BuildingQuezon Avenue, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 929-9494Fax no.: (632) 910-1615

• Non-government, non-stockadvocacy, training and researchorganization that protects andpromotes sexual and reproduc-tive health and rights (SRHR),gender equality

• Advocacy and informationcampaign on girl-children,reproductive health and rights,VAW and women’s humanrights; gender sensitivity andGAD trainings, seminars andworkshops.

Fax no.: (632) 374-4423Email: [email protected]: www.gabrielaphilippines.org www.gabnet.org

GABRIELA Women’s Party (GWP)Rep. Luzviminda IlaganRoom RVM-416, House ofRepresentatives,Constitution Hills, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 931-5001 local 7031,9511027

Rep. Emerenciana de JesusRoom S-309, House of Representatives,Constitution Hills, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 931-5001 local 7230,9316268Website: http://gabrielanews.wordpress.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GABRIELA

• Sectoral Party formed on 28October 2000 to promote therights and welfare ofmarginalized andunderrepresented Filipinowomen through participation inthe electoral system andgovernance.

• 100,000 members in 15 regionsin the Philippines and abroad.

• Advance women’s rightsthrough grassrootsorganizing, education andservices, campaigns andlegislative efforts.

• Main authors of the billlegalizing divorce.

Chap

ter




and Programs

and universal access to justice ofwomen, youth and other sectorsof society

Kababaihan Laban sa Karahasan(KALAKASAN) Foundation, Inc.

Ms. Ana Leah SarabiaExecutive DirectorGota de Leche Building,859 S. H. Loyola Street,Sampaloc, ManilaTel. no.: (632) 735-5555Fax no.: (632) 735-8303Email: [email protected]

Women’s rights organizationcommitted to stop abuse andviolence against women and girls

Advocacy and informationcampaigns on gender equality,reproductive health, safemotherhood and youthsexuality; Networking; Provisionof physical facilities for confer-ences and workshops; Researchcenter and library; Trainings,seminars and workshops onGAD, gender-sensitivity andreproductive health; Tigilbugbog hotline.

Katipunan ng Bagong Pilipina (KaBAPA)(Collective of New Filipinas)

Ms. Trinidad Domingo26 S. Pascual, Malabon City

! Women’s organization formedon 8 March 1975 by womenwho were active in the Hukbong Bayan Laban sa mgaHapon (HUKBALAHAP) andthe peasant movement.

• Seeks to address national,class and gender issuesunder the goal of equality,development, peace andfreedom and happiness ofchildren.

• Conducts campaigns andmobilizations on issuesinvolving agrarian reform,debt moratorium, nationalistindustrialization andequitable distribution ofwealth.

Katipunan ng Kababaihan para saKalayaan (Kalayaan) (Women’s Collectivefor Freedom)

22-A Matino Street.Sikatuna Village, Quezon City

Formed in 1983 as an autonomouswomen’s organization with anational democratic agenda

• Fight all forms of oppression,exploitation, discriminationand stereotyping that arosefrom unjust gender and neo-colonial structures; Organizewomen for holistic andwomen-oriented developmentprograms and for culturaltransformation; advance anautonomous women’s move-ment while supporting otherprogressive groups workingfor change; Strengthensolidarity with internationalfeminist movements espe-cially in the third world.

Chap

ter

2




and Programs

Kasarian-Kalayaan (Sarilaya) (GenderLiberation)

Email: [email protected]

Mass based organization of womenactivists and grassroots womenleaders.

Environmental awareness(ecofeminism) ad social equalitythrough concrete and sustain-able projects that are respon-sive to women’s needs such asvillage pharmacies and organicfarms run by women.

Lihok-Pilipina Foundation, Inc. (LPFI)Ms. Teresa Banaynal-FernandezExecutive Director102 P. Del Rosario Extension, Cebu CityTel. no.: (6332) 254-8092 / 72Email: [email protected]: www.lihokpilipina.com

• Formed by PILIPINA-Cebuchapter members in 1985 as asocial credit program for womenand pioneered in community-based approaches to addressVAW called Bantay-Banay(Family or Community Watch).

• LPFI’s primary reach is theprovince of Cebu, but its Bantay-Banay network has reached upto around 85 cities andmunicipalities.

• Organize women toparticipate in planning anddecision-making; Enhancingwomen’s capacity to earnincome and gain access andcontrol to resources; Developwomen’s capacity to besecure from all forms ofabuse and violence; Advocatethe more responsiveprograms, policy andresource allocation.

• Women’s Savings and CreditCenter (WSCC); Women’sIntegrated Support and CrisisIntervention; CommunityWaste Management Project;Youth Program.

Likhaan Center for Women’s Health, Inc.Dr. Junice Melgar88 Times Street, West Triangle Homes,Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 926-6230Fax no.: (632) 411-3151Email: [email protected]: http://likhaan.net / http://likhaan.org

Collective of grassroots women andmen health advocates andprofessionals dedicated topromoting and pushing for thehealth and rights of disadvantagedwomen and their communities.Formed in 1995.

Areas of operation: Malabon,Pasay, Manila, Quezon City,Bulacan, Bohol, Eastern Samar.

• Priority issues are women’sempowerment, universalaccess to the highestattainable standard of healthcare; primary health care;maternal mortality,contraceptives, unsafeabortion, patients’ rights

• Community-based healtheducation and services;national and local advocacyof RH policies and programs;

Mindanao Commission on WomenMs. Irene Morada-Santiago,Chair and CEO121 University Avenue,Juna Subdivision, Matina, Davao CityTel/fax no.: (6382) 298-4031Email: [email protected]

• Established in 2001 as a NGOby Mindanao women leadersadvocating for a Mindanaopeace and sustainable devel-opment agenda

! Movement building –Mothers for Peace wasformed in 2003 to advocatefor the resumption of peacetalks between GRP andMILF.

Chap

ter




and Programs

Website: www.mindanaowomen.org • from a women’s perspective.

• Has area core groups inMindanao advocating issues intheir respective areas; Mothersfor Peace is its grassroots base.

• Skills training on conflictprevention, resolution andcontained by violence usingthe Third Sider trainingmodule

• Mothers for Peace Fund –micro-credit assistance forentrepreneurial activities

• Gardens for Peace to promotevegetable growing forconsumption and income.

Mindanao Working Group onReproductive Health, Gender and Sexuality

Ms. Lourdesita Sobrevega-ChanAteneo de Davao University,E. Jacinto Street, Davao CityTel. no.: (6382) 221-2411 / 224-2955

Resource, research and trainingproject under the Social Research,training and Development Office ofthe Ateneo de Davao University.

As a resource center, seeks toundertake research, advocacyand training on gender equality,women’s empowerment andreproductive health.

National Council of Women of thePhilippines (NCWP)

Dr. Amelou B. ReyesPresidentc/o Philippine Women’s University,1743 Taft Avenue, ManilaTel/fax no.: (632) 527-7853Fax no.: (632) 522-4002Email: [email protected]

• The oldest and largest nationalcoalition, founded in 1946. It iscomposed of 252 nationalaffiliates and more than 5,000councils; composed of womenfrom business, academe, NGO’s,rural women and other sectors

• Responsible for the creation ofthe NCRFW (presently PCW) andthe Asean Confederation ofWomen’s Organizations (ACWO).

• Core areas of concerns arehealth, environment,economy, globalization andwomen in decision-making.

• Aside from its regular councilassemblies, implements alivelihood project; runsWomenomics, which assistwomen entrepreneurs inmarketing their productsthrough the APEC Women’sElectronic Business (We-BizCenter) Project.

Nisa Ul-Haqq fi BangsamoroAtty. Raissa H. Jajuriec/o SALIGAN-MindanawDoor 1, 422 Champaca Street,Juna Subdivision, Matina, Davao CityTel/fax no.: (6382) 298-4161Email: [email protected]

• Network of Muslim women’srights advocates working ongender issues in the contextof Islam and culture

• Awareness-raising onMuslim women’s rightsthrough gender sensitivitytrainings; Advocacy cam-paigns on reproductive andsexual health rights, CMPLand the CEDAW; Researchon Muslim women’s issues.

Pambansang Kalipunan ng mgaManggagawang Impormal sa Pilipinas(PATAMABA) (National Organization ofInformal Workers in the Philippines)

• Mass based organization of17,286 individual memberscoming from 279

Recognition and social protec-tion of informal workersthrough: 1) participation ingovernance

Chap

ter

2




and Programs

Ms. Lourdes GulaPresident38 Maginhawa Street,UP Village, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 921-6469Email: [email protected]: www.homenetseasia.org.philippines

chapters in 10 regions and 34provinces

and institution-building; 2)human development services; 3)socio-economic assistance and4) networking, advocacy andparalegal work

Legislative lobby: MagnaCarta of Workers in InformalEmployment (MACWIE) bill

Secretariat and convenor ofHomeNet Philippines andHomeNet South East Asia.

Pambansang Koalisyon ng mgaKababaihan sa Kanayunan (PKKK)(National Coalition of Rural Women)

Ms. Trinidad DomingoChairpersonRoad A, Ma. Theresa Apt.,St. Anthony Village,Project 7, Quezon CityTel/fax no.: (632) 410-2780Email:[email protected]: www.ruralwomen.org.ph

• Coalition of organizations andfederations of women peasants,fisherfolks, farm workers andindigenous peoples; ruralwomen in other sectors; NGO’sand individuals who work forthe interest of the rural poor.

• 169 PO’s and 31 NGO’s;

30 provinces have activechapters and core groups; 20provinces have been reached.

Gender analysis, educationaldiscussions, advocacy work andcampaigns on the issues ofwater, sustainable agriculture,agrarian reform, gender anddevelopment, reproductivehealth local sectoral represen-tation, microfinance andenvironment, particularlyclimate change and its impacton rural women and ruraldevelopment.

Panlalawigang Komisyon para saKababaihan ng Bulacan (PKKB)

Ms. Eva M. FajardoChairpersonAsuncion G. Romulo Women Center,Provincial Capitol Compound,Malolos City, BulacanTel. no.: (6344) 791-3110Tel/fax no.: (6344) 662-1406

• Created on 22 February 1994through an Executive Order 94-02 by Gov. RobertoPagdanganan. As the provincialmachinery for GAD, it ismandated “to provideleadership and direction to theintegration of women incommunity development”.

• Has an outreach to 135 women’sorganizations in 22 towns and 2cities of the entire Bulacanprovince

• While PKKB is a policy andadvisory body on GADconcerns to the governor, itfacilitates projectimplementation of NGO’sthrough capability-building,project conceptualizationand facilitation of access togovernment or privateresources.

• Advocacy on women’s issues,such as women’s rights,gender mainstreaming,strengthening the family andmaternal and child health.

Chap

ter




and Programs

PILIPINA, Inc.Ms. Rina Jimenez-DavidNational Chair

Ms. Elizabeth U. YangNational CoordinatorRoom 203, PhilDHRRA Building,59 C. Salvador Street,Loyola Heights, Quezon CityTel/fax no.: (632) 927-7821Email: [email protected]

[email protected]

• Mass-based organization;individual membership of 1,000women from developmentorganizations, government,academe and peoples’organizations

• 10 chapters (3 in Luzon, 2 inVisayas, 5 in Mindanao)

Women and public power;

Women’s participation inpolitics and governancethrough:! organizing a clear women’s

constituency and a women’svote. Training program onWomen’s Empowerment inthe Barangay (WEB);

! work for an increase offemale leadership ingovernment as well associal movements;

! mainstream women’sagenda in social movementsand political parties.Legislative advocacy of theMagna Carta of Women(MCW) and monitoring itsimplementation;

! create support systems forwomen in leadership andgrassroots communities.

Reproductive Health Advocacy Network(RHAN)

Ms. Elizabeth AngsiocoConvenorc/o 4-A Maalindog Street, UP Village,Diliman, Quezon City,Tel. no.: (632) 925-6395Fax no.: (632) 927-1766Website: http://rhanphilippines.multipy.com

Nationwide network oforganizations and individuals

Advocacy for reproductivehealth policies and programs atthe national and local levels.

Reproductive Rights Resource Group(3RG)

Ms. Alexandrina B. MarceloChairpersonUnit 904, Landsdale Tower,86 Mother Ignacia, Timog, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 413-6703Fax no.: (632) 373-8879Email address: [email protected]

Organized in April 1999 to helpcreate empowering venues forwomen, regardless of class, age,civil, status, race, ethnicity, sexualorientation, religions and politicalbeliefs, including their sexual andreproductive health and rights(SRHR).

• Advocacy, informationcampaigns; trainings,seminars and workshops onGAD, gender and SRHR.

• Has implemented a UNFPAproject, “StrengtheningCapacities of Local Advocatesfor Gender and Rights-basedApproach to Sexual andReproductive Health andVAW.”

Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panlegal(SALIGAN)

Atty. Michael Vincent Gaddi

Founded in 1987. SALIGAN is a legalresource NGO doing

The Women’s Desk of SALIGANhas the following programs:handles cases of

Chap

ter

2




and Programs

Women’s Desk - CoordinatorG/F Hoffner Building, Social DevelopmentComplex, Ateneo de Manila University,Loyola Heights, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 426-6001 locals 4858 – 4860Fax no.: (632) 426-6124Email: [email protected]: www.saligan.org

development legal work withfarmers, fishers, workers, urbanpoor, women and localcommunities.

Aside from SALIGAN main office inQuezon City, has 2 branches basedin Naga City and Davao City.

women victims of gender-basedviolence; advocates for enact-ment of laws addressing women’sissues; trains paralegals whoassist women pursuing cases incourts; research and publication.

Third World Movement Against theExploitation of Women (TW-MAE-W)Sr. Soledad Perpiñan,RG’s, Executive Director41 Rajah Matanda Street,Project 4, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 421-4952Fax no.: (632) 913-9255Email: [email protected]: www.tw-mae-w.org

• Founded on 10 December 1980as a movement of women inAsia to protest the growing sextour industry.

• Non-organization feministorganization responding toexploitation of women and girls.

• Operates 12 centers in 9 citiesand has assisted 126,000sexually exploited women andgirls.

• Every issue is a woman’sissue, thus engages innational and internationalnetworking and solidaritywork on issues of equality,peace and genuinedevelopment.

• Core program: directintervention services forsurvivors of incest, rape andthe sex trade: 7 drop-incenters, 3 growth homes and2 transition homes.

Visayan Forum Foundation, Inc,Ms. Maria Cecilia Flores-OebandaFounder and PresidentNo. 18, 12th Avenue, Murphy,Cubao, Quezon CityTel. nos.: (632) 709-0711 / 709-0573Fax no.: (632) 421-9423Email: [email protected]: http://www.visayanforum.org/

• A non-stock, non-profit NGOestablished in 1991 to provide“residential care and community-based programs and services forwomen and children inespecially difficultcircumstances; works for theprotection of and justice formarginalized migrants,specifically trafficked womenand children and domesticworkers or kasambahays.

• Operates 11 offices covering 20project areas shelter fortrafficking victims in 7 halfwayhouses in sea ports and theManila International Airport.

• Kasambahay Program: activeinvolvement of domesticworkers in promoting theirrights, especially protectionfrom abuse and exploitation,access to education andgenuine participation;Legislative advocacy for thepassage of the Magna Cartafor Domestic Workers, BatasKasambahay.

• Strengthening and sustainingcommunity child protectionmechanisms through theBantay Bata sa Komunidad.

• Anti-trafficking program:protection, justice andhealing for victims oftrafficking.

Chap

ter




and Programs

Woman’s Health Care Foundation (WHCF)Dr. Florence M. Tadiar#1 Marilag Street, U.P. VillageDiliman, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 921-6413Tel/fax no.: (632) 926-4045Email: [email protected]@hotmail.comWebsite: www.whealthcare.org

• Founded in 1980 as a servicedelivery organization providingaccessible, affordable andgender-responsive health careservices and information.

• Maintains 1 main clinic and 6outreach clinics in Manila,Quezon City (2), Caloocan City,Pasay and Parañaque

• Provision of quality, compre-hensive reproductive healthcare and other relatedservices; Promotion ofcorrect and adequate infor-mation, education andtraining services throughinformation and motiva-tional activities; Advocacyfor the improvement ofquality of health care;Participation in researchesand studies on women’shealth; Networking.

WomanHealth PhilippinesMs. Ana Maria R. NemenzoNational Coordinator129-A Matarag Street,Bgy. Central, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 435-5254Fax no.: (632) 927-3319Email: [email protected]

Broad alliance of women’sadvocates to promote, advance anddefend women’s rights to health,reproductive self-determinationand sexuality towards the fulldevelopment of women and society.

Aside from NCR, also operates inOrmoc and Iloilo.

Advocacy, information cam-paigns and trainings onagriculture, the economy,education, environment andsustainable development, GAD,gender mainstreaming, girl-children, health, local govern-ance, migration, poverty,reproductive health and rights,VAW and women’s humanrights.

Women’s Action Network for Development(WAND), Inc.

Ms. Florencia C. DorotanMember, Executive Committee10 MakaDiyos Street,Sikatuna Village, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 925-1410Email: [email protected]

ounded in January 1990, WAND isa national network of 82 womenNGO’s and PO’s (women member-ship organization, women NGO’s,mixed NGO’s and networks whichpursue women’s issues)

• GAD mainstreaming indevelopment work alongthree (3) thematic concernsof women and governance,violence against women andwomen’s economicempowerment.

• Engaged in capacity-buildingof community-based womenand local government units(LGU’s) on gender-responsiveand results-based budgeting(GRRB).

Women and Gender Institute (WAGI)Prof. Aurora Javate-de DiosExecutive DirectorMiriam College, Katipunan Road,Quezon CityTel/fax no.: (632) 435-9229Email: [email protected]: www.wagi-mc.org

Specialized center for advocacy onwomen’s rights, gender equalityand non-sexist learning of MiriamCollege.

• Conducts short courses andtraining as well as researchand publications on interna-tional women’s human rights;gender fair education; gender,development and economicglobalization; migration;young women’s

Chap

ter

2




and Programs

• leadership and gender, peaceand security.

• Offers a masteral program onMigration Studies.

Women’s Committee – Freedom fromDebt Coalition (FDC)

Ms. Patricia Vito CruzCoordinator, Program onWomen and Gender11 Matimpiin Street,Bgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City Tel. no.: (632) 921-1985Fax no.: (632) 924-6399Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Website: www.fdc.ph

Formed in the early 1980’s by left-affiliated and autonomous wom-en’s groups connected to the FDC.

As a regular program of the FDCmainstreamed the socialist-feminist analysis of theeconomy; Conducts deeperstudies and popularization offeminist economics in the FDCprogram of action.

Women’s Crisis Center (WCC)Ms. Teresa BalayonExecutive Director3/F Trauma Extension, Annex Building,East Avenue, Medical Center,Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 929-2590Fax no.: (632) 926-7744Email: [email protected]

• First ever crisis centerestablished in the Philippines(19 February 1989)

• Offers a comprehensive rangeof crisis intervention servicesfor survivors of gender-basedviolence (battering, rape,sexual harassment,prostitution and sextrafficking) including feministcounseling, hotline andshelter.

• Education and training onVAW, gender sensitivity andgender mainstreaming.

• Advocacy and informationcampaign on VAW;

• Lead convenor of the NationalNetwork of Family ViolencePrevention Programs.

Women’s Education, Development,Productivity and Research Organization(WeDpro), Inc.

Ms. Aida Santos-MarananManaging DirectorBuilding 15, Room 41, BLCCondominium, Road 3, Pag-asa Bliss,Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 426-7479Email: [email protected]: www.wedprophils.org

http://wedpro.multiply.com

• Founded by Kalayaan onOctober 1989. WeDpro is acollective that seeks to serve asa dynamic catalyst within thewomen’s movement and othersocial movements working forpeople-oriented, gender-fairprograms and services thatensures women’s empowerment.

• As a result of its study on theBases Conversion Program for

• Promotion of gender equalityand women’s empowermentthrough research, ICT andmedia, education andtraining, policy advocacy andsocial movement building.

• Currently implements aproject addressing domesticviolence and trafficking inurban poor communities andentertainment centers inAngeles and Olongapo.

• National partner of theInternational Women’s

Chap

ter




and Programs

• Women in the cities of Angelesand Olongapo, supported thefirst multi-purpose cooperativeof survivors of militaryprostitution in 1991.

• Office based in Quezon City butoperates in the cities of Angelesand Olongapo.

Network Against Militarism andConvenor of the PhilippineWomen’s Network for Peace andSecurity (PWNPS).

Women’s Feature Service (WFS)Ms. Olive H. TriponExecutive Director712 Gemini Street corner Mariner,Aero Park, ParañaqueTel/fax no.: (632) 823-2684Email:[email protected]: www.wfsnews.org http://wfstest.weebly.com

• Women service and traininginstitution which seeks topromote women’s empowermentin socio-economic developmentand to assist in the gendermainstreaming of institutions

• Office based in Quezon City butoperates in the CALABARZONarea

• Philippine affiliate of WFS-International formed in 1987;

• An all-women’s mediaorganization working forwomen’s rights through creativemedia

• Educate women of their rightsand build awareness aboutwomen’s situation amongpolicy-makers and the publicthrough special print cover-age, IEC materials, training onfeature and news writing andrelated media and advocacyand media campaigns.

Women’s Institute for SustainableEconomic Action (WISE-ACT)

Ms. Zonia NaritoExecutive Director73 H. Maginoo St. Barangay Central,Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 434-7231Tel/fax nos.: (632) 433-0910

(632) 929-3524 Email: [email protected]: www.wiseact.org.ph

• Gender sensitive micro-enterprise developmentprogram; Gender advocacyand partnership building;Capacitating NGO’s in gendermainstreaming; Gender-Responsive and Rights-basedReproductive Health andSocial Protection Advocacyand Training.

Women Involved in Nation-building (WIN)Ms. Ma. Celia V. MayoNational PresidentUnit 1910 Medical Plaza Ortigas Condo,San Miguel Ave., San Antonio, Pasig CityTel/fax no.: (632) 687-4572Email:[email protected]

Website: http://www.ncrfw.gov.ph/index.php/directory-women-ngos/45-directory-ngo-women-philippines/295-ngo-win

A women’s organization whichseeks to assist women leaders ingovernment and women; provideforum for policy development andserve as conduit for legislativeadvocacy

• Advocacy and informationcampaigns; working;networking; trainings,seminars and workshopas onGAD, gender mainstreaming,health and VAW issues.

• Undertakes annualcongresses on “synergy forgender-responsivegovernance;” seminarworkshops on monitoringcompliance on CEDAW at theLGU level.

Women’s Legal Bureau (WLB), Inc.Ms. Jelen Paclarin

Non-government legal organizationpromoting

Transform the law and legalsystem in furthermore of

Chap

ter

2




and Programs

Executive DirectorRm. 305, College of Social Work andCommunity Development (CSWCD)BuildingMagsaysay Ave., University of thePhilippines , Diliman, Quezon CityTel/fax no.: (632) 921-4389E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

women’s human rights in accord-ance with feminist and developmentperspectives and principles.

women’s right to self-determina-tion; Advance women’s dignity,rights and leadership, in coordi-nation with national and globalmovements for alternativedevelopment through feministlegal and development serviceprogram; research and publica-tion, education and training,policy advocacy and informationcampaigns, institutional anddevelopment programs.

Women’s Media Circle Foundation(WoMedia), Inc.

Ms. Ana Leah SarabiaExecutive DirectorGota de Leche Building,859 S. H. Loyola Street,Sampaloc, ManilaTel. no.: (632) 735-9687Fax no.: (632) 735-8303Email: [email protected]

Website: www.womensmedia-manila.org

• Women NGO founded in 1985 towork for he empowerment ofwomen and girls through the useof the creative use of media,information technology andcommunication.

• Produced Woman Watch andother programs on women’sissues featured in mainstreambroadcasting companies.

• Inform and educate womenand girls about their humanrights, health and sexuality;Raise public consciousnesson gender issues and mobilizeaction on laws and policespromoting gender justice.

Women Studies Association of thePhilippines (WSAP)

c/o Philippine Women’s University1743 Taft Avenue, ManilaTel. no.: (632) 526-8421

• Formally established in 1992 asa national professional organi-zation of academic and non-academic based women’sstudies teachers, researchersand activists promoting genderperspectives in the Philippineeducational system

• Introduce women’s studies inPhilippine education; Evolvean indigenous feministorientation on Women’Studies on the country;Conduct teachers’ training,curriculum and instructionalmaterials development aswell as research in women’sstudies; Serve as venue andclearing hour for informationand date on Women’s Studiesand compilation of com-pleted and ongoing re-searches by Filipino re-searchers and scholars.

Chap

ter



List of Persons Interviewed andParticipants of the Round Table Discussion conducted

on 1 September 2010 in Salaysayan Hall, Partnership Center,59 C. Salvador Street, Loyola Heights, Quezon City

Annex C

List of Persons Interviewed

1. Aida SantosWeDproBuilding 15, Room 41, BLC Condominium, Road 3,Pag-asa Bliss, Quezon CityTel. no.: (632) 426-7479Email addresses: [email protected]

2. Jean EnriquezCoalition Against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific(CATW-AP)Room 608, Sterten Place, 116 Maginahawa Street,Teacher’s Village, Quezon CityTelefax no.: (632) 434-2149Email address: [email protected]

3. Teresa Banaynal-FernandezLihok-Pilipina Foundation, Inc.102 P. Del Rosario Extension, Cebu CityTel. no.: (6332) 254-8092 / 72Email addresses: [email protected];[email protected]

4. Celia Matea R. FlorDAWN Foundation Inc.Lot 12, Block 3, Greenplains 3,Bgy. Singcang Airport, Bacolod CityTel. no.: (6334) 476-5650Email Address: [email protected]

5. Mary Lou Birondo-CaharianPILIPINA-Davao ChapterEmail address: [email protected]

6. Cynthia B. RosalesChair, Cagayan de Oro City of Women’sDevelopment CouncilPILIPINA-Cagayan de Oro ChapterEmail address: [email protected]

Participants of the Round-Table Discussionconducted on 1 September 2010in Salaysayan Hall, Partnership Center, 59 C. Salvador St., Loyola Heights, Q.C.

1. Trinidad DomingoKaBaPA / PKKKTel/fax no.: (632) 410-2780Emails address:[email protected]

2. Daryl LeyesaPKKK / CSI Rural WomenTel/fax no.: (632) 410-2780Emails address: [email protected] /[email protected]

3. Josephine ParillaPATAMABATel. no.: (632) 921-6469Email addresses: [email protected] /[email protected]

4. Rebecca (Karen) N. TañadaGZOPI / PILIPINA / WANDTel. no.: (632) 426-6122Tel/fax no.: (632) 426-6064Email addresses: [email protected] /[email protected] / [email protected]

5. Yasmin Busran-LaoAMDF / Nisa Ul Haqq Fi BangsamoroEmail address: [email protected]

6. Aurora (Oyie) Javate-de DiosCATW-AP / WAGITel. no.: 435-9229Email address: [email protected]

7. Rina Jimenez-DavidPILIPINA, Inc.Tel/fax no.: (632) 927-7821Email addresses: [email protected] /[email protected]

Philippine Cooperatives: Exploring New Frontiers

Chap

ter

3


Chapter


3

Roberto MinaRoberto MinaRoberto MinaRoberto MinaRoberto Mina

Only in recent literature, that is, in the last 15 years orso, have cooperatives been integrated into what isunderstood as civil society, a wide range of civil/citizensorganizations that are distinct and autonomous fromboth state institutions and big business. Characterizedas voluntary and self-help organizations, cooperativesare recognized as a main pillar of people empowermentand are sometimes referred to as the poor man’s self-redemption (Jayoma, 2010).

Cooperatives are also categorized as non-profitorganizations. As stated in the Caucus of DevelopmentNon-Government Organization (NGO) Networks (2008),the Labor Advisory Committee (LAC) defined non-profitorganizations (NPOs) as including both registered andunregistered organizations, and are limited to those whodo not distribute their profits to their members, pluscooperatives which distribute “surplus” to its members,who are their main customers or beneficiaries. Thus,NPOs refer to all non-stock and non-profitorganizations, cooperatives, labor unions, mutualbenefit organizations, social development groups andpeople’s organizations (POs), and other types oforganizations not explicitly affiliated with anygovernment entity. (Note: The LAC was established inOctober 2007 to oversee the assessment of importantcontributions of non-government organizations (NGOs),people’s organzations (POs), foundations, associations,cooperatives and other non-profit organizations (NPOs)to the well-being of Philippine society. The LAC consistedof five representatives from government and fourrepresentatives from the NPO community who helpedprepare the NPO Sector Assessment: Philippine Report.)

As reported by the Cooperative Development Authority,there are already a handful of billionaire cooperatives

and hundreds of millionaire cooperatives in thePhilippines. In pursuit of the social and economic goodof its members, the pioneering work of cooperativessince the 1900s has given birth to a multitude of successstories. In the past decade, cooperatives have beenengaged pro-actively in political constituency-buildingthrough party-list organizations and in member client-expansion through micro-finance lending.

Overview of the PhilippineOverview of the PhilippineOverview of the PhilippineOverview of the PhilippineOverview of the PhilippineCooperative SectorCooperative SectorCooperative SectorCooperative SectorCooperative Sector

Legal Basis of Cooperatives in the Philippines

1. 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

After the 1986 people power revolution, a newconstitution was framed under Corazon Aquino’sadministration. Cooperative development wasenshrined in Article XII, Section 15, stating that“Congress shall create an agency to promote theviability and growth of cooperatives as instrumentsfor social justice and economic development.”The 1987 Constitution is cooperative-friendly andthe Aquino administration and succeedingadministrations have instituted measures to avoidthe mistakes of the past in relation to organizingstate-initiated cooperatives for political and anti-insurgency purposes (Sibal, 2000).

2. Republic Acts (RA) 6938 and RA 6939

In March 1990, the constitutional provision oncooperatives was operationalized with the

Chap

ter

3Philippine Cooperatives: Exploring New Frontiers


enactment of RA 6938: Cooperative Code of thePhilippines and RA 6939: Cooperative DevelopmentAuthority Act. These two laws became landmarklegislations which ushered in a new era for thecooperative movement in the Philippines.Article 2, Section 1 of RA 6938 provides for thepromotion of growth and viability of cooperativesas instruments of equity, social justice andeconomic development under the principles ofsubsidiarity and self-help. Under the saidprinciples, the

“government … shall ensure the provision oftechnical guidance, financial assistance andother services to enable said cooperatives todevelop into viable and responsive economicenterprises and thereby bring about a strongcooperative movement that is free from anyconditions that might infringe upon theautonomy or organizational integrity ofcooperatives.”

RA 6938 also recognizes that cooperatives are self-governing entities which shall initiate and regulatetheir own affairs to include education, training,research and other support services, withgovernment giving assistance only when necessary.

In Section 1 & 9, RA 6939 emphasizes that the

“State shall … maintain the policy of non-interference in the management and operationof cooperatives and empower the CooperativeDevelopment Authority (CDA) the sole power toregister all types of cooperatives.”

As provided also in Section 3 of RA 6939, CDA isempowered to require all cooperatives, theirfederations and unions to:

• submit their annual financial statements,duly audited by certified publicaccountants, and general informationsheets;

• assist cooperatives in arranging forfinancial and other forms of assistance,and;

• administer all grants and donationscoursed through the government forcooperative development.

3. Republic Act 9520

Finally, on February 17, 2009, RA 9520: PhilippineCooperative Code of 2008 was signed into lawrepresenting another milestone in the Philippinecooperative movement. The code “updates theprovisions of RA 6938 in keeping with the changesthat have occurred within the sector,” (Ping-ay andPaez, 2008) and serves as a “comprehensivedocument that represents the short- and long-termaspirations of the movement” (Teodosio, 2009).

Definition of a Cooperative

Philippine cooperatives support two definitions ofcooperatives.

1. International Definition

Philippine cooperatives adhere to the InternationalCo-operative Alliance (ICA) definition of acooperative which is

“an autonomous association of persons unitedvoluntarily to meet their common economic,social, and cultural needs and aspirationsthrough a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.”(www.ica.coop)

2. Philippine Definition

Philippine cooperatives also accept how Article 3 ofRA 9520 defines a cooperative:

“an autonomous and duly registeredassociation of persons with a common bond ofinterest, who have voluntarily joined together toachieve their social, economic, and culturalneeds and aspirations by making equitablecontributions to the capital required,patronizing their products and services andaccepting a fair share of the risks and benefitsof the undertaking in accordance withuniversally accepted cooperative principles.”


Chap

ter

3


Other Laws and Government DirectivesFavorable to Cooperatives

Since the 1990s, cooperatives have benefited from otherlaws and government policies.


Cooperatives have participated actively in the party-list system of the House of Representatives.

Enacted in 1995, RA 7941: Party-List Law washeralded as a breakthrough in Philippinegovernance. The party-list system wasinstitutionalized after the EDSA 1986 Uprisingthrough Section 5 of Article VI in the 1987Constitution. Progressive but marginalizedorganizations that would have had little chances tobe represented in Congress, secured an opportunityto participate in national legislation. As the PartyList Law reserves 20% or 52 House of Representativeseats for national, regional, and sectoral parties ororganizations (Llamas, 2010), an increasing numberof cooperatives or cooperative-based organizationshave since been winning in the party-list system.

2. Executive Order (EO) Nos. 95 and 96

Several cooperatives have also participated incooperative development councils (CDC). Createdthrough Executive Order Nos. 95 and 96 issued in1993 during the Ramos administration, CDCs areexpected to coordinate efforts in promotingcooperative development among all governmentagencies including the local government units(LGUs) in the national, regional, city or municipallevels. As of 2008, 802 Cooperative DevelopmentCsouncils have been organized in 750

NO. OF SEATS WON

1998 2001 2004 2007

Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC) 2 2 3 3

Alyansang Bayanihan ng Magsasaka, ManggagawangBukid at Mangingisda (ABA)

Cooperative NATCCO Network Party (CoopNATCCO) 1 1 1 2

Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL) 1 1 1 2

Agriculture Sector Alliance of the Philippines (AGAP) 1

TOTAL 5 5 5 9

PARTY-LIST ORGANIZATION

1 2 2

Table 1. Participation of Cooperatives in the Party-list Elections

municipalities and 52 provinces. They serve asfora for the discussion of various problems, issuesand concerns affecting cooperatives within thearea, and to propose solutions.


Under RA 7160: Local Government Code of 1991,the local development councils (LDCs) wereorganized, giving NGOs, people’s organizations(POs) and cooperatives an opportunity to activelyparticipate in local governance. The increased levelof participation further strengthens civil society asthe third force, the government and big businessbeing the first two. Recent data on the extent ofcooperatives’ involvement in LDCs, however, are notyet available.


Cooperatives are also key stakeholders of theNational Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). Createdunder RA 8425: Social Reform and PovertyAlleviation Act during the Estrada administration,NAPC organizes every three years the CooperativeSector Assembly. This Assembly elects the NAPC-Cooperative Sector Council (CSC). The CSC ismandated:

a. to develop and formulate with thecooperative sector a doable anti-povertysectoral agenda based on optimum long-term goals, strategy and programs, and

b. to establish a consensus on mattersconcerning them. (National Confederationof Cooperatives or NATCCO Network, 2008)

Chap

ter



1985 BCOD 1993 CDA % Increase(Decrease)

Total Regred 3,350 21,125 750.0

Samahang Nayon (SN) 4,496 — —

No. of Reporting/Confirmed Coops 1,142 4,494 393.5

— Credit co-ops 592 1,095 184.0

— Consumer 305 290 (4.9)

— Producer 65 118 181.5

— Marketing 87 160 183.90

— Service 35 180 514.2

— Multi-purpose (agri) 27 2,189 8,107.4

— Multi-purpose (non-agri) — 334 —

— Area marketing 17 16 (5.8)

— Coop bank 29 29 —

— Coop federation — 40 —

— coop union — 43 —

Table 2. Statistical Information of All Types of Cooperatives (1985 to 1993)

Source: Sibal, 2000

In February 2010, the 14 Basic Sector Councils ofNAPC, among them the CSC, were re-organized.Thirty accredited cooperatives from variousregions, national federations and unions,represented the co-operative sector in the Assembly.CSC now has its own officers and sectorrepresentatives to NAPC, while twelve cooperativeorganizations were also elected to represent theNational Capital Region (NCR), Luzon, Visayas andMindanao in CSC. Meanwhile, cooperatives likeNATCCO, Philippine Federation of CreditCooperatives (PFCCO), Cooperative BanksFederation of the Philippines (BANKOOP),Cooperative Union of the Philippines (CUP),Philippine Cooperative Center (PCC), PHILAC andPhilippine Federation of Women In Cooperatives(PFWC) were accredited and elected to represent thenational federations and unions.(COOPVOICE,2010)

Description of the Cooperative Sector

1. Number and Types of Registered Cooperatives

As of August 31, 1993, there are a total of 25,125registered cooperatives, 7.5 times more than the1985 figures. Of these however, only 4,495 or 17.8%are registered. The cooperatives that increasedwere multi-purpose, credit, service, marketing and

producers cooperatives. Those that declined wereconsumers and area marketing cooperatives.(Sibal, 2000)

By December 31, 2008, the total number ofregistered cooperatives had increased severaltimes to 77,803. This includes 102 laboratorycooperatives (see Table 3).Region IV has the most number of registered coopswith 8,912 cooperatives (11.47%), followed byRegion III with 8,738 (11.25%) and NCR with 6,080(7.82%). Regions with the least number ofregistered coops are Region IX with 3,203 coops(4.12%), CARAGA with 2,776 coops (3.57%) and CARwith 2,220 coops (2.86%).

In terms of cooperative types, multi-purposeagricultural cooperatives are the highest,numbering 39,713 or 51%. They are followed bymulti-purpose non-agricultural cooperatives with26,834 or 34.49%, and then credit cooperatives at4,823 or 26.20%. Credit cooperatives, beingprimary cooperatives, have individual members.

CDA records three area marketing cooperatives, 55cooperative rural banks, 631 federations and 93unions whose members are primary or secondary-level cooperatives and cooperative-orientedorganizations.


Chap

ter

3


Table 3. No. and Types of Cooperatives as of December 2008

REGION CREDIT CONSUMER PRODUCER MARKETING SERVICE AMC CRB FEDERATION UNION TOTAL LAB

AGRI NON-AGRI

I 149 32 8 26 36 3,410 1,009 4 88 5 4,767 20

II 225 19 37 19 44 2,345 820 3 49 3 3,564 1

CAR* 174 48 14 13 29 1,278 637 2 18 7 2,220 3

III 500 84 233 83 278 4,484 2,955 7 106 8 8,738 9

IV 583 161 140 105 248 3,880 3,711 6 63 15 8,912 6

NCR* 1,094 234 57 24 377 10 4,210 1 57 16 6,080 21

V 243 41 97 27 108 2,330 1,268 4 30 8 4,156 11

VI 265 58 66 49 52 3,627 1,501 5 47 4 5,674 10

VII 199 63 44 24 114 1,498 1,513 4 19 4 3,482 3

VIII 478 193 358 125 210 1,895 704 2 19 1 3,985 2

IX 53 23 25 24 34 1,504 1,511 2 23 4 3,203 4

X 161 63 59 44 91 2,052 1,336 5 28 7 3,846 0

XI 361 180 120 103 105 1,640 2,994 1 5 28 7 5,544 2

XII 129 64 51 96 93 3,173 1,248 1 11 0 4,866 2

CARAGA 191 94 90 49 40 1,465 815 2 3 25 2 2,776 8

ARMM* 18 14 30 70 9 5,122 602 1 20 2 5,888 0

TOTAL 4,823 1,371 1,429 881 1,868 39,713 26,834 3 55 631 93 77,701 102

MULTIPURPOSE

Source: Cooperative Development AuthorityNote: Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR), National Capital Region (NCR), Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)

Table 4. Number of Operating and Non-Operating Cooperatives as of December 2008

OPERATING NON-OPERATING DISSOLVED CANCELLED

I 1,300 203 1,465 1,819

II 783 1,649 230 903

CAR 662 146 394 1,021

III 2,568 2,216 845 3,118

IV 2,404 2,121 3,703 690

NCR 2,104 541 538 2,918

V 945 471 1,579 1,172

VI 1,657 3,476 178 373

VII 1,957 1,244 246 38

VIII 651 373 2,444 519

IX 915 836 728 728

X 1,340 440 1,648 418

XI 1,926 2,316 460 844

XII 1,241 1,355 1,419 852

CARAGA 1,209 468 1,069 38

TOTAL 21,662 17,855 16,946 15,452

NUMBER OF COOPERATIVESREGION

Source: Powerpoint presentation, Cooperative Development Authority as shared by NATCCO

Chap

ter



Table 5. Operating Cooperatives as of December 2009

Region Operating Registered % (Over Total)Cooperatives

1. Region 3 2,766 12%

2. NCR 2,608 11%

3. Region 11 2,269 10%

4. Region 10 1,847 8%

5. Region 6 1,840 8%

6. Region 4-A 1,812 8%

7. Region 7 1,765 7%

8. Region 1 1,416 6%

9. Region 12 1,233 5%

10. Region 13 1,220 5%

11. Region 8 1,030 4%

12. Region 9 963 4%

13. Region 2 914 4%

14. CAR 761 3%

15. Region 5 735 3%

16. Region 4-B 669 3%

17. ARMM 2 0%

23,850 100%

Table 6. Types of Operating Cooperatives as of December 2009

Type No. %

Multi-Purpose Cooperative 19,700 82.60%

Credit Cooperative 1,826 7.66%

Service Cooperative 833 3.49%

Consumer Cooperative 494 2.07%

Producer Cooperative 402 1.69%

Marketing Cooperative 292 1.22%

Federation 169 0.71%

COOP Bank 59 0.25%

Union 52 0.22%

MPN 8 0.03%

MP-Non Agri 6 0.03%

MP 3 0.01%

Workers Cooperative 3 0.01%

Insurance Cooperative 2 0.01%

Fisherman Cooperative 1 0.00%

Total 23850 100.00%

2. Operational Cooperatives

Unfortunately, only a little over 27.84% of the totalregistered cooperatives are operational. Thoseconsidered non-operating cooperatives (72.16%):

a. are either dormant or temporarily have nobusiness transactions;

b. have permanently ceased operations;

c. have been dissolved and their registrationcancelled; or,

d. have simply failed to submit annual reports/financial statements to CDA for the past twoor more consecutive years.(CDA, 2008)

Region III has the most number of operatingcooperatives, followed by Region IV and NCR with


Chap

ter

3


2,568, 2,404 and 2,104 operating cooperatives,respectively.

By December 2009, the number of operatingcooperatives has increased to 23,850 according tothe Cooperative Development Authority (CDA).

Geographical location – Luzon still has the mostnumber of operating cooperatives totaling 11,681followed by Mindanao with 7,534 and Visayas with4,635. The top two regions with the highest numberof operating cooperatives are also in Luzon: Region3, with 2,766 cooperatives and the National CapitalRegion with 2,608 cooperatives.

Types. — Of the 23,850 operating cooperatives, 19,700or 82.60 percent are multi-purpose cooperatives.

Financial size. — Only 18,254 of the 23,850operating cooperatives have data on asset size. Theassets of these cooperatives total P113.8 billion.Less than one percent are large cooperatives whoown 54% of the total assets. 82% are microcooperatives who own only a little over 6% of thetotal assets.

57% or 97 of the 161 large cooperatives are inLuzon. This is followed by Mindanao with 23% or37 large cooperatives and the Visayas with 19.9%or 32 large cooperatives. 28 of the 97 largecooperatives of Luzon are in Bulacan. Bulacanbelongs to Region 3, one of the two regions that hasthe highest number of operating cooperatives.

3. Confirmed Cooperatives

In July 2009, CDA issued a circular requiring “alltypes and categories of registered and confirmed

cooperatives existing prior to 22 March 2009,except cancelled and dissolved cooperatives” toregister with CDA before March 22, 2010. This is incompliance with Article 144 of RA 9520, whichstates that “all cooperatives registered andconfirmed with the Authority under RA 6938 and RA6939, are hereby deemed registered under thisCode, and a new certificate of registration shall beissued by the Authority.” CDA required thesubmission of a copy of the cooperative’scertificate of registration with CDA, articles ofcooperation, bylaws and latest audited financialstatements. The certificate of a cooperative thatfails to submit such documents before the deadlinewill be deemed cancelled.

The number of registered cooperatives wasexpected to dramatically decline after re-registration. As of January 15, 2010, only 6,149 ofthe 23,850 operating cooperatives havereconfirmed their status with CDA. CALABARZON(Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon)with 704 confirmed cooperatives (11.50%) andCentral Luzon, with 628 confirmed cooperatives(10.21%) are the regions which have the highestpercentage of compliance. No cooperative inBasilan (ARMM) and Guimaras (Western Visayas)has re-registered.

By March 22, 2010, CDA has not delisted anycooperative. Responding to the numerous requests fromits extension offices and from the cooperativesthemselves, the Board of CDA decided, after seeking theopinion of the Department of Justice and theCongressional Joint Committee on CooperativeDevelopment, to issue a circular extending the re-registration from July 1 to September 30, 2010.

Asset Size Total Assets ( P) % No. of Coops %Large (P100M up) 61,571,491,560.51 54.09% 161 0.88%Medium (P15M to P100M) 30,151,230,186.43 26.49% 859 4.71%Small (P3M to P15) 14,763,272,098.58 12.97% 2,197 12.04%Micro (P3M or less) 7,348,574,014.60 6.46% 15,037 82.38%TOTAL 113,834,567,860.12 100.00% 18,254 100.00%

Table 7. Financial Sizes of Cooperatives as of December 2009

Chap

ter



Table 8. Confirmed Cooperatives as of January 15, 2010

Confirmed % Registered %

(A) (A / Total Confirmed (B) (A/B) Coops)

1. Region 4-A 704 11.45% 1812 38.85%

2. Region 3 628 10.21% 2766 22.70%

3. Region 10 545 8.86% 1847 29.51%

4. Region 1 445 7.24% 1416 31.43%

5. NCR 435 7.07% 2608 16.68%

6. Region 12 423 6.88% 1233 34.31%

7. Region 11 417 6.78% 2269 18.38%

8. Region 6 350 5.69% 1840 19.02%

9. Region 13 334 5.43% 1220 27.38%

10. Region 8 329 5.35% 1030 31.94%

11. Region 9 300 4.88% 963 31.15%

12. Region 2 285 4.63% 914 31.18%

13. Region 4-B 270 4.39% 669 40.36%

14. Region 5 269 4.37% 735 36.60%

15. Region 7 239 3.89% 1765 13.54%

16. CAR 176 2.86% 761 23.13%

17. ARMM 0 0.00% 2 0.00%

6149 100.00% 23850 25.78%

The Philippine Cooperative Movement:The Philippine Cooperative Movement:The Philippine Cooperative Movement:The Philippine Cooperative Movement:The Philippine Cooperative Movement:Major Federations and UnionsMajor Federations and UnionsMajor Federations and UnionsMajor Federations and UnionsMajor Federations and Unions

Historical Stages and Categories ofCooperatives

The history of the cooperative movement in thePhilippines can be divided into three stages.

Stage 1: Between 1895 and 1941 revolutionaryillustrados, American missionaries and western-educated Filipinos introduced cooperatives to thecountry.

Stage 2: Between 1941 and 1986, cooperatives wereestablished during the Japanese occupation, post-war rehabilitation period, and the Marcosdictatorship. This period witnessed the formationof cooperative federations and unions.

Stage 3: After the February Revolution of 1986, theCooperative Code was signed and cooperativesemerged as a political force. (Sibal, 2000)

As stated in Articles 23, 24, and 25 of RA 9250 (2008), inthe Philippines, cooperatives are categorized accordingto membership and territorial considerations. In termsof membership, a cooperative may be categorized asfollows:

1. Primary – members are individual persons.

2. Secondary – members are primary cooperatives. Asecondary cooperative may either be a:

! Federation – members are three or moreprimary cooperatives engaged in the same lineof business or cooperative enterprise; or

! > Union – members are primary cooperatives orfederations engaged in non-business activities,such as representation, or analyzing sharedinformation such as economic and statisticaldata.

3. Tertiary - members are secondary cooperatives whoform one or more apex organizations.


Chap

ter

3


Name of Organization Year Organized/ Type ofEstablished Cooperative

Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives (PFCCO) 1960 National Federation

Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc. (FFFCI) 1964 National Federation

Mindanao Alliance of Self-Help Societies –Southern Philippines Education CooperativeCenter (MASS-SPECC) 1966 Regional Federation

Visayas Cooperative Development Center (VICTO) 1970 Regional Federation

Coop-Life Mutual Benefit Services Association (CLIMBS) 1971 National Federation

Katipunan ng mga KooperatibangPansasakyan ng Pilipinas, Ink. (KKPPI) 1974 National Federation

Cooperative Insurance System of the Philippines (CISP) 1974 National Federation

Tagalog Cooperative Development Center (TAGCODEC) 1975 Regional Federation

National Confederation of Cooperatives (NATCCO) 1977 National Federation

Cooperative Foundation of the Philippines Inc. (CFPI) 1977 National Federation

National Market VendorsConfederation of Cooperatives (NAMVESCCO) 1979 National Federation

Philippine Rural Electric CooperativesAssociation, Inc. (PHILRECA) 1979 National Association

Cooperative Union of the Philippines (CUP) 1979 National Union

Cooperative Banks Federation of thePhilippines (BANGKOOP) 1979 National Federation

Philippine Federation of Women In Cooperatives (PFWC) 1979 National Federation

Northern Luzon Federation of Cooperativesand Development Center (NORLU) 1991 Regional Federation

Cooperative Education and Development Center (CEDCI) 1992 National Federation

National Cooperative Marketing Federation (NCMF) 1995 National Federation

Metro South Cooperative Bank (MSCB) 1996 Regional Federation

Philippine Cooperative Center (PCC) 1997 National Federation

Federation of Peoples’ Sustainable DevelopmentCooperative (FPSDC) 1998 National Federation

National Capital Region League- PhilippineFederation of Credit Cooperatives (NCRL-PFCCO) 1999 Regional Federation

Federation of Teachers Cooperative (FTC) 2002 National Federation

Philippine Resort – Travel and EducationService Cooperative (PRESCO) 2005 National Federation

Table 9. Sample List of Philippine Cooperatives

In some cases, cooperative-oriented organizations suchas NGOs and POs become members of secondary andtertiary cooperatives.

Geographically, cooperatives can be organized on anyterritorial level which may or may not coincide with thepolitical subdivisions of the country.

Selection Criteria for Mapping

As mentioned earlier, there are 23,850 operatingcooperatives in the database of the CooperativeDevelopment Authority (CDA). Such a sizeable number

necessitates that a selection criteria be drawn up toestablish who to interview for the purpose of this paper.After reviewing several resource materials (see Annex B)and consulting a number of informants, mappingconcentrated on cooperative federations and unionswhich fulfill the following criteria:

1. established in the 1960s and exist up to thepresent;

2. currently in the records of the CooperativeDevelopment Authority;

3. often cited in literature/studies in the past 15years;

Chap

ter



Six Strengths of Philippine Cooperatives

1. Growth in Financial Assets

From 1939 to 1995, the total assets of thecooperative movement jumped from a measlyP3,400,000 in 1939 to P113.8 billion in 2009.

Despite the closure of 8 cooperative banks, the totalassets of the remaining 45 cooperative banks in

4. have regional or national operations andrepresent a wide base of cooperativemembers or cooperative-oriented individuals;and

5. are current members of the PhilippineCooperative Center (PCC).

Major Cooperative Players

The PC is currently the largest network of cooperativesin the Philippines. Established to serve as a unitycenter for Philippine cooperatives, the PCC traces itsroots to 1995 when it was conceptualized as a bodythat coordinated national cooperative activities. Twoyears later, in 1997, PCC was formally registered as anational tertiary cooperative.

In the past 6 years, PCC, together with CDA, has servedas the lead convenor of the National CooperativeSummits. Held every two years, the summits are gearedtowards developing the entrepreneurial skills andeconomic competitiveness of a unified cooperativesector.

As of December 2009, PCC has a total membership of 44cooperatives composed of 17 national federations andunions, 8 regional federations and 19 leading primarycooperatives with a total members’ equity ofP44,114,146.94. According to its current chairperson,former Senator Agapito “Butz” Aquino, PCC probablyaccounts for 85% of total cooperative members in thePhilippines. A complete list of PCC members is found inAnnex A.

Members of PCC listed in Table 9 were interviewed. Alist of the cooperative leaders interviewed is found inAnnex D and a brief information on these cooperativesis found in Annex C.

Table 10. Growth in Assets

Period Assets ( P) Increase ( P)

1939 3,400,000

1967 30,500,000 27,100,000

1977 129,100,000 98,600,000

1980 280,100,000 151,000,000

1985 1,053,800,000 773,700,000

1995 118,400,000,000 117,346,200,000

2008 85,600,000,000 -32,800,000,000

2009 113,834,567,860 28,234,567,860

Table 12. Total Assets of Top 10 Cooperatives/Region in 2008

Region Total Assets (P)

1 1,341,768,039.67

2 989,707,274.38

3 2,628,027,279.06

CAR 2,681,888,614.45

NCR 11,081,642,350.31

7 4,158,198,020.85

9 606,324,292.07

10 4,515,487,003.11

11 372,252,229.81

TOTAL 28,375,295,103.71

No data available for regions 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 and ARMM

Source: Cooperative Development Authority

Source of Data: Sibal (2000); Caucus of Development NGONetworks (2008); and Cooperative Development Authority (2009)

Note: During the round-table-discussion for cooperatives lastMarch 6, 2010 at Ateneo de Manila University, some coop leadersattribute the dramatic decline in total assets in 2008 to thecancellation and deletion of thousands of cooperatives from thelist of operating cooperatives while the sudden increase in assets in2009 might have been due to the registration of 17 electriccooperatives with the CDA and the phenomenal growth of largecooperatives.

Table 11. Total Assets (in Billion Pesos) ofCooperative Banks

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

5.7 6.4 7.5 8.8 10.7

Source: Bankoop 22nd Annual General Assembly Report


Chap

ter

3


2. Growth in Membership: Gaining PoliticalStrength

Prior to 1985, membership in cooperatives wasvery erratic.

Table 14. Cooperative Membership

Year 1939 1967 1977 1980 1985

Membership

(in thousands) 105 555 460 223.7 337.0

Source: Gray Wine Think Tank from Sibal , 2000

Operating Cooperatives 2009 1993

Credit co-ops 1,826 1,095

Consumer 494 290

Producer 402 118

Marketing 292 160

Service 833 180

Multi-purpose (agri) 2,189

Multi-purpose (non-agri) 334

Area marketing 17 16

Coop bank 59 29

Coop federation 169 40

Coop union 52 43


19,717

Table 13. Types of Cooperatives

2007 grew steadily by almost 100% from P5.7billion in 2003 to P10.7 billion. According to theMetro South Cooperative Bank (MSCB) PresidentReno Velasco, the total assets of cooperative banksgrew to P13 billion by the end of 2009 in spite ofthe closure of three cooperative banks.Another significant development in the cooperativesector is the increase of viable cooperatives —billionaire and millionaire cooperatives haveincreased. There are 161 large cooperatives and859 medium cooperatives with a combined asset ofP91 billion. In 2008, the total assets of the top tencooperatives in each of the nine regions reachedP28.4 billion.

Although it is estimated that 80% of operatingcooperatives are engaged in savings and creditservices (Llanto and Geron, 2007), another positivedevelopment is the increase in higher value-addedeconomic enterprises as shown in the growth ofcertain types of cooperatives.

But from 1985 to 1993, cooperative membershipgrew by almost 10 times from 337,000 to 3.2million. It was estimated that the familybeneficiaries of the coop movement were around19.2 million (Sibal, 2000). In 1998, approximatecooperative membership nationwide was 4.5million (Buendia, 2005) which increased to 5million in 2003 (Alliance of Progressive Labor-NUWHRAIN Development Cooperative, 2005).According to a CDA annual report, there are 4.3million members as of December 2003 (Gardio et.al., 2005). Finally, in 2010, it was estimated that 18percent of Filipinos are members of coops althoughonly 7.5 percent are active (Caucus of DevelopmentNGO Networks and Social Weather Services, 2010).

These numbers, aside from being socio-economicpower indicators also indicate political power.Four of the five party-list organizations supportedby cooperatives consistently won in the past fourelections,

In terms of legislative achievements, they werebehind the successful passage into law of RA 9520:Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008. Cooplegislators have also supported other pro-poorbills such as the expansion of tax exemptionincentives of cooperatives, Comprehensive AgrarianReform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER)Act, strengthening of the crop insurance program,Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act,Fisheries Code, etc. They have also worked tostrengthen cooperative partnership with andparticipation in government. Consequently, someleaders of cooperatives have been appointed tovarious government agencies. Coop legislators werealso able to use their countryside development fundto support cooperatives through infrastructureprojects, scholarships, computers, TechnicalEducation and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)trainings, Philhealth cards and medical missions.

In the May 2010 national elections, two neworganizations, namely Adhikaing Tinataguyod ngKooperatiba (AtingKoop) and Alliance of TransportSector (ATS) participated in the party-list electionsbringing the total number of party-list organiza-tions supported by the cooperative sector to seven.AtingKoop was supported by credit coopera-tiveswhile ATS was backed up by transport cooperatives.

Chap

ter



3. Geographical Presence in All Provinces

Another strength of cooperatives is its presence inall 80 provinces and cities of Metro-Manila.According to NATCCO CEO, Sylvia Paraguya,NATCCO’s membership includes viable cooperativesin the ARMM. This in contrast to CDA’s databasewhich does not report any operating cooperative inTawi-tawi, Sulu, Maguindanao and Lanao del Sur.Davao del Sur (including Davao City), Cebu andBulacan are the top three provinces with the mostnumber of cooperatives. The geographical spread ofcooperatives assures the cooperative movement ofchampions/resource persons/spokespersons in allprovinces.

Table 15. Provinces with Most and Least Number ofCooperatives

Top 10 Provinces Bottom 10 ProvincesMost Number of Cooperatives Least Number of Cooperatives

Davao Del Sur 1163 Ifugao 65

Cebu 903 Mountain Province 61

Bulacan 767 Biliran 54

Pangasinan 760 Quirino 52

Negros Occidental 701 Apayao 51

Misamis Oriental 650 Marinduque 47

Nueva Ecija 643 Guimaras 28

Bohol 628 Catanduanes 22

Iloilo 620 Batanes 17

South Cotabato 550 BASILAN 2


4. Stronger Links with DevelopmentStakeholders: Civil Society, DonorAgencies and Government

a. Partnership with Civil Society

Throughout its history in the Philippines,cooperatives have been formed to serve as theeconomic arm of marginalized sectors such asfarmers and labor unions. After the 1986revolution, the cooperative became a potentpolitical force as it created alliances withNGOs and other civil society members. NGOssaw the cooperative model as a viable vehiclefor slowly building up the self-reliance of POswhom they assisted. Several NGOs such as the

Philippine Partnership for the Development ofHuman Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)or the Philippine Business for Social Progress(PBSP) allowed the formation of cooperativesfor their staff. Some NGOs entered intopartnerships with primary cooperatives toform a cooperative federation, mainly topursue a common platform of social changethrough sustainable development. In the samemanner, several cooperative federations suchas NATCCO, Visayas Cooperative DevelopmentCenter (VICTO) and the Mindanao Alliance ofSelf-Help Societies – Southern PhilippinesEducation Cooperative Center (MASS-SPECC)had also joined national or regional socialdevelopment networks.

b. Partnership with Donor Agencies

Since the 1960s, cooperatives also gained andcontinue to enjoy support from foreign andlocal donor agencies, internationalcooperative networks and academicinstitutions. The biggest cooperativefederations in the Philippines are members ofthe International Cooperative Alliance andAssociation of Confederations of Credit Unions.Annual reports of some cooperativefederations reveal their partnerships withinternational and local institutions. Forexample, NATCCO has links with AflatounChildren Savings International, Rabobank andCordaid to promote savings among schoolchildren in their cooperative’s classroombanks. It is a partner of the Asian Women inCooperatives to sustain its gender equalityadvocacy. The Federation of People’sSustainable Development Cooperative wasorganized with a donated capital of P37millionfrom the Philippine Development AssistanceProgramme. One of the National MarketVendors Confederation of Cooperatives’(NAMVESCCO’s) members received fundingassistance from the Philippines-AustraliaCommunity Assistance Program. In the case ofFederation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc.,it has received support from Friedrich EbertStiftung, Fund for International CooperativeDevelopment, Swiss Lenten Fund, Australian


Chap

ter

3


Table 16. Cooperatives vis-à-vis Government Agencies and Regulators

Electric Cooperatives Energy Regulatory CommissionNational Electrification Administration

Transport Cooperatives Office of Transport CooperativesLand Transportation OfficeLand Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board

Cooperative Banks Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

Farmers Cooperatives Department of AgricultureNational Food AuthorityDepartment of Agrarian Reform Bureau of Agricultural Research

Market Vendors Cooperatives Department of Trade and Industry Local Government Units Department of Agriculture

Insurance Cooperatives Insurance Commission

Housing Cooperatives Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

Water Service Cooperatives National Water Resources Board

School Cooperatives Department of Education

Catholic Relief and Misereor to name a few.Rural cooperatives since 1979 have also beensupported by Hanns Seidel Foundation whoseCooperative and Community Development isone of four major programs in the country. CHFInternational and Japan Fund for PovertyReduction provided the CooperativeDevelopment Authority with assistance for thedevelopment of a Cooperative InformationSystem. Cooperatives have also found partnersin local agencies such as Plan Philippines formicrofinance, Peace and Equity Foundation foradditional equity investments, SM Foundation,Inc. and Philippine Business for SocialProgress for trade fairs and business clinics.University of Wisconsin Center forCooperatives Studies helps to promotecooperative studies done in the Philippines.

c. Partnership with Government

Aside from the Cooperative DevelopmentAuthority, Philippine cooperatives have alsomanaged to establish fruitful partnerships orpeaceful co-existence with some governmentagencies and their counterpart governmentregulators.

The cooperatives maintain their ties with theOffice of the President through the NationalAnti-Poverty Commission. During the EstradaAdministration, several federations receivedP10-15 million pesos as part of the Lingap saMahirap program. Since the CDA was placedunder the Department of Finance, cooperativeshave benefited from such an arrangement withthe approval of the implementing rules andregulations for tax exemptions.

5. Greater Cooperation Among Cooperatives

In the past 15 years, there have been significantdevelopments amongst cooperatives to put inpractice one of their principles which isCooperation among Cooperatives.

a. Philippine Cooperative Center (PCC)

As the largest network of cooperatives in thePhilippines, PCC serves as the apexorganization of cooperative federations,unions and primary cooperatives bringingtogether 85% of Philippine cooperatives.According to its General Manager, Lionel Abril,PCC is probably the only (or remaining) socialmovement that has united and maintainedunity among its members with different socio-political backgrounds.

(Note: Since the February Revolution of 1986,attempts to unite the labor sector through LACC,the farmer sector through CAPR, the fisherfolksector through NACFAR and the youth/studentsector through LKP had been short-lived.)

Since its establishment in 1995, PCC hasworked towards the unity and integration ofcooperatives in the country. It maintains acenter where a number of cooperativefederations hold office. It hopes to furtherbecome a center for policy cooperation, acenter for technical cooperation and a centerfor business development. It has become theconvenor, in coordination with CDA, of nationalcooperative summits since the 7th summit in

Chap

ter



2004. Under its Cooperative Solidarity Council,PCC formed four clusters to encourage greaterbusiness collaboration and integration –Financial Service Cluster, Products andConsumers, Services & Utilities and Advocacy.

b. National Cooperative Summits

In 1996, the first National Cooperative Summitbrought together various cooperatives from allparts of the country. The summit was an annualevent until 1998, when it decided to make theevent a bi-annual gathering. Convened by CDAin coordination with PCC, the first six summits(1996-2002) served as fora where participantsraised issues which were meant to urge thegovernment to implement programs andactions that would help cooperatives. Since theseventh summit, the thrusts of nationalsummits have shifted to exploring newfrontiers to further develop the economiccompetitiveness of a more unified cooperativesector, as well as the entrepreneurial skills ofits cooperative members. Launched lastFebruary 2010, the 10th National CooperativeSummit will be held in October 2010 with thetheme “Towards a Shared Vision - One CoopMovement, One Vision and One Nation.” Thesummit intends to set the strategic direction ofthe cooperative sector for the next ten yearstowards being industry-focused. The 10th

summit hopes to contribute in making thesector a significant market player byestablishing a clear framework and structuresand programs for business partnershipsthrough consolidation, integration andcomplementation of business processes andservices.

c. Greater Cooperation Among Cooperative Banks

After the closure of several cooperative banks,several members of the Cooperative BanksFederation of the Philippines BANGKOOP)began studying their options, with the end goalof merging or consolidating their banks inorder to survive and become viable. Incompliance with Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas(BSP) policies on increased capital adequacyrequirements, some cooperative banks have

also sought the help of other coop banks orcooperatives for additional capital infusion.NATCCO has extended financial support in theform of preferred shares to Coop Bank ofCamarines Norte, Capiz Settler’s CooperativeBank and Cooperative Bank of Agusan Norte-Butuan City.

Cooperative banks also help each other inproducing annual financial statements throughBANGKOOP. This facilitates the ranking of itsmembers by using selected indicators tomeasure the financial performance of allcooperative banks.

d. Joint Undertakings in Cooperative Educationand Trainings

According to Bing Cabal, a veteran coop trainer,many cooperative problems result from a lackof education regarding what a cooperativeshould be and what cooperative membersshould know. This observation had beenbacked by numerous studies in the past. In June2008, CDA, together with the Institute for Co-opExcellence, convened a forum on CooperativeEducation and Training for the purpose oflooking into the state of cooperative educationand training. Since then, the convenors havemet monthly and have identified gaps and thenecessary interventions such as standardizedmodules and accreditation system for cooptrainers. The group has also produced basiccoop materials in DVD format. Anotherinnovation is the Post-baccalaureate Diplomaon Cooperative Management, a 24-unit course,supported by Landbank, PUP-College ofCooperative and the National CooperativeMovement. 94 scholars have graduated fromthis course which aims to develop the capacityand competence of cooperative leaders andmiddle-level management staff on professionalmanagement of cooperatives.

e. Scorecards

Another key development within somecooperative federations is the use ofbenchmarks or scorecards to guide, improve,and reward good performance of its members.


Chap

ter

3


The Federation of People’s SustainableDevelopment Cooperative (FPSDC) implementsits annual membership classification toencourage participation and support to theundertakings of the Federation. It alsoconducts organizational diagnosis among itsmembers to ensure appropriate interventions.

The National Electrification Administrationuses 24 indicators in four key areas to measurethe corporate governance of electriccooperatives: financial (6), informationtechnology (6), institutional (6), technical (6).Cooperative banks use 8 indicators (totalassets, networth, ratio of loans to total assets,past due rate, deposits generated, current ratio,networth to RAR, net profit to gross incomeratio) to rank their financial performance.

The performance of the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID)--fundedCredit Union Empowerment and Strengthening(CUES), a program of the World Council ofCredit Unions (WOCCU) and Freedom fromHunger, is measured by the so-called P-E-A-R-L-S ratios which contain 39 financial ratios andindicators that are classified into sixcategories, namely, P–rotection (5), E–ffectivefinancial structure (8), A–sset quality (3); R–ates of return and costs (12), L–iquidity (4) andS–igns of annual growth (7).

As part of its regulatory function, CDA requirescooperatives to submit their CooperativeAnnual Performance Report in order tofacilitate measurement of performance throughthe COOP-PESOS rating which uses 17indicators covering 9 different aspects of acooperative’s operations which include: C-ompliance, Organization, O-peration andManagement, P-lans/Programs & Performance,P-ortfolio Quality, E-fficiency Rations, S-tabilityRatios, O-perations, S-tructure of Assets.

f. Strengthening of Credit Operations

Six cooperative federations (PCF, NATCCO,PFCCO, FPSDC, MSCB and BANGKOOP) havebeen meeting regularly to thresh out the detailsof the Cooperative Credit Info Bureau which the

PCC hopes will be launched this year in timefor the 10th National Cooperative Summit. Inaddition, NATCCO together with CDA, AsianConfederation of Credit Unions and theDepartment of Finance/Bangko Sentral ngPilipinas has put up a Stabilization Fundwhich aims to provide member cooperatives infinancial distress access to emergency fundingand technical assistance. Aimed at preventinginsolvency or failure, the program fundrequires members to contribute .2% of totaldeposits to the fund per annum and submitinformation such as financial statements,statistical information and financial ratios.Finally, the merger of the two biggestfederations in the Philippines, NATCCO andMASS-SPECC, has been approved by theirrespective boards and will be submitted totheir respective General Assemblies forapproval in 2010.

6. Mainstreaming Gender Concerns

Concern for gender equality and empowerment hadalso made inroads in the cooperative sector.

According to its chairperson, Nancy Marquez, thetransition of the Philippine Federation of Womenin Cooperatives (PFWC) from individualmembership to group membership (primarycooperatives) indicate that gender equality is notexclusive to the women sector but should be acorporative concern of cooperatives. As afederation, PFWC provides various training towomen on cooperative management, livelihoodand gender equality and empowerment.

As early as 1977, NATCCO commissioned a studyon women participation which noted an increasein women occupying management positions butthat majority of board members and board chairsare still occupied by men. PFWC also hostsworkshops and study tours for coop womenleaders from Japan, China, India, Nepal, Malaysiato promote women’s interest for gendermainstreaming.

In 2003, the first National Summit of Women inCooperatives was held with the theme “GenderEquality in Cooperative Governance.” Around thisperiod, several women cooperatives were also

Chap

ter



organized such as the Palawan Women’s Multi-purpose Cooperative, Ilocos Sur’s Tagudin WomenCooperative, Tarlac’s Moncada Women’s CreditCooperative and Leyte’s Pamplona WomenCooperative.

Finally, there has been an increase in foraorganized for or articles written on Women andCooperatives such as:

a. Cooperative Women TransformationLeadership Conference, held in March 2005;

b. Promoting Rural Women’s CooperativeBusinesses, held in October 2005;

c. Advancing Women’s Agenda thru Cooperatives,held in June 2003; and

d. Political Theory and the Women inCooperatives.

SevSevSevSevSeven Wen Wen Wen Wen Weaknesses ofeaknesses ofeaknesses ofeaknesses ofeaknesses of Philippine Philippine Philippine Philippine PhilippineCooperativesCooperativesCooperativesCooperativesCooperatives

1. High Incidence of Non-operatingRegistered Coops

The main reason for cooperative failures hasalways been the lack of education and training.This has been revealed in more than 80 studieswhich assessed the growth and development ofcoops in the 1980s. After more than two decades,this is still the major cause of a high incidence ofnon-operating registered cooperatives.

Moreover, there are still cases of cooperativesbeing organized and used by politicians to serve asconduit of government funds. Expectedly, theyeventually become inactive as soon as the fundsare withdrawn by their leaders.

2. Signs of Strategic Drift

According to erstwhile NATCCO CEO and currenthead of the Institute for Co-op Excellence, RomuloVillamin, critical signs are already presentindicating that cooperatives are on a “strategicdrift.” Simply put, cooperatives are losing sight oftheir unique character or what makes themdifferent from a regular business corporation.Successful cooperatives seem to focus more oncommercial viability and less on its social capitalprimarily their members. The absence of a soundtool to profile its members also makes it difficultfor cooperatives to design appropriate productsand services for its members. The de-emphasis onpre-membership seminars (from 1 day to 1 hour)does not encourage full participation of newmembers. The plans of some successful community-based cooperatives to go out of their communitiesaddress more the business side of the cooperativerather than the social aspect of the cooperative.

Table 17. Cooperative Failures and Success

Causes of Cooperative Failures Factors of Success(Sibal, 2000) (CDA, 2008)

Lack of education and training Continuing education and training programs for members,officers and management staff

Lack of capital Continuing capital build-up and savings generation program

Inadequate volume of business Adherence to their established loans and saving policies

Lack of loyal membership support Membership expansion through a continuous recruitmentprogram

Vested interest and graft and corruption Presence of code of ethics, human resource manual.among coop leaders

Weak leadership and mismanagement Cooperative officers acting as role models

Lack of government support Good networking with other coops and organizations

Regular conduct of their general assembly

In 2008, CDA documented 50 successful stories andextracted the factors that contributed to theirsuccess, one of which was continuing educationand training programs for members, officers andmanagement staff.


Chap

ter

3


Consequently, the characteristics that differentiatecooperatives from the capitalist system arebecoming less pronounced and less articulated.

3. Aging Leadership in Board andManagement Positions

There is a consensus among the cooperativeleaders that a number of cooperative federationshave no clear plans for leadership succession. Partof the problem is the reluctance to transferleadership to younger cooperative members for fearthat the cooperative might collapse. Unfortunately,cooperatives, like NGOs, do not also seem to attractyoung and creative people despite the presence oflaboratory cooperatives whose members are mostlyhigh school and college students. There have beencases of young people leaving their jobs after beingtrained as a result of the inability of cooperativesto provide the necessary salaries. Without thishealthy mix of youth and middle-aged adults,cooperatives are at risk to remain stagnantparticularly in terms of transfer of technology andcross-breeding of business tools.

4. Lack of Documentation on Cooperatives

The last major research work on cooperatives waspublished in 1989 by the Cooperative FoundationPhilippines, Inc. (CFPI), a non-stock, non-profit NGOestablished in 1977 to foster the development andgrowth of cooperatives through research and policystudies, publications and the maintenance of acooperative databank. Since the passage of RA 6938and RA 6939 in 1990, CFPI has ceased to operateand no research institute devoted to cooperativeshad taken its place. Consequently, cooperativereferences, studies or literature had remainedscattered, lacking or outdated. In 2007, a fewstatistics on transport cooperatives were cited in aSouvenir Program but lacks analysis. There doesn’tseem to be any study on electric cooperativesprobably because majority of electric coops areonly coops in name. There is still no serious studyon the Philippine Federation of ElectricCooperatives, a group of 17 electric coops whoregistered under CDA to take advantage of thebenefits of being an authentic cooperative. The lastcomprehensive analysis on the cooperative bankindustry was done in 2007 although the BSP

publishes quarterly tables on key financial ratiosof cooperative banks. Some concerns of watercooperatives were extensively discussed in thePhilippines Water Dialogues 2004-2008 but otherconcerns such as number, area of operations,membership, finance, advantages over waterassociations have not been evaluated.Documentation on cooperatives engaged in thedelivery of other basic services such as housing,hospitalization, education is severely lacking.Other dedicated cooperatives such as areamarketing coops, laboratory coops, women coopsalso lack attention. Noticeable are the increasingdocumentation of successful cooperatives. But howcooperatives contribute to national economy (GDP,wealth generation) or its impact on theeconomically marginalized (farmers, fisherfolk,urban poor) and the socio-culturally marginalized(women, indigenous peoples, persons withdisabilities, elderly, children) remain wanting.Cooperative unions or federations are allowed byRA 9520 to acquire, analyze and disseminateeconomic, statistical and other information and tosponsor studies in the economic, legal, financial,social and other phases of cooperation. Butaccording to NATCCO CEO, Sylvia Paraguya,federations usually venture into research only ifthere are funds available.

5. Low Utilization of Media

Despite in-roads in using radio and televisionstations to promote cooperatives, the utilization ofmedia by cooperatives in general have remainedlow. A quick survey showed that only twocooperative federations publish newspapers -COOPVOICE and Coop Sector. While its articles arevery interesting, publication of said newspapers isinconsistent and circulation very limited. In termsof media cooperatives, the one based in PCC isinactive and only 1 based in Mindanao remainsoperating. CDA publishes monthly regionalnewsletters while GA reports of federations are agood source of information if and only if published.There is no regular advocate or writer in a majordaily. There are many leads in the internet but onlya handful end up as worthy references. A quickreview of the ADB library after it removed 80% of itsreference materials revealed very few cooperativestudies on the Philippines. There is a program

Chap

ter



dedicated to social enterprises and cooperatives inDestiny Channel 21 but extent of viewership isunknown. There are a number of radio programsthat discuss cooperative topics such as DZME withRolando Jota as anchorperson, Radio Veritas withFr. Anton as anchorperson and DZRB (Radio ngBayan) but again there is no data on listenership.

6. Different Expectations on the Roles of theCooperative Development Authority

According to RA 6939, the Cooperative DevelopmentAuthority has three regulatory functions, sixdevelopment functions and six administrativefunctions. It has the sole responsibility to registercooperatives and is empowered to requirecooperatives to submit their cooperative annualperformance report, audited financial statementsusing National Credit Council-prescribed standardchart of accounts. Unfortunately, very fewcooperatives comply with such annualrequirements. Consequently, CDA has had to cancelor dissolve such cooperatives, numbering 32,000already.

Most cooperative leaders agree that CDA shouldregulate coops. But beyond the above-mentionedregulatory functions, coop leaders have differentexpectations from CDA. Some coop leaders preferself-regulation since they are autonomousorganizations. They prefer that government delegateits regulatory functions to federations if they arecapable of regulating their own members. They alsoagree that CDA should no longer conduct coopeducation and training seminars but let thefederations and other coop training institutionshandle such concern. CDA should only providetrainings if there is no coop federation in aparticular area. Others believe that CDA should gobeyond asking for the submission of annual reportsbut must further equip its staff to conduct COOP-PESOS rating on cooperatives.

7. Not Attracting Poorest Membeii Lack ofProfiling on Poor Members

According to the Annual Poverty Indicator Survey ofNSO in 1998, only 534,435 household heads (or 9%)out of 5.7 million D/E households were coop

members (Buendia, 2005). In 2003, only 5 millionout of the country’s 80 million were coop members.And despite the estimated 8.5 million customers ofelectric coops majority of whom are poor, thisnumber still has to translate into coop membershipgiven that majority of electric cooperatives are onlycooperatives in name but not in practice.

While there are no available figures or studies tosupport their assertions, coop leaders believe thatmajority of coop members still belong to the poorsectors of society. While it is true thatcooperatives are not successful in attracting the D/E households, it is because the D & E economicclasses require a different strategy for povertyalleviation.

Some leaders also point out that while severalcooperatives become richer but its members remainpoor, this is not because the cooperatives are notconcerned with the poor’s plight. It simply meansthat because of good cooperative businesspractices, said cooperatives are able to generateenough surplus which, in turn, is used to addressmore needs of their poor members or expand theiroutreach to more poor members of the community.

To address the ever-increasing needs of their poormembers and to reflect their increasing capacities,some successful cooperatives have changed theirmission statements from simple provision offinancial services to improvement of the quality oflife of members. Consequently, these cooperativesare forced to come up with clear indicators on howto determine the impact of the cooperative on themembers’ lives.

In the case of the Philippine Army cooperative,majority of its members are still the lowly-paidsoldiers even though rich generals are part of itsmembership roster. The big capital contributions ofthe generals are used to finance the loanrequirements of the lowly soldiers.

The same is true for community-based creditcooperatives whose members are mostly poor.Members borrow primarily for providentialpurposes – payment of tuition fee and utility bills,fiesta celebrations, simple house repair. The


Chap

ter

3


cooperatives’ limited loan packages ranging fromP5,000 to P20,000 indicate that they cater to smallborrowers or micro-entrepreneurs.

For persons with disabilities, the NationalFederation of Cooperatives for Persons WithDisabilities (NFCPWD) is able to generateemployment for them. It is a federation of 16primary cooperatives with, at least, 1000 members.It is able to provide fulltime or part-timeemployment to its members particularly throughthe production of classroom chairs for publicschools under the Department of Education.Compared to NGOs, cooperatives definitely employmore people according to Fernando Aldaba, Ateneode Manila Economics professor.

A study in 2005 showed that while cooperativesand cooperative/rural banks mobilized a relativelysmall proportion (2.61% or $1.27 billion) of totaldeposits in the Philippine financial systemcompared to universal banks (90.13% or $43.99billion), they have an important weight in terms ofclient served (9.44 million or 30.84%). Their lowaverage account balances (of $354 and $219respectively) indicate coop banks serve poor clients(Gardio et. al., 2005).

As mentioned earlier, a weakness of mostsuccessful cooperatives is the lack of profilingamong their members. There have been no efforts toconduct a baseline and to segregate membershipdata in terms of gender, employment status, civilstatus, profession, income levels, etc. Consequently,it is difficult to measure the impact of cooperativeservices, both financial and non-financial, on theirmembers notwithstanding the numerous personaltestimonies by poorer members on how thecooperative has helped them.

Four OpporFour OpporFour OpporFour OpporFour Opportunities oftunities oftunities oftunities oftunities of Philippine Philippine Philippine Philippine PhilippineCooperativesCooperativesCooperativesCooperativesCooperatives

1. RA 9520 and its Implementing Rules andRegulations (IRR)

All cooperative leaders interviewed for this paperunanimously agreed that RA 9520 or The Philippine

Cooperative Code of 2008 presents a whole range ofopportunities for the cooperative movement.Undoubtedly, the new code is a better version of the1990 Cooperative Code. According to Daniel Ang,NUWHRAIN Development Cooperative (NUWDECO)Board Director, 90% of the amendments wereproposed by the cooperative sector.

A major opportunity offered by the new cooperativecode deals with tax exemptions. Articles 60, 61 and144 of RA 9520, together with the IRR onCooperative Taxation launched by the Departmentof Finance and CDA last February 2010, woulddefinitely benefit cooperatives and their members.Cooperatives are exempted, for example, from the20% final tax on members’ deposits and dividends,documentary stamps and real estate tax.

A case in point is Batangas Electric Cooperative II.When its Board of Directors unanimously approveda resolution for a permanent registration with CDA,National Electrification Administration (NEA)officials and several local government officialswere infuriated. This was because the two citiesand 15 municipalities under its franchise would bedeprived of real property and franchise taxes. LipaCity alone was collecting about P100 million intaxes from Batelec II. To be exempted from realproperty and franchise taxes would meandownward adjustments in electric bills. (Panaliganet. al., 2010).

The new law also provides more powers toqualified coop banks. With the issuance of new BSPguidelines, coop banks can already:

a. perform any or all of the banking functions ofother types of banks, subject to certain rulesand regulations; and

b. establish branches to serve areas beyond theirprovince, areas which are classified as under-served or un-served.

Among the new BSP rules and regulations are thefollowing:

a. Voting rights of members shall beproportionate to their paid up shares asopposed to the previous practice of “one man,one vote;”

Chap

ter



b. Clear definition of regular membership, asdifferentiated from associate membership; and

c. Minimum paid-in capital requirement of P10Million for newly-established cooperativebanks.(www.bsp.gov.ph)

The cooperative leaders also identified otheradvantages of RA 9520, such as it:

a. encourages specialization, by increasing typesof cooperatives from six to 14;

b. allows electric coops to choose whether to beregistered under CDA or NEA;

c. encourages transport coops to engage in theimportation, distribution and marketing ofpetroleum products, spare parts of vehiclesand supplies and in operating gasoline servicestations and transport service centers;

d. strengthens, mainstreams and protects localcoops;

e. promotes coop self-regulation;f. strengthens government regulation;g. tightens the requirements for coop registration,

among them: to conduct an economic survey ofthe area of operations, undergo projectmonitoring and evaluation system (PMES), andhire a fulltime bookkeeper;

h. improves access of coops to the supportoffered by national government agencies,government-owned and controlledcorporations and government financialinstitutions;

i. provides a special housing financing windowfor coops from appropriate governmentagencies;

j. provides more powers to qualified coop banks;k. provides incentives to qualified financial

service coops;l. increases to ¾ votes the requirement to pass a

coop’s General Assembly’s decisions;m. makes mandatory the creation of mediation

and conciliation and ethics committee;n. strengthens CDA’s capacity to regulate with BSP

and Department of Finance (DOF) support;o. allows the coop sector to set up its own

protection mechanisms, such as depositinsurance, coop stabilization fund, and othersuch mechanisms with government support;and

p. allows a cooperative to form a subsidiary thatwill engage in an allied business;

q. provides preferential rights to franchises toestablish, construct, operate, and maintainferries, wharves, markets or slaughterhouses,and to lease public utilities and put upschools. (Philippine Coop Sector, 2009; Ping-ayand Paez, 2008)

2. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform ProgramExtension with Reforms (CARPER) Law

Another opportunity identified by cooperativeleaders who particularly work with the farmersector is RA 9700 or the CARPER Law. Signed intolaw on August 7, 2009, CARPER has restoredCompulsory Acquisition with a budget of P150Billion and 26 reform provisions.

According to CARPER advocates, the law extendsCARP budget for Land Acquisition and Distribution(LAD) program for 5 years starting July 1, 2009.This is to complete the acquisition and distributionof the remaining 1 million hectares of privateagricultural lands to landless farmers. It also:

a. strengthens the ban on any conversion ofirrigated and irrigable lands;

b. emphasizes that any conversion to avoid CARPcoverage is a prohibited act; and

c. institutionalizes reforms recognizing the rightsof rural women to be beneficiaries of CARP andto have meaningful participation in itsplanning and implementation.

3. Land Bank Charter

According to MSCB President, Reno Velasco,cooperatives have the opportunity to transformLand Bank into a real cooperative bank. Its charterwill be amended in 2011 and cooperatives have theopportunity to pool resources together and becomestockholders. A trust fund can be put up to hastenthis transformation.

4. Information Technology

According to NATCCO CEO Sylvia Paraguya,Computer Information Technology is another


Chap

ter

3


opportunity that cooperatives should already betaking advantage of. NATCCO has used suchtechnology extensively in many of its operations:NATCCO-RCBC (Rizal Commercial BankingCorporation) Bankard Credit Cards, ekoopbankerPlus, debit e-loading, Pinoy Online Euro Fund,NATCCO IT Group and object aided softwareengineering (OASE) insurance databank system. Aclear advantage of using such technology is howinter-coop communication and businesstransactions are made easier and efficient.

Four Threats to PhilippineFour Threats to PhilippineFour Threats to PhilippineFour Threats to PhilippineFour Threats to PhilippineCooperativesCooperativesCooperativesCooperativesCooperatives

1. Credit Pollution & the Rise of Micro-finance Institutions (MFIs)

Since the 1960s, credit cooperatives were theleading provider, if not the progenitor of micro-credit in the Philippines. But in the late 1990s andonwards, Microfinance has become the distinctiveNGO success story. According to Raul Gonzales, ithas “provided an alternative model of a financialsystem that is at once economically viable andleads to the economic empowerment of the poor”(Gonzalez, 2006). In the Philippines, themicrofinance sector is dominated by 10-12 majorplayers with a total outreach of about 1.6-millionborrowers. The largest micro-finance institution(MFI) in the country, Center for Agriculture andRural Development (CARD), claims that more thanhalf of its clients move above the poverty line aftereight years of continued support.

Several cooperatives have joined the microfinancebandwagon success. Unfortunately, multipleborrowings by a cooperative or microfinancemember lead to poor loan portfolio for allcreditors. This conclusion was based onconsultations conducted in Metro Manila,Marinduque, Romblon, Camarines Sur and Albay in2004 & 2005 with cooperatives and MFIs. Inaddition, small MFI players, with outreach rangingfrom 100-300 borrowers each, would not be able tosurvive in the next five years given the dominanceof top microfinance players. Community-basedcredit cooperatives are vulnerable to this kind of

competition. Such threat has become more real withthe recent entry of universal banks like Bank of thePhilippine Islands (BPI) and Citibank who havestarted to test their microfinance models.

From another perspective, cooperatives can takeadvantage of microfinance as a tool to expand itsmembership and to be more relevant to theentrepreneurial poor. It is important thatcooperatives are able to make a distinctionbetween micro-lending and microfinance as definedby NGOs. It is also important that cooperativescontinue to instruct its members on the basics ofsavings and wealth management. Cooperativesshould provide their members financial literacyand inculcate in them the discipline of savings.

2. Privatization of Public Markets andElectric Coops

According to the National Market VendorsConfederation of Cooperatives (NAMVESCCO), thethreat of privatizing public markets is very real.

In Laguna and Dapitan, two market vendor coopswere dissolved due to privatization of publicmarkets. The high rent and high goodwill moneyrequired to gain a stall in the “newly-improved”market was very prohibitive for ordinary market vendors.

In Malabon, after 12 years of being managed bymarket vendors’ cooperatives, only one of the fourpublic markets has remained coop-managed. Therest have been privatized given the change inpriorities of the new LGU leaders. The last coop-managed public market will also be completelyprivatized in the first quarter of 2010.

The dissolution of such cooperatives has meant theloss of self-employment for small market vendors.

In the case of electric cooperatives, there wereattempts by private groups during the Estradaadministration to take over one or two electriccooperatives. This did not materialized, as Estrada,who was in favor of privatization, was oustedthrough a peaceful people power revolution. But thethreat remains real, as the Epira law, under anInvestment Management Contract or IMC, allows a

Chap

ter



private company to buy-out an electric cooperativeafter 5 years of management and control, and issuffering from huge debts. (Tapang et. al., 2005)

The potential loss of benefits for stock electriccooperatives includes:

1. loss of dividends,2. loss of patronage refund,3. reduced rates, and4. less opportunities to improve service and

electrify more areas.

3. ASEAN Free Trade Agreement-CommonEffective Preferential Tariff (AFTA-CEPT)

Small sugar farmer cooperatives will not be able tocompete against imported sugar when the tariff onsugar is lowered from 38% to 5% this year, asprovided in the AFTA-CEPT. The Sugar RegulatoryAuthority says that 75% of sugarcane producers aresmall farmers who are agrarian reformbeneficiaries tilling .01 to 5 hectares of sugarcaneland. Small sugar farmers in the Philippines stilldepend on expensive farm inputs and poor ruralinfrastructure but are forced to compete withsubsidized farmers who offer cheaper importedsugar. While the consuming public will benefitfrom lower sugar prices, trade liberalization hasthe potential to reverse the gains of agrarianreform. Landlords, big investors and multinationalcompanies may impose stricter contracts,regulations, to ask for land as collateral and to buymore land either for commercial production or forland conversion.

4. Climate Change

The effects of global warming are already felt in thePhilippines. These include:

• heavy floods,• super typhoons,• El Niño phenomenon,• rise in sea level, and• loss of biodiversity.

Such effects, in turn, lead to:• loss of property and lives,• loss of livelihoods and businesses,

• being cut off from water and electricity services,and

• altered coast lines.

With such scenarios, migration is imminent, eroding thehuman resource base of all cooperatives.

At present, there are no clear mechanisms orprograms on how cooperatives are preparing forsuch scenarios. Cooperatives may have survived thefinancial crisis of 1997 or the global crisis of 2009but they will definitely suffer from the effects ofclimate change.

There is, of course, a statutory reserve of 3% forcommunity development that can be used fortraining in community-managed disaster riskreduction. Cooperatives, however, need to addressthe ongoing effects of the climate change crisis.


There are several projects which Philippinecooperatives may pursue to address their strengths andweaknesses, opportunities and threats.

A. Building the Capacity of the PhilippineCooperative Center (PCC) for CooperativeInformation Data-Banking

By September 30, 2010, the re-registration ofoperating cooperatives shall have ended. Themandate of the Cooperative Development Authorityis to cancel and to de-list all other cooperativeswho failed to re-register. By this time too, CDA wouldhave compiled and encoded enough data extractedfrom the comprehensive annual performancereports (CAPR) which cooperatives are required tosubmit since 2008.

After September 2010, PCC and CDA can begin tolook into the quality of data that CDA has in itscomputer information system. They cansubsequently use the information in preparation forthe 10th National Cooperative Summit.

PCC could also generate invaluable coop statistics(e.g., total membership, total employment, area of


Chap

ter

3


operations, total assets) for each specific type ofcooperative. This way, PCC could use suchstatistics in promoting industry-focused businessventures, mergers or integration.This engagement with CDA may be the start ofdeveloping the capacities of PCC for computerinformation data-banking.

B. Building the Capacity of Federations andUnions to Train Cooperatives in UsingCAPR and COOP-PESOS Rating Tools

In April 2007, the Board of Administrators of CDAapproved to adopt CAPR as its tool to establish areliable database for those cooperatives who offersavings and credit services.

In July 2007, training workshops on the adoptionand use of CAPR were conducted in Tagaytay andDavao for 70 cooperative development specialistsof CDA.

“Participants … were required to develop their re-entry plan which includes the conduct of re-echoseminars to the other CDS in the region and theconduct of promotion and advocacy activitiesamong primary cooperatives regarding thesubmission of the CAPR” (Llanto and Geron, 2007).

Another area of cooperation between CDA andfederations/unions is to jointly review samples ofCAPRs submitted by cooperatives, as well as ofCOOP-PESOS ratings done by CDA specialists. Thisis to determine if there is a need to further orientcooperatives on the use of CAPR and the value ofCOOP-PESOS rating tool. Workshops could trainfederations and unions so they can be deputized byCDA to gather and verify information before it isencoded into CDA’s databank system. Federationsand unions will then focus on assisting itsmembers on using CAPR and COOP-PESOS.

C. Facilitating the Establishment of theCooperative Credit Bureau

There has been a series of meetings among sixcooperative federations engaged in creditoperations. They are to conceptualize and set up aCooperative Credit Information Bureau which will

be launched during the 10th National CooperativeSummit in October 2010. This joint effort isexpected to address key issues such as:

• multiple-borrowings of cooperativemembers,

• access to members’ credit history, and• access of poor members to financial

services.

D. Establishing an Independent ResearchInstitution or Think Tank for CooperativePromotion and Development

There is definitely a need to put up an independentresearch or think tank for the Philippinecooperative movement. Such an institution canproduce regular research papers which:

1. measure the impact of cooperatives on thenational economy;

2. measure or identify the social and economicimpact of cooperatives on the life of the poorand identifying how the poor participates incoop governance;

3. assess very specific types of cooperatives suchas transport cooperatives;

4. assess the strengths and weaknesses of thecooperative sector;

5. assess how cooperatives have fulfilled theirrole as instruments of equity, social justice andeconomic development or as a vehicle forpoverty alleviation and democratization ofwealth;

6. update data on women participation; and7. assess the relationship between government

institutions and cooperatives.

This institution should be equipped to network with:

• government institutions,• donor agencies,• academe,• think tanks,• cooperatives, and• other civil society organizations.

It might be advantageous but not necessary tohouse such an institution in a university.

Chap

ter



E. Supporting the Efforts of the CooperativeEducation and Training Forum

Since its first meeting in June 2008, severalcooperative educators and CDA personnel havebeen meeting every month to look into the state ofcooperative education and training in thePhilippines. So far, this group of committededucators has managed to identify gaps and thenecessary interventions needed, such as:

1. standard modules, manuals and trainingprogram;

2. a system for accreditation of training providersand training programs;

3. new delivery mechanisms and strategies suchas distance education;

4. a database of trainors and training programs;5. a coordinating body that could be a repository

or clearing house for all this information.

This volunteer group has already been able toproduce a quality coop video that covers fourlessons emphasizing the fundamentals ofcooperatives.

F. Enhancing the Research Capacities ofFederations

Based on the strengths and weaknesses mentionedin the previous section, federations would benefit iftheir research capacities were enhanced forparticular concerns such as the following:

1. developing and testing tools for membershipprofiling and for gathering baselineinformation;

2. documentation of success stories oninnovative cooperative business ventures andsuccessful member-entrepreneurs;

3. developing and improving scorecards orbenchmarking; and

4. assessing primary cooperative members whoare into dedicated and specialized services,examples of which are cooperatives of personswith disabilities, or cooperative banks.

G. Producing a Newspaper for theCooperative Sector

Producing different cooperative newspapers, PCCand NATCCO might want to study the feasibility ofproducing a self-liquidating cooperative newspaperwith the coop sector as its main market. Thenewspaper will be sold and will accept ads to makeit sustainable. The editorial board will come fromPCC, NATCCO and other stakeholders. The board willtap media and other volunteer writers who willcontribute articles on a regular basis. It will alsotap media coops for other forms of support.

H. Sponsoring Training or Fora for SpecialConcerns

Special training may include training on:

• community-managed disaster risk-reduction, toaddress the lack of preparedness ofcooperatives in dealing with the consequencesof global warming, and

• maximizing tax exemption and other privilegesof RA 9520.

Forum topics may be on:

• the limits and possibilities of the new politicaladministration after the May 2010 elections;

• how cooperatives in other countries becamesignificant market players; and

• how cooperative education can further beintegrated into the academic curriculum.

I. Strengthening Efforts on Model-Building

Another area of great interest among cooperativesis the pursuit of highly innovative cooperativeenterprises. An example is the case of Metro SouthCooperative Bank (MSCB), whose members are,among others, 24 cooperative banks and 5 electriccooperatives, classified as billionaire andmillionaire cooperatives. These coop banks andelectric cooperatives are central to MSCB’s strategyfor growth. Support may then be given to MSCB sothey can conduct assessments as to how theirmember-coops can be helped by MSCB and vice-versa.


Chap

ter

3


Existing efforts on model-building may also begiven additional support. It is worthwhile tomention here the Cooperative Deposit InsuranceSystem (CODIS). Launched in August 2008, CODIS isa deposit insurer, similar to the Philippine DepositInsurance Corporation, which aims to protect thesavings of their cooperative members. Among thefounding members of CODIS are:

• First Community Cooperative• Cebu-CFI Community Cooperative• Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative• Nueva Vizcaya Alay Kapwa Multipurpose

Cooperative• USPD Multipurpose Cooperative• National Savings & Housing Cooperative• Lamac Multipurpose Cooperative• San Dionisio Credit Cooperative, Barangka

Credit Cooperative• St. Jude Multipurpose Cooperative.

Cooperatives who want to insure their members’deposits through CODIS must contribute P2 millionas “reserve fund.” They will have to subjectthemselves to strict supervision and mentoring toensure prudent management. They also must have asolvency ratio of not less than 35% of their totalassets, and a capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of notless than 15%.

Conclusion

At this point, no assessment could be more accuratethan that of Virginia A. Teodosio (2009):

“Eradicating poverty in all its forms, is the greatestchallenge for the international community … In thePhilippines much still needs to be done and animportant dimension of inclusive developmentinvolves the participation of poor people…With theincreasing spread of social development agendafrom below, there should be a comprehensiveflagship program on the role of cooperatives in theUN’s Millennium Development Goals. There shouldbe an understanding of social capital on issues ofownership and empowerment at the communitylevel. Cooperative leaders bring unique strengthsand skills and they can be mobilized in themanagement of the environment and in naturalresources. There is a need for a long term focus oncooperatives and to develop performancebenchmarks to monitor and evaluate themsystematically. Gender equity in cooperativegovernance should be recognized and promoted inthe cooperative’s strategic operating principles.There should be strengthening of CDA’s dataprocessing and its library improved so that it canserve as an information base and clearing house.Essentially, how can research into cooperatives bemore carefully and systematically undertaken? Arecooperatives effective in narrowing the gap betweenthe wealthy and the poor? Knowledge managementthrough research policy studies is a particular typeof skill that will help government officials and thecooperative leaders sustain efforts towardsconsolidation through the sharing of experiencesand plans. Cooperation has already been writteninto the legislation. The task of the next 25 years isto build on this and update research in theory andpractice”.

Chap

ter



Annex APCC Membership as of December 31, 2009

Members with Nationwide Operations = 18

Cooperative Banks Federation of the Philippines (BANGKOOP)

Cooperative Education and Development Center (CEDCI)

Cooperative Foundation of the Philippines Inc. (CFPI)

Cooperative Insurance System of the Philippines (CISP)

Coop-Life Mutual Benefit Services Association (CLIMBS)

Cooperative Union of the Philippines (CUP)

Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc. (FFFCI)

Federation of Peoples’ Sustainable Development Cooperative (FPSDC)

National Cooperative Marketing Federation (NCMF)

Katipunan ng mga Kooperatibang Pansasakyan ng Pilipinas, Ink. (KKPPI)

National Confederation of Cooperatives (NATCCO)

Federation of Teachers Cooperative (FTC)

National Market Vendors Confederation of Cooperatives (NAMVESCCO)

Philippine Assurance Cooperative Service Cooperative

Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives (PFCCO)

Philippine Federation of Women In Cooperatives (PFWC)

Philippine Resort-Travel and Education Service Cooperative (PRESCO)

Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA)

Members with Regional Operations = 7

Cagayan Valley Confederation of Cooperatives and Development Center (CAVALCO)

Metro South Cooperative Bank (MSCB)

Mindanao Alliance of Self-Help Societies – Southern Philippines Education Cooperative Center (MASS-SPECC)

National Capital Region League- Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives (NCRL-PFCCO)

Northern Luzon Federation of Cooperatives and Development Center (NORLUCEDEC)

Tagalog Cooperative Development Center (TAGCODEC)

Visayas Cooperative Development Center (VICTO)

Member Primary Cooperatives = 19

AMKOR Technology Philippines Cooperative (ATPCOOP)

Asia Pro Cooperative (ASIA PRO)

Baguio-Benguet Community Credit Cooperative, Inc. (BBCCCI)

First Integrated Community Cooperative (FICCO)

LIMCOMA Credit Cooperative (LIMCOMA)

LINGAP Credit Cooperative (LINGAP)

Llano Multi-purpose Cooperative (LLANO MPC)

National Cooperative Movement (NCM)

Novaliches Development Cooperative (NOVADECI)

NUWHRAIN Development Cooperative (NUWDECO)

Paco Credit Cooperative (PCC)

Paco-Soriano-Pandacan Development Producers Cooperative (PSPDC)

Philippine Army Finance Center Producers Integrated Co-operative (PAFCIPIC)

PLDT Employees’ Service Cooperative (TELESCOOP)

Project 4 Development Cooperative (P4DC)

San Dionisio Credit Cooperative (SDCC)

United Methodist Church MPC (UMCMCI)

University of the Philippines Employees’ Housing Cooperative (UPEHCO)

Valenzuela Development Cooperative (VALDECO)


Chap

ter

3


1. Annual Reports and Souvenir Programs

a. 3rd National Transport Cooperative Congress, LaVista Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, 26-28 April2007

b. 7th National Cooperative Summit, BacolodConvention Plaza, Bacolod City, NegrosOccidental, 14-16 October 2004

c. 8th National Cooperative Summit, PuertoPrincesa Coliseum, Puerto Princesa City,Palawan, 4-6 October 2006

d. 9th National Coopertive Summit, CamsurWatersports Complex, Provincial CapitalComplex, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur, 22-25October 2008

e. 13th General Assembly, Metro SouthCooperative Bank, SMX Convention Center, Mallof Asia, Pasay City, 6 June 2009

f. 22nd Annual General Assembly, Bangkoopg. 29th Annual General Membership Meeting,

Philippine Rural Electric CooperativesAssociation, Inc., Philippine Trade TrainingCenter, Sen. Gil Puyat Ave. corner RoxasBoulevard, Pasay City, 7-8 August 2008

h. 30th Annual General Assembly, National MarketVendors Confederation of Cooperatives,Aristocrat Restaurant, Malate, Manila, 4 May2009

i. 50th Anniversary, Federation of Free Farmersj. Annual Report, Cooperative Development

Authority, 2008k. Annual Reports, Federation of People’s

Sustainable Development Cooperative, 2007and 2008

l. Annual Reports, National Confederation ofCooperatives, 2007 and 2008

2. Brochures

a. Alyansang Bayanihan ng mga Magsasaka,Manggagawang-bukid at Mangingisda

b. Cooperative Banks Federation of thePhilippines, Inc., No Venue and Date Indicated

c. The Federation of Free Farmers and TheFederation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc.

3. CDA Data

a. List of Operating Cooperatives as of 2008b. List of Confirmed Cooperatives as of January

2009c. Final Profile of Top 10 Billionaire/Millionaire

Cooperatives as of 2008

4. Laws

a. Republic Act 6938: Cooperative Code of thePhilippines

b. Republic Act 6939: Cooperative DevelopmentAuthority Act

c. Republic Act 9520: Cooperative Code of 2008

5. Main References

a. Alegre, Alan. “Trends and Traditions,Challenges and Choices, A Strategic Study ofPhilippine NGOs.” Ateneo Center for SocialPolicy and Public Affairs, Quezon City, 1996.

b. APL-NUWDECO. “Maintain incentives forcooperatives: Go after big business who cheaton incentives instead.” Public Statement,January 15, 2005.

c. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. “Overview ofCooperative Banking Industry, Status Report onthe Philippine Financial System.” Manila, 2007.

d. “BSP Issues Rules on Cooperative Banks.” Lastupdated 02.12.2010. http://www.bsp.gov.ph/publications/media.

e. Buendia, Emmanuel. “DemocratizingGovernance in the Philippines.” UP-NCPAG,Quezon City, 2005.

f. Caucus of Development NGO Networks. “NPOSector Assessment: Philippine Report.” CharityCommission for England and Wales. UnitedKingdom, 2008.

g. CODE-NGO and Social Weather Station. “CivilSociety Index Philippines: Preliminary Report.”2010.

h. Gardio, Isabel Dauner, Brigit Helms and RaniDeshpande. “Annual Philippines: Country LevelSavings Assessment.” CGAP Initiative, August2005. Accessed May 21, 2010, www.cgap.org/gm/document-1.9.2932/philippines_assessment.pdf.

Annex B.List of References

Chap

ter



i. Gonzalez, Raul. “Philippine NGOs in the 21st

Century: Searching for Renewed Relevance.”Philippine Development AssistanceProgramme Report. Quezon City, 2006

j. Jayoma, Fr. Benedicto A. “New World CreditUnion: Poor Man’s Self-Redemption.”COOPVOICE, February 2010.

k. Llamas, Ronaldo M. “The 2001 Party-ListElections: Winners, Losers and Political/LegalContradictions.” Friedrich Ebert StiftungOnline Papers. Last viewed May 19,2010.library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/philippinen/50073.pdf.

l. Llanto, Gilbert M. and Ma. Piedad S. Geron.“Evaluation and Assessment of the Databasefor Cooperatives with Savings and CreditServices.” A Joint Project of USAID-CDA-DOF.August 6, 2007. Accessed May 19, 2010. http;//pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADJ682.pdf.

m. Mendoza , Eugenio V. “The Path to the Successof Cooperatives.” , UP Press, Quezon City, 2006.

n. Montemayor, Antonio. “Jeremias U.Montemayor: How Rich Is My Journey.” QuezonCity, Rex Printing Co., 2003.

o. Panaligan, Reynaldo G., Tita L. Matulin, JoseRizal L. Remo, Cesario S. Gutierrez, Cipriano P.Roxas, Celso A. Landicho and Eduardo L. Tagle.“What Really Happened in BATELEC II?”Accessed May 22, 2010, sites.google.com/site/bateleco.

p. Ping-ay, Hon. Jose and Hon. Cresente Paez.“Foreword to the Philippine Cooperative Codeof 2008.” Coop NATCCO Party-list Booklet.

q. Sibal, Prof. Jorge V. “A Century of the PhilippineCooperative Movement.” University of thePhilippines-School of Labor and IndustrialRelations, Quezon City, 2000.

r. “Statement on the Co-operative Identity.” Lastviewed May 18, 2010. http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html.

s. “State of Cooperative Development in thePhilippines: Critical Analysis of Existing Data.”Cooperative Foundation Philippines, Inc.,Quezon City, 1989.

t. Tapang, Dr. Giovanni, Engr. Ramon Ramirez andKim Gargar. “Ever increasing rates from theEPIRA: A closer look at the electric powerindustry in the Philippines.” Accessed May 24,

2010. www.bulatlat.com, Vol. IV, No. 52.January 30 - February 5, 2005.

u. Teodosio, Prof. Virginia A. “CommunityParticipation Through Cooperatives inAddressing Basic Services: The PhilippineExperience.” Paper presented at the UnitedNation’s Expert Group Meeting on Cooperatives,New York City, April 28-30, 2009.

6. Membership Lists

a. Cooperative Banks Federation of thePhilippines (Bangkoop), 22nd Annual GeneralAssembly Report, December 2008.

b. Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc.,General Information Sheet, 2009.

c. Katipunan ng mga Kooperatibang Pansasakyanng Pilipinas, Ink., 3rd National TransportCooperative Congress, April 2007.

d. Metro South Cooperative Bank, 13th GeneralAssembly Report, June 2009.

e. Mindanao Alliance of Self-Help Societies –Southern Philippines Education CooperativeCenter, http://www.mass-specc.coop.

f. National Confederation of Cooperatives,Annual Report, 2008.

g. National Market Vendors Confederation ofCooperatives, 30th Annual General AssemblyReport, May 2009.

h. Philippine Cooperative Center, ComputerPrintout, April 2010.

i. Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives,www.pfcco.coop.

j. Tagalog Cooperative Development Center, http://tagcodec.net.

k. Visayas Cooperative Development Center, http://www.cebu-online.com/coop-victo.

7. Newspapers and Newsletters

a. Business World, 16 February 2010.b. The Philippine Coop Sector, Vol. 11, No. 1, May

2009c. The Philippine Coop Sector, Vol. 11, No. 2,

August 2009d. The Philippine Coop Sector, Vol. 11, No. 3,

December 2009e. PCC CoopVoice, Vol. 3, Series X, February 2010


Chap

ter

3


1. National Federations = 14

a. Cooperative Banks Federation of thePhilippines (BANGKOOP)

Formerly known as the Cooperat1ive RuralBankers Association in the Philippines,Bangkoop was organized and registered withthe BCOD as a non-stock association inDecember 13, 1979. In 1985, Bankoop wasrenamed Cooperative Rural Banks Federationof the Philippines with the amendment of itscharter and transformation as a stockcooperative federation. It was renamed againin the 1990s as the Cooperative BanksFederation of the Philippines to reflect itsgeographical scope of operations. From anoriginal membership of 29 cooperative banks,Bangkoop grew to a national federation of 54registered cooperative banks. Thesecooperative banks are owned by cooperatives,whose members are primary cooperatives, orby cooperative-oriented individuals. Accordingto a Bangkoop report from 1978 to 1988, theindividual farmer-investors increased from295,000 to 336,000 and the loan accountsincreased from 13,000 to 25,000. Land Bank ofthe Philippines has already infused P 1 millionin each of the 29 coop banks and in 1988,another P 16 million was infused in the coopbanking system. But with the closure of 11banks and conversion of one into a rural bank,the number of operating cooperative banks leftis down to 42. Bankoop services to its membersconsist of education and training, managementadvisory, legislative and policy initiations,fund sourcing, linkages and networking andproject packaging and management. It meetswith the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas everyquarter to discuss issues affecting thecooperative banking sector. Contactinformation: Address - Rm 316, PasdaMansion, 77 Panay Ave. corner Timog Ave.Telephone Nos. - 3766588, 4110602.

Annex CBrief Description on Cooperatives Interviewed or Researched

b. Cooperative Education and Development Center(CEDCI)

CEDCI was registered with the CooperativeDevelopment Authority on March 6, 1992. Itholds office at Consolacion Convent, 273Santolan Rd. It started with 16 members withan authorized share capital of P 50,000,subscribed share capital of P 12,500 and apaid-up capital of P 3,500. It is a member ofNATCCO. Contact information: Address – 273Santolan Road, San Juan City. Telephone Nos. –7260744, 7252727.

c. Cooperative Insurance System of thePhilippines (CISP)

Founded on January 25, 1974, the CISP wasorganized with a capitalization of P.30 millionto promote and engage the service of lifeinsurance as a cooperative. Organized at theUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman, QuezonCity, its membership included cooperatives andtheir federations and unions, samahang-nayons, trade unions and their federations,and individual policy holders. It was issued acertificate of Authority from the InsuranceCommission on 1974. CISP is affiliated with thePhilippine Life Insurance Association (PLIA),Insurance Institute for Asia and the Pacific(IIAP), Cooperative Union of the Philippines,Inc. (CUP), CARP MRI Pool, DOLE OCW LifeInsurers Group, International & OceaniaAssociation (ADA) and ASEAN CooperativeOrganization (ACO). Regulated by the InsuranceCommission and the CDA, it is operatingnationwide with 13 regional offices, insuringmostly the underprivileged and farmers of thecountry. To date, CISP has more than 2,000cooperative members and insures over 700,000individuals annually. Its services include tentypes of group plans and 11 types of individualplans making it a very profitable insurancecompany. Contact information: Address - CISPBldg., 80 Malakas St., Central District Diliman,Quezon City 1100. Telephone Nos. - 9230739,4359128, 4330246.

Chap

ter



d. Coop-Life Mutual Benefit Services Association(CLIMBS)

Set up in 1971, CLIMBS is a mutual benefitcooperative society whose main objective is todevelop cooperative banking and insuranceservices to members of cooperatives in thePhilippines. Starting with six cooperatives, ithas grown to 173 cooperatives with 66,569members. As of December 1993, its revenueamounted to P 24.8 million. CLIMBS has currentassets of P 7 million. The major socialprotection programs and services being offeredby CLIMBS are Mutual Assistance System, LifeSavings Plan, Loan Protection Plan (LPP),Members Protection Plan, Coop EmployeesRetirement Plan and Coop Officer ProtectionPlan. CLIMBS presently invests its money in theNational Confederation of co-operatives(NATCCO), which in turn lends to, or guaranteesthe loans of, co-operatives in need of workingcapital. It also allows its regional centers toretain 40% of the premiums collected in theirrespective areas. The other 60% are thenpooled into a central fund and are then lent outto member cooperatives. Because of theseschemes, many cooperatives, such as those inBohol and Davao provinces, have ventured intosupport businesses such as funeral parlors.These in turn help to bring down funeralexpenses for individual members, such as thecost of coffins. Contact information: Address -Tiano-Pacana St., Cagayan de Oro City.Telephone – (8822) 723806.

e. Federation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc.(FFFCI)

FFFCI was first organized in 1964 as the FreeFarmers Cooperative, Inc. (FFCI) which servedas the economic arm of the Federation of FreeFarmers (FFF). Cooperative membership whichwas limited to the members of FFF started with171 members. By end of 1976, FFCI membershipreached 17,919 from 41 provinces. FFCIengaged in the bulk purchase of fertilizers,extension of crop loans, marketing farmer’sproducts, acquisition and renting out oftractors, purchase and installation of waterpumps for irrigation, in the construction andoperation of rice mill and in the purchase andoperation of trucks for hauling. Due steadygrowth, FFCI was converted into a secondaryorganization and renamed the Federation of

Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc. with an initialmembership of 35 registered primarycooperatives. In the early 1980s, a nationalrevolving fund generated through internalsavings, members’ capital contributions andforeign grants, was put to help financeprimary-level projects. While the fund hassteadily grown to more than P 30million, FFFCIstopped its lending service in 1999 due todifficulties in collecting past due accounts.According to its Finance Head, the remainingactive members of FFFCI as of December 2009are 27 cooperatives. Contact information:Address - 41 Highland Drive, Blue Ridge,Quezon City. Telephone Nos. - 6471093,6471451. Website - www.freefarm.org.

f. Federation of Peoples’ SustainableDevelopment Cooperative (FPSDC)

The FPSDC started as a program of thePhilippine Development AssistanceProgramme, Inc. (PDAP). PDAP together with 21organizations, composed of POs, NGOs andcooperatives, organized themselves into acooperative, registered on March 8, 1998 withthe Cooperative Development Authority. With adonated capital of P37 million coming fromPDAP, FPSDC has steadily increased itsmember’s equity to P66.6 million in 10 years.With membership open to cooperatives andcooperative-oriented organizations dulyregistered with CDA and with the Securities andExchange Commission, FPSDC now has 112members as of December 2009. Committed toSustainable Development, FPSDC organizeditself primarily

“to receive and contribute to charitable,cultural, scientific, developmental andeducational cooperatives, non-stock, non-profit, non-government private organiza-tions or cooperatives to support projectsand programs leading to sustainableproduction and the achievement of asustainable society or aimed at developingthe economic, social and technicalcapabilities of such organizations and ofmarginalized communities”.

Contact information: Address - Rm 709Future Point Plaza 1, 112 Panay Ave.,Quezon City. Telephone Nos. - 410-4380,3764942.


Chap

ter

3


g. Federation of Teachers Cooperative (FTC)

FTC was registered with the CooperativeDevelopment Authority on August 5, 2002. Itholds office in 177 M. Martinez St., BarangayPlainview. It started with 15 members with anauthorized share capital of P 240,000,subscribed share capital of P 60,000 and apaid-up capital of P 15,000. Its total assetsamount to P 622,964.62 as of 2008 filing ofannual reports with CDA.

h. Katipunan ng mga Kooperatibang Pansasakyanng Pilipinas, Ink. (KKPPI)

On October 19, 1973, EO 898 re-organized andre-named the Committee on TransportCooperative into the Office of TransportCooperative (OTC) of the Department ofTransportation and Communications andbroadened its powers. EO No. 898 alsomandated KKPPI as an ex-officio member of theOTC Board. OTC recommended that eligiblebeneficiaries of transport coops are drivers,driver-owners, small operators, mechanics andemployees of the transport industry. In 1974,KKPPI was first registered with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission. In 1993, it wasregistered with the Cooperative DevelopmentAuthority as a tertiary cooperative federation.KKPPI is recognized as the sole transportservice cooperative apex federation by virtue ofOTC AO No. 2000-001. It has a membership of22 secondary cooperatives composed of 443primary cooperatives and 61,948 cooperativemembers operating in Metro Manila and 13regions. Among its projects is the “BoundaryHulog Program,” a joint project with CDA andDevelopment Bank of the Philippines. As of2003, it has a paid-up capital of P216,750,receivables of P 9.4 million and accumulatednet loss of P 2.93 million. Contact information:Address - PCC Bldg., 90 Balete Drive Extension,Quezon City. Telephone No. - 7237392.

i. National Cooperative Marketing Federation(NCMF)

Formerly known as Cooperative Trading Center,NCMF was registered with the CooperativeDevelopment Authority in 1995. Its mainobjective is to serve as a marketing linkbetween rural cooperative producers andurban-based cooperative members. In the first

8 years it operated at a loss but recovered inthe last 7 years with a net profit. At present, itsmain activity is to purchase rice in bulk frommillers and re-sell these to governmentinstitutions who provide rice allowances totheir employees. Remaining active members are12 cooperatives from an original membershipof 20 primary cooperatives and tertiary-levelcooperatives. Contact information: Address –NFA Minprocor Compound, 447 Del Monte Ave.,San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City.Telephone – 3711446.

j. National Confederation of Cooperatives(NATCCO)

Formerly the National Association of TrainingCenters of Cooperatives, NATCCO was set up inApril 1977 as a tertiary-level organization byfive regional cooperative centers - MASSPEC,VICTO, NORLU, TAGCODEC, and BCDC. As of1993, NATCCO had a membership base of 1,221cooperatives of various types nationwide. Inthe past decade, however, NATCCO went througha difficult decision: that is, to become asecondary-level organization by recruitingprimary cooperatives, in order to become morefinancially stable. While such strategyincreased its direct membership to almost 400members, it also lost some of its key partnersnamely VICTO, NORLU and NAMVESCO. Today,NATCCO claims to be the largest nationalfederation in the country in terms of totalresources, with assets at P844.2 million andmembers’ equity at P 126.44 million. Its corebusiness is wholesale lending, offering avariety of financial products. It is also engagedin several enterprises such as coop-mart,funeral, housing, travel and tours and agri-based businesses. It is a member ofinternational cooperative organizations suchas International Cooperative Alliance andWorld Council of Credit Unions. Contactinformation: Address - 220 JP Rizal St., Project4, Quezon City. Telephone Nos. - 9137011/9126005.

k. National Market Vendors Confederation ofCooperatives (NAMVESCCO)

Formerly known as National Market VendorsCooperatives Federation, Inc, NAMVESCO wasorganized through the initiative ofAssemblyman Luis Taruc on August 29, 1979.

Chap

ter



Market vendors came from Manila (Quinta,Baclaran, Paco-Soriano and Divisoria), QuezonCity (Novaliches), Rizal (Malabon, Marikinaand Tanay), Laguna (San Pedro), and Batangas(Lemery). By 1979, it had 65 member-primariesand its services included education andtraining, inter-lending and managementconsultancy and auditing. By 1991,NAMVESCCO’s assets were P 300 million andloans granted have reached P 700 million. Butas of December 2008, NAMVESCCO’s totalassets were down to P 10.99 million and paid-up share capital was P 5.94 million. Whilemembership has grown to more than 80members, Chief Operating Officer Ramil Santosreported that there were only 34 activemembers as of December 2009. Contactinformation: Address - 2nd Floor, PSPDC Bldg.,1343 A. Linao St., Paco, Manila. Telephone -5256515.

l. Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives(PFCCO)

Organized in 1960, PFCCO was initiallyregistered as the Philippine Credit UnionLeague (PHILCUL) under RA 2023 withassistance from the Credit Union NationalAssociation (CUNA) now known as WorldCouncil of Credit Unions (WOCCU). In 1980,PHILCUL was renamed PFCCI (PhilippineFederation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc.) who inturn was changed to PFCCO (PhilippineFederation of Credit Cooperatives) in 1992. It isthe oldest cooperative federation in thePhilippines whose current members are eightleagues operating nationwide, with anestimated total membership base of 900primary cooperatives. Its member leaguesprovide a variety of business and non-businessservices. PFCCO had its worst financial crisisin 1995, suffered from some structural reformsin 2000, and was proposed to be dissolved in2001. Contact information: Address - 20Sapphire Street, Fern Village, Pasong Tamo,Diliman, Quezon City. Telefax – 9319855. E-mail- [email protected]. Website - www.pfcco.coop.

m. Philippine Federation of Women inCooperatives (PFWC)

Organized in 1979 as a group of women-members in cooperatives, PFWC was registeredwith the Cooperative Development Authority in

1994 as a cooperative federation. Its currentmembership consists of 28 primarycooperative members who promote genderequality and empowerment in the cooperativesector. It holds office in CUP Bldg. cor. Mo.Ignacia St., & A. Roces Avenue. The records ofCDA show two different sets of data for PFWC:an authorized capital of P 1,584,000,subscribed capital of P 396,000, paid-upcapital of P 99,000 and total assets of P1,709,728.78 while another one is anauthorized capital of P 600,000, subscribedcapital of P 150,000, paid-up capital of P37,500 and total assets of P 1,389,572. PFWCconducts seminars on cooperative education,livelihood, health/wellness and genderequality. It has a complete set of board andcommittee members. Contact information:Address – CUP Bldg., Mo. Ignacia Ave., QuezonCity. Telephone Nos. – 4131603, 4131602.

n. Philippine Resortel and Education ServiceCooperative (PRESCO)PRESCO was registered with the CooperativeDevelopment Authority on July 13, 2005. Itholds office in the NCR League of Cooperatives,GF PCC Bldg., Balete Drive Extn., Brgy. KristongHari. It started with 30 members with anauthorized share capital of P 96,000,subscribed share capital of P 24,000 and apaid-up capital of P 6,000. Its total asset was P200,490.04 as of 2008 filing of annual reportswith CDA. Contact information: Address – G/FPCC Bldg., 90 Balete Drive Extension, QuezonCity. Telephone – 7252123.

2. Regional Federations = 6

a. Metro South Cooperative Bank (MSCB)

Registered with the Cooperative DevelopmentAuthority on September 12, 1996, Metro SouthCooperative Bank started commercialoperations on March 14, 1997. Its primarypurpose is to carry on banking and creditservices for cooperatives and to performbanking and credit functions with individualsand/or the public in general with a mission toassist cooperatives in their financial needs. InMarch 1997, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinasissued a certificate of authority to the Bank tooperate as a cooperative bank pursuant to RA6938 and Monetary Board Resolution No 745.As a cooperative bank, MSCB is under the


Chap

ter

3


supervision of the BSP in collaboration withCDA. MSCB’s net income for 2008 was P 8.04million while membership base was 879. Itsgoal is to become the national coopbank of thePhilippines with the biggest capital base. Inthe next two years, it will set up 5 satelliteoffices in the cities of Tuguegarao or Cauayan,San Fernando, Legazpi or Naga, Cebu andCagayan de Oro. It is also a member ofBangkoop and PCC. Contact information:Address – 4718 Eduque St., Makati Avenue,Makati City. Telephone Nos. – 8976600,8979048, 8979052.

b. Mindanao Alliance of Self-Help Societies –Southern Philippines Education CooperativeCenter (MASS-SPECC)

MASS-SPECC’s record of service began in 1966when cooperative education and training wasthe flagship and forefront of its cooperativeendeavors. It considers itself as the oldest andthe biggest regional cooperative federation inthe country with total assets of P368 millionand net profit of P12.8 million in 2008. Itcovers 24 out of the 27 provinces of Mindanaowith its more than 150 primary cooperatives. Ithas evolved a number of pioneering services,all geared towards the development ofcooperatives to become relevant players inMindanao development. Its core business isthe Mindanao Central Finance Facility whichlends to member cooperatives in need ofcapital for service expansion, microfinanceoperations, new viable enterprises and newbranches. It maintains a building in Davao cityand a hostel in Cagayan de Oro City.bothprovides accommodation, function rooms, andrestaurant services. In December 2007, MASS-SPECC was connected to MEGALINK, the firstnon-bank, cooperative federation affiliatemember. It was a founding member of NATCCO.Contact information: Address - Tiano-YacapinStreets, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental.Telephone Nos. - (08822) 725762 / 726516.Email - [email protected]. Website -http://www.mass-specc.coop. Second Address -Dinaville Subdivision, Maa, Davao City.Telephone – (082) 2441096.

c. National Capital Region League- PhilippineFederation of Credit Cooperatives (NCRL-PFCCO)

Registered in September 22, 1999, NCRL-PFCCOwas a product of the League EnhancementProgram of PFCCO. Its products and servicesinclude lending, savings, mutual benefit fund,loan protection plan and human resourcestrainings. Members’ benefits include businessand technical assistance and capacity-buildingprograms. Contact information: Address - G/FPhilippine Cooperative Center, 90 Balete DriveExt., Quezon City. Telephone Nos. - 448765,4146440. Email - [email protected].

d. Northern Luzon Federation of Cooperatives andDevelopment Center (NORLU-CEDEC)

NORLU-CEDEC was registered with the Coopera-tive Development Authority in January 8, 1991.It holds office at BCPSTA Bldg., Military Cut-offRoad, Baguio City. It started with 27 memberswith an authorized share capital of P 108,000,subscribed share capital of P 27,000 and apaid-up capital of P 6,750. Like VICTO, it was afounding member of NATCCO but left it recentlyafter serious disagreements regarding strategy.Contact information: Address - 12 BokawkanRoad, Baguio City. Telephone – (074) 4424662.

e. Tagalog Cooperative Development Center(TAGCODEC)

Formerly known as Tagalog CooperativeTraining and Education Center, TAGCODEC wasfounded by cooperative leaders in MetroManila and the Tagalog Regions 3 and 4 at theJesuit Sacred Heart Novitiate in Quezon City onJuly 19, 1975 and was registered with theSecurities and Exchange Commission onFebruary 2, 1976. Later, TAGCODEC re-registeredwith the Bureau of Agricultural CooperativeDevelopment (BACOD) with its new name onNovember 9, 1987. With a founding capital of P9,500, TAGCODEC has managed to increase itstotal assets to over P10,700,000 with amembership strength of 102 primarycooperatives. Its services include Savings and

Chap

ter



Credit Facility, Deposits, Inter-coop Trade,Education and Training, Consultancy and AuditLinkaging, Social Services and Organizationaland Registration of New Cooperatives. It is alsoa member of NATCCO. Contact information:Address - ACDECO Bldg., Col. JP Aguido St., SanRoque, Angono, Rizal. Telephone Nos. –2952809, 6510601. Website - http://tagcodec.net. Email – [email protected].

f. Visayas Cooperative Development Center(VICTO)

VICTO traces its roots back to the early 1960swhen some Canadian missionaries, theScarboro Fathers, arrived in Southern Leyte.Realizing that the people they had come toserve were caught in a cycle of exploitation andpoverty, the missionary-priests worked closelywith local community leaders and came upwith a plan called “Saving Souls the Co-opWay”. Cooperatives were formed in everyparish covered by the missionaries. In 1970,cooperative leaders established a modesttraining center which became known as VICTO.VICTO claims to be the most viablecooperative-owned institution in the Visayaswith a membership of 249 cooperativesoperating in 17 provinces. The Center’s servicesinclude consultancy, audit, training, financing,inter-coop trading, research and publication,training center and hostel. VICTO was afounding member of NATCCO but left it recentlyafter serious disagreements with its strategy.Contact information: Address – 1st St., BeverlyHills, Lahug, Cebu City. Telephone Nos. – (032)2533153, 2531317. Email add - [email protected]. Website - http://www.cebu-online.com/coop-victo.

g. National Union : Cooperative Union of thePhilippines (CUP)

In an attempt to control the whole cooperativesystem, the government, through the Bureau ofCooperative Development, organized CUP in1979. CUP was to serve as the apexorganization of all cooperatives registeredunder PD No. 175 and all cooperatives wererequired to register with it. Formed tocentralize the coordination of all educationand training programs of all cooperatives inthe country, CUP started operations in 1980

and was recognized as a representative ofPhilippine cooperatives in 1981 by theInternational Cooperative Alliance (ICA) andthe ASEAN Cooperative Organization, and in1984, by the International Labor Organization(ILO). As of October 2004, nine nationalfederations, 14 regional cooperative unionsand 67 provincial and city cooperative unionsare affiliated with CUP. Members of CUP benefitfrom its education and training programswhich aim to professionalize cooperativemanagement and develop the knowledge andcompetencies of officers and staff. Otherservices of CUP include managementconsultancy, auditing, legal services, liaisonwork, technology transfer and livelihooddevelopment. Contact information: Address –CUP Bldg., Mo. Ignacia cor. Roces Avenue,Quezon City. Telephone Nos. – 4131602,4131603.

h. National Cooperative: Cooperative Foundationof the Philippines Inc. (CFPI)

CFPI is a non-government organization which isnon-stock and non-profit. It was registered withthe Securities and Exchange Commission inMay 1977 and its operations began in 1978. Itwas registered as a cooperative with theBureau of Cooperative Development on August13, 1981. In 1984, CFPI was accredited as atax-exempt foundation by the Department ofScience and Technology and a donee institutionby the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Alldonations made to CFPI were 100% tax-deductible. CFPI aims to promote thedevelopment and growth of cooperatives asinstruments for social justice, economicgrowth and for the uplift of the socio-economicconditions of the poor particularly the smallfarmers. Principal activities of CFPI includeresearch and policy studies, cooperativedevelopment, business development,promotion and publications, and a cooperativedatabank and information center. Its mainsource of finance is the interest from its P 4million trust fund and grants from local andforeign institutions. As of 2009, its remainingoffice is in Davao while most of its files anddocuments are kept in Bangkoop office.Contact information: Address – c/o Bangkoop,Rm 316, Pasda Mansion, Panay Ave., QuezonCity. Telephone – 4110602.


Chap

ter

3


i. National Association: Philippine Rural ElectricCooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA)

Previously known as the Federation of ElectricCooperatives in the Philippines (FECOPHIL),PHILRECA was registered on July 1, 1979 as theumbrella organization of 119 electric coopsproviding electricity in 73 provinces and 1,417cities and municipalities as of 1993. It wasfirst registered with the National ElectrificationAdministration in 1979 and then with theSecurities and Exchange Commission in 1988.The association is a non-stock, non-profitentity formed primarily for the purpose ofpromoting the goals of the rural electrification

program, of fostering nationwide interest andinvolvement in the program activities, and ofencouraging the growth of electric cooperativesas institutions in the rural areas. The over-allaccomplishments of the electric coopsnationwide as of the year-end 1992 were theenergizing of 3,471,803 households or 50%accomplishment, 1,337 towns and cities (94%accomplishment), 22,487 barangays (93%accomplishment) and the attainment of 94%collection efficiency from the consumers.Contact information: Address – 4th Floor,Casman Bldg., 372 Quezon Ave., Quezon City.Telephone Nos. – 3742538, 3724913.

Chap

ter



1. Ambrosio M. RodriguezPresidentCooperative Insurance of the Philippines (CISP)

2. Christie Rowena C. PlantillaGeneral ManagerFederation of People’s Sustainable DevelopmentCooperative (FPSDC)

3. Cristina M. SalvadorAccountantCooperative Banks Federation of the Philippines(BANKOOP)

4. Daniel AngDirectorNuwhrain Development Cooperative (NUWDECO)

5. Joel Sto. Domingo, Sr.PresidentKatipunan ng mga Kooperatibang Pansasakyan ngPilipinas, Inc (KKPPI)

6. Lionel AbrilGeneral ManagerPhilippine Cooperative Center (PCC)

7. Lisa SantosChief, Research, Information, Training DivisionCooperative Development Authority

8. Ma. Femila S. GregorioHead, Finance DepartmentFederation of Free Farmers Cooperatives, Inc. (FFFCI)

9. Marietta HwangChief, Registration DivisionCooperative Development Authority

10. Nancy F. MarquezChairpersonPhilippine Federation of Women in Cooperatives(PFWC)

11. Atty. Niel SantillanExecutive DirectorCooperative Development Authority

12. Ramil C. SantosChief Operating OfficerNational Market Vendors Confederation ofCooperatives (NAMVESCO)

13. Reno P. VelascoPresidentMetroSouth Cooperative Bank (MSCB)

14. Romulo VillaminHeadInstitute for Co-op Excellence

15. Sylvia ParaguyaChief Operating OfficerNational Confederation of Cooperatives (NATCCO)

16. Wendell BallesterosGeneral ManagerPhilippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association,Inc. (PHILRECA)

Annex DList of Interviewees

Research Institutions and Think-Tanks

Chap

ter

4


Chapter

Research Institutions and Think Tanks

4

Jennifer Santiago Oreta and Carmel Veloso AbaoJennifer Santiago Oreta and Carmel Veloso AbaoJennifer Santiago Oreta and Carmel Veloso AbaoJennifer Santiago Oreta and Carmel Veloso AbaoJennifer Santiago Oreta and Carmel Veloso Abao

“Think tank” is a term not commonly used among civilsociety organizations (CSOs). In fact, many CSOs,perceived as think tank by outsiders, are cautious toclassify themselves as such. Most CSOs engage inresearch as a direct consequence of their primary goal,which is delivery of basic services or advocacy,depending on what kind of CSO they are. The researchdimension is an add-on, a way to further improve theirservices. In some cases, it is the other way around:research organizations create CSOs or become CSOs toadvocate concrete demands and positions on particularissues they strongly feel about after careful research.This paper, which covers only think tanks considered asCSOs is an attempt to contribute to an understanding ofthink tanks.

American Origins ofAmerican Origins ofAmerican Origins ofAmerican Origins ofAmerican Origins of Think T Think T Think T Think T Think Tanksanksanksanksanks

According to The Global Go Think Tank Project of theInternational Relations Program of the University ofPennsylvania, as of 2008, there are 5,465 think tanks inthe world, most of which are in North America(34.25%)and Western Europe (22.10%) with the restscattered across Asia (11.95%), Eastern Europe (9.41%),Africa (7.76%) and the Middle East (3.99%) (McGann,1992). It is not surprising that North America dominatesthe scene since think tanks emerged in the United Statesbetween the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.Think tanks were “part of a larger effort to bring theexpertise of scholars and managers to bear on theeconomic and social problems of this period” (Smith,1991 in McGann, 1992). They were part of the reformmovement of the time and were set up by “private

capital…organized to alleviate problems of the poor”(Linden, 1987 in McGann, 2009).

Think tanks, thus, were largely non-governmental inorigins. Most held a strong academic orientation andtheir research were geared toward improving socialconditions. The evolution of think tanks, in fact, reflectshistorical junctures and social upheavals that shaped theformation and development of various types of thinktanks. The first important juncture was between 1900and 1929 that saw the emergence of the first think tanksin history. One of them was the Brookings Institute,founded in 1916 by Robert Brookings, a businessmanwho believed that the knowledge of the business sectorand the academe, particularly the social sciences shouldbe merged to produce expert advice on pressing socialproblems. At that time, this meant finding solutions tothe negative impact of World War 1 and problematizingthe role of the United States as a global power.

The importance and stature of think tanks was “greatlyenhanced by the social, political, and economic upheavalcaused by the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s New Dealprogram in the 1930’s created a host of new programsand government agencies that led to a demand forexpert advice that public policy researchinstitutions…were able to provide” (McGann, 1992).After the Second World War, during the 50s to 60s,think tanks served to “sustain the momentum of thedefense efforts generated during the war years” (Ibid).This period gave rise to what McGann (1992) calls the“Military Intellectual Complex” where there wasconsiderable government support for research anddevelopment on military and national security issues.

Chap

ter

4Research Institutions and Think-Tanks


Research generated during this period reflects thevolatility of international relations when framed withinthe paradigm of national interest and security.

At least four (4) foreign policy-related institutes wereformed in the United States during the post-World War IIperiod: the Rand Corporation (1948), Foreign PolicyResearch Institute (1955), the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies (1962) and the Hudson Institute(1962). According to McGann (1992), while these fourinstitutes varied in focus, they were all fundamentallyconcerned with “national security” and the role of theUnited States in the ensuing global political economy,particularly “what type of economic and political orderwould result from the reconversion from the war time to apeace time economy”.

In the 1970’s up to 1980’s, think tanks focused on domesticpoverty and its social consequences. As a result of theeconomic downturn brought about by heavy spending inthe Vietnam War, there was increased support for researchto address “new internal, civil, urban, and environmentalproblems” (Dickson, 1972 in McGann, 1992). This periodsaw not only the mushrooming of think tanks, but also thetrend toward specialization based on issues and politicalideologies. This period also marked “the increasinginfluence of the media on the public policy process”(Dickson, 1972 in McGann, 1992) and of think tanks asvaluable informants on various policy issues.

Evidently, the evolution of think tanks reflects theevolution of highly complex political processes and policy-making apparatuses. While think tanks first emerged in theUnited States, it can be deduced that the think tanks thatlater surfaced in different parts of the world were shapedby attendant domestic and international political andsocio-economic contexts.

Related Literature: Definitions andRelated Literature: Definitions andRelated Literature: Definitions andRelated Literature: Definitions andRelated Literature: Definitions andRoles ofRoles ofRoles ofRoles ofRoles of Think T Think T Think T Think T Think Tanksanksanksanksanks

Owing largely to the Anglo-American roots of think tanks,existing literature describes think tanks as entities thatoperate on a non-profit basis and are “independent ofgovernment and universities” (Selmeczi, 2009). In TheThink Tanks and Civil Societies Program: The Global Go-tothink tank (McGann, 2009), a similar definition is provided,except that it admits that not all think tanks may beindependent, for some of them may be affiliated:

Think tanks are public policy research,analysis and engagement institutions thatgenerate policy-oriented research, analysisand advice on domestic and internationalissues that enable policymakers and the publicto make informed decisions about publicpolicy issues. Think tanks may be affiliated orindependent institutions and are structured aspermanent bodies, not ad hoc commissions.These institutions often act as a bridge betweenthe academic and policymaking communities,serving in the public interest as an independentvoice that translates applied and basicresearch into a language and form that isunderstandable, reliable, and accessible forpolicymakers and the public.

Think tanks belong to the intellectual elite of civilsociety. They perform a very specific function, i.e. toserve as the ‘intellectual bridge’ between developmentplayers and other sectors of society often at thereceiving end of policy. Think tanks frame particular andsectoral concerns within the broader discourse ofdevelopment. Think tanks frame the technical anddiscursive language into popular medium and in theprocess facilitate the dynamic interaction of issues andideas into concrete policy agenda. Dan Nimmo andJames Combs (1990) argue that “few people learn aboutpolitics through direct experience. For most persons,political realities are mediated through mass and groupcommunication, a process that results as much in thecreation, transmission, and adoption of politicalfantasies as it results in independently validated views ofwhat happens.”

Think tanks can provide a critical balance togovernmental authority even in the directpolitical and economic situations. For example,the development of the G17 group of reform-minded economists in Serbia was instrumentalto the eventual grand coalition of reform-minded politicians and civic action groups thatunited in toppling the Milosevic regime in 2000.Critical was G17’s ability to expand nationaldiscourse to focus on the systematic democraticreforms necessary to put the country on analternative path towards reengagement withthe International Community and eventualintegration into the European Union (EU)(Kovats, 2006).


Chap

ter

4


Some think tanks oblige society to reflect on themeaning and relevance of dominant paradigms, toevaluate the consequence of current shared values andtraditions, and to propose alternative analysis andframework. They are part of the “intellectuals” that thepolitical theorist Gramsci (1971) asserts are necessaryfor the construction of “an alternative egalitarian‘hegemonic project’ to the dominant ideology ofcapitalism” (Faulks, 1999).

EvEvEvEvEvolution ofolution ofolution ofolution ofolution of Think T Think T Think T Think T Think Tanks in theanks in theanks in theanks in theanks in thePhilippinesPhilippinesPhilippinesPhilippinesPhilippines

In 1973, the Philippine Center for Asian Studies (PCAS)was created through Presidential Decree No. 342. (Note:This is now the Asian Studies Center of the University ofthe Philippines, Diliman.) It mandates PCAS to belocated at the University of the Philippines and“mobilize all institutions of higher learning especiallystate institutions, as full partners of government inorder to (1) bring together specialists from variousdisciplines to conduct systematic research atfundamental levels; (2) assist the central government inthe formulation of policies and programs; (3) addressthemselves to the examination of issues of centralconcern to the government, such as problems ofnational integration, social technological and culturalchange, social effects of national policy, internationaldevelopments and their impact on our national life, aswell as security and strategic problems; and (4)establish degree programs and participate in existinginstructional programs in order to produce Filipinoexperts or specialists for the nation” (Philippine Lawsand Jurisprudence Databank, 2010). The PCAS was thuscreated to further reinforce the Marcos regime’s NewSociety program, a supposedly “renewal” programmeant to institute facelift makeover to the violenceriddled society (TIME, 1972). But, critics argued that theNew Society was the overarching framework to get rid ofthe oppositionist and critics of Marcos and his cronies.

Ironically, it was also university-based researchinstitutions that offered some of the most critical viewsof the Marcos dictatorship including the demand for itsend. It was primarily the university-based research firmsthat created the backdrop for alternative framing andagenda setting to take place – a role now attributed tothink tanks. These institutions, therefore, may be

considered as the first think tanks of the Philippines. Atthe time, academic freedom, albeit superficial,shielded scholars from being victimized by the regimeand gave them leverage to produce white papers andbriefing papers on issues relevant to the public. Tosome extent, this semblance of academic freedom wasalso used by Marcos to claim that his regime wasdemocratic. Through these white papers — sometimesanonymously written — intellectuals were able toprovide and engage the public as well as the regimewith critical discourse. The discourse allowed for analternative, democratic agenda to germinate.

The thirst for an alternative political-ideologicalplatform facilitated and guided the engagement ofideologues and intellectuals with the administration ofCorazon Aquino (1986-1992). With the new-founddemocratic space, a number of intellectuals within theacademia and the civil society organizations producedresearch and policy papers aimed at informing andinfluencing the overarching discourse of the newgovernment’s political framing. A broad consensus wasshared on the more general, overarching politicalagenda of institutionalized democracy and its basicinfrastructures. Intellectuals, however, were divided onwhat should be the concrete elements of the restoreddemocracy and how should the democratization agendabe operationalized. The presence of a wide range ofalternative agendas created deep divides amongideologues and intellectuals.

More CSOs emerged. Some of them engaged inresearch arising from advocacy and direct engagementwith various sectors, aside from doing their primarytask, which was direct service delivery. Other groupswere organized purposely to be involved in knowledgeproduction particularly on policy issues that needed tobe urgently addressed during the time of democraticreconstruction. These developments gave theimpression that the formation of Philippine think tanksand civil society groups was a post-martial lawphenomenon.

The abruptness of the political change brought about bythe 1986 EDSA uprising, and the discursive spacecreated by the democratization process gave impetusfor the emergence of think tanks outside academicinstitutions, in the form of civil society groups. Insocieties transitioning from a repressive to a more opensystem, think tanks tend to be more pronounced

Chap

ter



immediately before, during, and after the transitionprocesses (Kamrava, 2000). “Most societies undergoingdemocratic transition undergo structuraltransformations, often focusing on inter-elite pacts,constitutional guarantees, and economic liberalization.Immediately before and during the democratizationprocess, it is the intellectual elite within civil societygroups who defines the problems, frames the agenda,and drums up support for a particular cause or ideals”(Oreta, 2010). In societies experiencing democratictransition like the Philippines, the broad ideals generallyrevolve around the principles of democracy and goodgovernance and a development agenda (Kamrava, 2000).

During the Ramos administration (1992-1998), anattempt was made to bring together a broad assembly ofacademics and CSO-think tanks with the generalobjective of creating a support-mechanism to back-upthe political agenda of becoming a newly IndustrializedCountry (NIC). This attempt, however, never took off(Aldaba, 2010).

At about this period, the Philippine Left, especially thegroups identified with Communist Party of thePhilippines (CPP) had organizational and ideologicalproblems fueled by the fall of the Berlin Wall, thecollapse of the Soviet Union, and the ensuing crisis in thecommunist movement worldwide. This global crisisspilled over to the Philippines, and hastened the break-up of the Philippine left. What emerged thereafter werethink tanks peopled by former members of theCommunist Party of the Philippines, venturing to engagethe Party and the public on the viability and relevance ofthe communist agenda.

Today, Philippine think tanks are more specialized andoperate independently of each other. While a broadconsensus still exists on very general terms –e.g. agrarianreform, environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment - problems arise when issues are brokeninto concrete policy agenda (Karaos, 2010). There is noideological homogeneity among think tanks in thePhilippines. Particular ideologies, issues, and politicalinterests often motivate them.

Despite marked differences, Philippine think tanksperform the necessary role of governments to sustainreform processes especially when these processes aredeliberately slowed down or neglected by saidgovernments. Philippine think tanks also provide the

varying publics with data and analyses on issues thatserve to challenge often biased and self-servinggovernment statistics and pronouncements.

WWWWWorking Definition oforking Definition oforking Definition oforking Definition oforking Definition of Think T Think T Think T Think T Think Tankankankankank

As aforementioned , think tank is the general term usedto describe groups engaged in research and policyanalysis. However, this general definition needs to benuanced in the light of the specific context at whichthese think tanks operate. The authors thereforeconsulted stakeholders who are directly and indirectlyinvolved in Philippine think tanks. (Note: The initialinterviewees were: Aida Santos of the Women’sEducation, Development, Productivity and ResearchOrganization (WEDPRO), Sylvia Estrada-Claudio of theUniversity of the Philippines Center for Women’s Studies(UPCWS), Jude Esguerra of the Institute for PopularDemocracy (IPD), Miriam Coronel Ferrer of theComprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rightsand International Humanitarian Law (Sulong CARHRIHL),and Ana Marie Karaos of the Institute on Church andSocial Issues (ICSI), from whose answers a working draftwas prepared. A subsequent focus-group discussion(FGD) was conducted in Davao to validate and enrich theinitial working draft.)

In these consultations, the stakeholders characterize thinktanks as:

1. organizations that are in the business of producingknowledge and disseminating information.

2. groups engaged in research that can be of use to othergroups or sectors in pursuit of development.

3. research institutions or organizations thatundertake studies that inform policy or actionthrough evidence-based advocacy.

4. independent, university-based or linked, political-party affiliated, or government-owned/ supported.

The resource persons say research undertaken by thinktanks is always reform-oriented or concerned withimproving existing conditions. Unlike strictly academic orpure research that can delve and remain in thephilosophical/ theoretical realm, or propaganda researchdone by interest groups and political parties, researchdone by independent think tanks move beyond thetheories and rhetoric and attempt to constructalternatives – an alternative policy agenda, a new


Chap

ter

4


paradigm, or an innovative program or an actionresearch that aims to improve strategies and practicesand the environments where they operate. Think tanksare more interested in proposing solutions rather thanjust scrutinizing issues. As argued by McGann, “think-tank scholarship, not interest-group propagandadisguised as scholarship, is so important” (McGann,2005).

The operative definition, thus, of a think tank is, it is aninstitution or agency engaged in research and generatingknowledge to inform policy and action. A think tank maybe a CSO that does policy research and advocacy or aninstitution in a university. It may or may not be partial topolitical, cultural, social, and economic issues, and mayor may not have direct link with sectors anddevelopment players. An institution is not a think tank ifit has no desire to produce knowledge meant to informpublic policy and action.

TTTTTypes ofypes ofypes ofypes ofypes of Philippine Think T Philippine Think T Philippine Think T Philippine Think T Philippine Think Tanksanksanksanksanks

Below is a typology of think tanks in the Philippines, sub-grouped according to the particular expertise they offer.The categorization was culled largely from views solicitedduring focus-group discussions and experts’ interviews.

The typology also offers insights into the variousrelationships that Philippine think tanks forge with otherplayers in the country’s political and developmentlandscape.

1. Advocacy think tanks: Tied to a sector or aparticular organizational agenda, these think tanksare organized to provide support to an (already)established and clear position of the sector ororganization. Being “tied” does not necessarilymean the absence of organizational autonomy interms of developing agendas or proposals. Rather,the term suggests a high level of ideologicalagreement between the think tank and theorganization, or a solid sharing of specificorientation. Some examples of this group would bethe Center for Migrant Advocacy (focused onmigration-related issues) and the Freedom fromDebt Coalition (focused on debt-related agenda).

2. Issue-based think tanks: These organizations desireto comprehensively gather materials and

information on a particular theme or issue.Examples of this group are Mindanawon (focused onMindanao peoples’ cultures and traditions); and theConsortium of Bangsa Moro Civil Society (focusedon bringing the Bangsa Moro CSOs’ voice in thepeace negotiations). While a very thin lineseparates advocacy think tanks from issue-basedthink tanks, the latter is different from the former inthat they do not carry forward their researchfindings through active advocacy work.

3. Research institutes: These are groups that engagein research but are not directly or ideologically tiedto sectors or development actors. Academicresearch institutions are more often than not,classified under this category. The range of topicsthey cover tends to be broad (e.g. economics, ratherthan poverty). Unlike advocacy and issue-basedthink tanks, they straddle across sectoral issues.

4. Political party think tanks: The main goal of thesethink tanks is to advance the political ideology andplatform of an allied party. In the US as in Europe,these think tanks are responsible for puttingtogether a policy agenda for a shadow government.In the Philippines, the National Institute for PolicyStudies (NIPS) is the identified think tank of theLiberal Party. However, most established politicalparties have no clearly identified think tanks. Theyrely on independent consultants rather than on apermanent research unit within the party.

5. Regional and international think tanks: Most of thethink tanks mentioned earlier focus on domesticconcerns. While many integrate global concernsinto their work, the main focus of their research andaction is the domestic front. There are regional andinternational think tanks on the other hand thatresearch on issues beyond the domestic front; issuesthat look at the dynamics of the local. regional, andglobal interactions. These think tanks are able toleverage domestic capacity with imported skills viatheir international affiliations and networks. TheFocus on the Global South and the United NationsEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) Women Studies and Gender ResearchNetwork are good examples of this type of thinktanks. The Institute for Strategic and DevelopmentStudies (ISDS) is another good example of a thinktank that evaluates and interprets changes in

Chap

ter



national and global affairs for international,regional and national audiences. ISDS is a memberof the Association of Southeast Asian NationsInstitute of Strategic and International Studies(ASEAN ISIS), a think – tank that combines resourceswith Asian Development Bank (ADB), United NationsDevelopment Program (UNDP) and the World Bankto finance its operations.

6. Government-initiated think tanks. ThePhilippine Institute of Development Studies(PIDS), a semi-autonomous agency attachedto the National Economic DevelopmentAuthority (NEDA), is the closest example of agovernment –initiated think tank in thePhilippines. PIDS serves as an influentialgenerator of policy-oriented ideas andadvocacy. Its research is organized around thethemes of economic policy choices, policiesfor sustainable human development,institutional development and goodgovernance. Most, if not all government lineagencies have their respective think tanks,which generate knowledge and inform theagencies of matters related to policy. TheInstitute of Health Policy and DevelopmentStudies (IHPDS) of the Department of Health,the National Tax Research Center of theDepartment of Finance (DOF), the ForeignService Institute of the Department of ForeignAffairs (DFA) and the National ResearchCouncil of the Philippines (NRCP) of the Dept.of Science and Technology (DOST) areexamples. Many state-funded think tanks areoften vulnerable to budget austerities and aresubject to bureaucratic and political control.

Profile of Think Tanks in the Philippines

It must be noted that the identity of think tank groups inthe Philippines remains unarticulated, especially whenviewed alongside the more renowned groups like thecooperatives and service-delivery CSOs. The profilediscussed here and the mapping of think tanks (seeAnnex), hence, are largely based on the assessment ofthe authors rather than the self-identity articulation ofthe groups.

Some of the think tanks examined in this study may becategorized as advocacy think tanks that focus onvarious sectoral issues such as urban poor, women andgender, labor and indigenous people. The Philippines isconsidered quite advanced in gender research andempowerment indexes. Although the leading think-tankon this sector, the Philippine Commission on Women, is,a government-owned think tank, it gets much supportfrom grass roots movements that have long-studied andresearched on women issues.

There are think tanks that are classified in this study asissue-based. Issues covered are broad, such aseconomics, population, and environment, as well asspecific, such as education, disaster preparedness, andhealth.

A number of research institutions covered in the studyare university -affiliated. The three major universities,University of the Philippines, Ateneo de ManilaUniversity, De La Salle University, all have desks or mini-institutes within their university systems that researchon broad or cross cutting issues. Often, the final outputis the research itself that informs other groups who thentake it forward and engage in advocacy.

From a limited examination of existing think tanks in thePhilippines, the following observations may be offered:(1) There are not many regional-international think tanksin the Philippines. This may be due to the lack of aregional agenda among contiguous states in the region;(2) in terms of location, many of the think tanksexamined in the study are based in Metro Manila. Thismay be so since the policy formulation and developmentprocess happens largely inside Metro Manila; (3) thereare also sub-national or regional think tanks/ studycenters that undertake research about their ownpolitical and economic situation that may be location orissue-specific such as the Center for KapampanganStudies at the Holy Angels University in Angeles,Pampanga, the Center for Visayan Studies at theUniversity of the Philippines Visayas, and the MindanaoCenter for Policy and Development Studies at theUniversity of Southeastern Philippines.

This study however, does not cover these sub-national/regional think tanks.


Chap

ter

4


Strengths and WStrengths and WStrengths and WStrengths and WStrengths and Weaknesses: tweaknesses: tweaknesses: tweaknesses: tweaknesses: two sideso sideso sideso sideso sidesof the coinof the coinof the coinof the coinof the coin

Familiarity and Detachment

The academe keeps up with developments in intellectualdiscourses and research. Hence, research institutionsthat are organizationally attached to universities tend tobe more updated than think tanks, which are not. Beinglargely comprised of staff members who are teachersfirst and secondly researchers, think tanks attached toacademic institutions are knowledgeable of researchmethodologies and the rigor of intellectual framing.These institutions, however, are often accused of beingdetached from society – the subject matter of theirresearch. They are said to be discoursing about socialproblems from an ivory tower. .

To address the tendency of academic-affiliatedinstitutions to gravitate towards desk or literature basedresearch, attempts have been made to marry the rigorsof the academe with rootedness in social realities. Thinktanks were established outside the bureaucratic confinesof the academe (e.g. Alternatives for Economic Reform).Researchers whose academic expertise is enriched with adeep knowledge and understanding of issues obtainedfrom stakeholders with whom they have closeassociation were invited to affiliate with think tanks.Some universities have established academic researchinstitutions that conduct research on topics that have adirect bearing on society and employ field research andparticipatory techniques of investigation (e.g. Institutefor Popular Culture of the Ateneo de Manila University).Some university faculty members serve as consultants toCSOs.

Government-initiated think tanks, on the other hand, areoften accused of being too close to policy making andimplementation, a situation that compromises theircapability to deliver objective analysis of issues. Researchwork done by these think tanks are sometimes accusedof simply toeing the line, rather than being objectiveanalysis of policies and political processes. PIDS is anexample.

Civil society organizations engaged in research are in aunique position because of their potential to developboth the discursive capacity of the academe and the

rootedness necessary to make research relevant tosociety. Civil society organizations engage the sectors inboth analysis and alternative framing. A think tank thatis embedded in the sector or rooted in societal issueshas great advantage in the area of policy researchbecause embeddedness facilitates easy access toprimary data. Moreover, familiarity with social issuesallows CSOs to capture the context and accuratelyarticulate it.Too much embeddedness, however, may lead to anadvocacy position that is highly biased. While it isunderstandable for a group to advocate for specificconcerns, the policy stance need not be too slantedtowards a singular position. Think tanks would be moreeffective if they could engage other grouped in a framingexercise.

Lack of Funding and Relationship withDonors

Most civil society organizations engaged in research havereal limitations in personnel, resources, and technicalcapacity due to scarcity of funds. Moreover, most ofthese organizations are accountable not only to theirsector, but also to their donors who often demandtangible and measurable results. Consequently, activitiesthat may not be directly linked to the tasks funded bythe donors, such as framing exercises and, activities thatenhance human resources capability and organizationalefficiency, take a back seat. This is unfortunate becausesuch reflective activities are critical to institutionalstrengthening.

Donor-driven research and donor-funds dependencyhave real implications on both the future direction of athink tank as well as its current operations. Donor-drivenpolicy agenda is not necessarily bad because it oftenconsiders globally relevant questions that are oftenneglected by an agenda that is defined purely by localstakeholders. But, donor-driven policy may lack theholistic and context-based framing and ownership of theproblem by its more relevant users. Moreover, the biasof most donors for short-term (e.g. 1 to 3 years) ratherthan long-term funding limits the think tank’s ability tobuild its capacity and undertake long-term engagements.Policy research and advocacy requires time. It is notenough that a policy paper is produced; it is equallyimportant to lobby for its acceptance by the state and

Chap

ter



the public in general. Constant engagement withrelevant units is necessary in the process of producingthe policy research, and in having it accepted by itstarget audience and the public. Since short-termfunding-schemes tend to force a myopic and limitedengagement paradigm on think tank groups, policyproduction and advocacy cannot be effectively done.

On the other hand, small and newly formed thinktanks find it difficult to get funding from donorsbecause donor agencies are often biased towardbigger and more established CSOs. Despite thefact that the Philippines is better than most otherSoutheast Asia countries, such as Indonesia,Malaysia, and Thailand in terms of education andhuman resources with select strength in researchand knowledge, think tanks in the Philippines arestruggling. Researchers are torn between thepublic good and the higher remuneration fromdonors. At times, especially when they do notconform to the donor’s agenda, researchers getdistracted from doing effective research.

Resource persons for this research suggest that donorsconsider the possibility of institutional funding ratherthan project-based funding. An institutional-fundingarrangement recognizes the need of an organization todefine its directions and operations, tasks that requireresources although not always resulting in measurableoutputs in the short term. In this arrangement, theorganization and not the donor will decide on theframing, context, and relevance of the projects. Thearrangement will also address the criticism that heavilyfunded CSOs lack independence. This arrangement willalso resolve issues of financial sustainability, lack ofembeddedness and practical, social relevance. Hence,institutional funding will allow think tanks to innovate orthink out of the box. Creative thinking is badly neededon how to approach the issue of financial sustainabilityof advocacy-think tanks who are mainly engaged insocial services for the poor; addressing the requiredresearch-training capacity of communities especially inareas where there is a dearth of think tank organizations(e.g. Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao areas);fostering complementarities of research in areas likeMindanao; advocacy-mainstreaming of specific issues inthe locality (e.g. the peace process), and others. Aninstitutional funding scheme would democratize thedistribution of funds, and would not discriminate againstsmall think tanks.

On Relations with Different Publics and theDevelopment of Internal Capacities

It is assumed that when think tanks advocate policydirectives, they aim to improve the condition of aspecific sector or the broader society in general. Fromthis assumption, one logically argues that these thinktanks are accountable to their publics or the specificgroup that they engage with. There is a need to examinethis relationship for the purpose of finding out how tosustain the linkage and the fidelity to a common cause.

There are tensions between think tanks and theirpublics. Some of the causes of tensions are competinginterests, the push and pull of organizational ethos, andlevel of capacity to deliver. The dynamics of state-societyrelations may either enhance or constrain opportunitiesto deliver.

To address these concerns, civil society think - tanks mayembark on a sharing session where they can comparenotes and perhaps set internal organizational standards.Some of the issues related to internal organization are(1) professionalizing systems and operations (2)strengthening transparency and accountability in groupoperations (3) staff development, especially on researchcapacities and addressing the fast turn-over of staff dueto low salaries (4) resolving ethical concerns within theorganization, and, (5) developing and managingnecessary databases. In addition, a common databaseor portal may be developed so that researches acrossthink tanks can be accessed easily, duplication isavoided, and dissemination of findings can be achievedwith greater speed.

OpporOpporOpporOpporOpportunities and Threats: Challengestunities and Threats: Challengestunities and Threats: Challengestunities and Threats: Challengestunities and Threats: ChallengesAheadAheadAheadAheadAhead

On Societal Recognition and Relevance

The emergence of think tanks in the political scene hasgreatly contributed to the political education and, to acertain degree, political sophistication of the Philippinepolity. More people now appreciate the value not onlyof rigor in research but also evidence-based policydevelopment. Furthermore, there are now availablelegal-institutional spaces that can be harnessed topush the boundaries of power and these spaces are well


Chap

ter

4


within the reach of think - tanks that enjoy a level ofrecognition and stature in society. The newadministration of President Benigno Aquino III that isperceived as reformist in nature is expected to providemore opportunities for think tanks to flourish. Thedynamic nature of the CSO environment in thePhilippines, which is more advanced than in otherstruggling democracies, provides added opportunities.

In its fundamental task of informing and influencingpolicy, think tanks, however, face many philosophicaland practical challenges. For instance, while it is truethat think tanks must generate the broadest possiblesupport to influence policy processes, caution must betaken against imposing particular positions on thepublic. Think tanks should thus be more cognizant ofquestions such as: Should think tanks push their policyagenda even if the public is visibly not ready to supportthis agenda (e.g. repudiation of debt)? What if thepublic is divided over the issue; what then is the role of athink - tanks (e.g. to extend or scrap the comprehensiveagrarian reform program)? What if a large segment ofthe public is not supportive of an otherwise valid agenda(e.g. MOA-AD – the memorandum of Agreementbetween the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and thePhilippine government)?

Context-specific constraints andopportunities

The boldness to come out and be identified withparticular standpoints has implications not only inpolitical discourse. Sometimes, it spells the differencebetween safety and danger, especially for members ofthink - tanks engaged in field research. For instance,those engaged in research on security-related concernshave to face the wrath of those negatively affected bytheir research, and worse, by those who disapprove oftheir research and its dissemination (e.g. research onabuses of Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Units andcivilian volunteer organizations).

Noticeably, policy work and advocacy at the local level iseasier than at the national level. More civil societygroups boast of headways in the local state-societyengagement. Emphasis on local good practices,however, sometimes negates the necessity of probinginto local-national relations that undermine local

development and thereby make the replication of goodpractices impossible to achieve.

Finally, it has to be reiterated that the current politicalconjuncture of a newly installed Aquino administrationpresents a very good opportunity for think tanks toresume and intensify work in policy development. In thepast nine years, policy development that is trulyparticipative and is engaging of think tanks and otherCSOs has taken a backseat to issues of legitimacy leveledat the Arroyo government.

Concluding RemarksConcluding RemarksConcluding RemarksConcluding RemarksConcluding Remarks

As shown in this narrative, think tanks are valuedbecause of their ability to (1) produce new knowledge orinnovative ideas; (2) “bridge the knowledge gap betweenpolicymakers and ‘on the ground’ realities; (3) includenew voices in the policymaking process; and (4)challenge the traditional wisdom of policymakers andthe public” (McGann 2009). In its relatively shorthistory, Philippine think tanks have successfullyperformed these functions particularly that of promotingcritical analysis of policy issues. Philippine think tanks,however, have to be mindful of the fact that theireffectiveness and sustainability are contingent on (1)financial standing and available resources — includingthe capacity to sustain operations without the supportof external donors (2) the quality of research which inturn is often a function of the qualifications of theresearcher — think tanks also have to invest on people.(3) their reputation and credibility in the eyes of thepublic and policy makers — a think tank with acompromised reputation is likely to be renderedinsignificant or irrelevant.

Further investigation on several aspects of think tanksneeds to be done. One major task is a finer identificationof the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threatsof think tanks. Another challenge is to complete the mappresented in this paper. There is a need, for example, toseek out groups that actually perform the functions ofthink tanks but do not identify themselves as such. Stillanother is to improve the typology presented here.There is also a need to study the effectiveness of thinktanks in influencing the formulation, development, andimplementation of policies and how they shape publicopinion.

Chap

ter



Bibliography

Asian Development Bank. 1999. A Study of PhilippineNGOs. http://www.adb.org/ngos/docs/ngophilippines.pdf. Accessed Aug 20, 2010

Faulks, Keiths. 1999. Political Sociology: A CriticalIntroduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.

Kamrava, Mehran. 2000. Politics & Society in the developingworld. London: Routledge.

Kovats, Ronald. 2006. Think Tanks: A Cornerstone ofDemocracy. http://www.freedomhouse.hu/pdfdocs/Overview%20Essay.pdf. Accessed Feb 25,2010

McGann, James, G. 1992. “Academics to Ideologues: ABrief History of the Public Policy ResearchIndustry.” Political Science and Politics, 25, 4 (Dec.):733-740. http://www.jstor.org/stable/419684.Accessed July 15, 2010

McGann, James. 2005. http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy think_tank/ us_thankthank_3137s.p.Accessed March 11, 2010

McGann, James. 2007. Think Tanks and Policy Advice in the

US: Academics, Advisors and Advocates. London:Routledge.

McGann, James G. 2009. The Think Tanks and CivilSocieties Program: The Global Go-to thinktanks. Accessed March 10, 2010 and Sept 14,2010

NGO Profiles. http://www.psdn.org.ph/NGOs/profile.htm. Accessed Aug 20, 2010

Nimmo, Dan, and James Combs. 1990. Mediated PoliticalRealities. 2nd ed. White Plains, New York:Longman

Oreta, Jennifer Santiago. 2010. “Civil Society:Negotiating the Boundaries of Power” inDepartment of Political Science. Philippine Politicsand Governance: Democratic Ideals and Realities.Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Databank. http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/ pd1973/pd_342_1973.html. Accessed Sept 29, 2010

Selmeczi, Anna. 2009. “Hungarian Think Tanks and theEuropean Public Sphere”(draft). Paper for theFirst International Eurosphere Conference,University of Osnabrück - November 2009. http://www.imis.uni-osnabrueck.de/Eurosphere%20Panel %20 I%20 Selmeczi.pdf.Accessed Feb 16, 2010

Time Magazine. Nov. 20, 1972. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,712196,00.html.Accessed Sept 30, 2010

Key Informants Interviewed:Aldaba, Fernando (CSRI)Karaos, Ana Marie (ICSI)

Ferres, Miriam Coronel (Sulong CARHRIHL)Aida Santos (WEDPRO)

Sylvia Estrada-Claudio (UPCWS)Jude Esguerra (IPD)

Focus-Group Discussions:NCR/ Manila-based groups

Davao-based groups


Chap

ter

4


Most Philippine think tanks, especially those notorganically connected to academic institutions,adopted policy research in their work as an after-thought rather than as their raison d’etre. Some NGOs,for example, are reluctant to identify themselves as a“think tank” because their primary task is notknowledge production policy formulation. A number ofthese organizations fall under multiple categories, andare mentioned in the other relevant chapters of thispublication. The research and policy formulation doneby many CSOs are often the logical consequence orrequirement of their advocacy work. As mentioned byRazon-Abad and Miller (1997, cited in Tuano, thispublication), NGOs “have ‘won’ policy successes” intheir engagement with the state.

The mapping presented in this annex is not exhaustive,owing to the lack of written literature on the subject.The list is largely based on the assessment of authorsdrawn from stored knowledge as well as the nature ofthe programs and activities publicized in the websitesand/or other media of the organizations. Purposelyexcluded are government-based think tanks, as the maininterest of the study is to understand think tanks ascivil society groups.

1. Advocacy think tanks:

• Rural-Peasant-Fisherfolks: Phil.Partnership for the Development of HumanResources in the Rural Areas; Partnershipfor Agrarian Reform and Rural DevelopmentStudies; Phil. Sustainable AgricultureCoalition; National Coalition for Fisheriesand Aquatic Reform; Phil. Peasant Institute;Tambuyog Devt. Center.

• Urban Poor: Partnership of PhilippineSupport Service Agencies (PHILSSA); John J.Caroll Institute on Church and Social IssuesJJC-ICSI)

• Indigenous Peoples: Panagtagpo MindanaoIndigenous People’s Consultative Council,Lumah Ma Dilaut

• Labor: Labor Education and ResearchNetwork (LEARN), Philippine Social Institute(PSI) – Federation of Free Workers (FFW).

Annex 1Mapping of Philippine Think Tanks

• Women, Gender: Mindanao Women’s Circle;UP-Center for Women Studies; Miriam’sCollege- WAGI (Women and GenderInstitute), Women’s Education,Development, Productivity and ResearchOrganization (WeDpro); Mindanao Women’sCommission; MindanaoWorking Group onGender, Sexuality & Reproductive Health.

2. Issue-based think tanks:

• Disaster Preparedness, Structural/ BuildingSafety: Phil. Institute of Civil Engineers(PICE); Assn. of Structural Engineers of thePhilippines

• Economy, Development: Center forDevelopment Initiatives; Center forEconomic Policy Research

• Education: Linguistic Society of thePhilippines

• Environment: Green Mindanao (GeographicRediscovery of Endangered Environment andNature); Institute of Climate, Energy andEnvironment; Green Forum Philippines;Haribon Foundation; Legal Rights andNatural Resources Center, Inc.-

• Kasama sa Kalikasan; Phil. Institute ofAlternative Futures; Conservation andDevelopment Specialists Foundation, Inc;Network for Environmental Concerns, Inc

• Health: Medicines Transparency Alliance(MeTA); Kalusugan Alang sa Bayan, Inc.

• Livelihood: NGO Alliance for CooperativeDevt

• Overseas Filipino Workers: Center forMigrant Advocacy; Scalabrini MigrationCenter; Institute for Migration andDevelopment Issues

• Peace, Human Rights, Security: Gaston Z.Ortigas Peace Institute (GZOPI ), Phil. ActionNetwork to Control Arms; Sulong CARHRIHL(Comprehensive Agreement on HR and IntlHumanitarian Law); Philippine Coalition for

Chap

ter



the International Criminal Court (PCICC);Mindanaowon; International Center forInnovation, Transformation and Excellencein Governance (InciteGov)

- Political, Institutional Reform: Institute forPolitical and Electoral Reform; Center forPeople’s Empowerment and Governance(CenPEG); Institute for Popular Democracy;Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan (SLB); Instituteof Politics and Governance; Transparencyand Accountability Network, Alternative LawGroup (ALG); International Center forInnovation, Transformation and Excellencein Governance (InciteGov)

• Population Control/ Management:Comprehensive Research Program onPopulation and Development-DemographicResearch and Development Foundation, Inc.

3. Research Institutes:

• Economy, Development: Ateneo Center forEconomic Research and Development;Freedom from Debt Coalition; Action forEconomic Reform; DLSU-Angelo KingInstitute of Economic and Business Studies;Phil. Institute for Development Studies

• Environment: Ateneo de Manila University(ADMU)-Manila Observatory

• Labor: University of the Philippines Schoolof Labor and Industrial Relations (UPSOLAIR)

• Peace, Human Rights, Security: ADMU-Deptof Political Science Working Group onSecurity Sector Reform; Institute forStrategic and Development Studies

• Political, Institutional, Governance Reform:UP-NCPAG Centre for Leadership, Citizenshipand Democracy; UP-Third World StudiesCenter, Ateneo Center for Social Policy andPublic Affairs; Ateneo Center for EconomicResearch and Devt.; DLSU-Institute ofGovernance

• Social-Cultural: ADMU-Institute ofPhilippine Culture; DLSU-SocialDevelopment Research Center; John J.Carroll- Institute for Church and SocialIssues (JJC-ICSI)

• Urban-Poor: JJC-ICSI, ADMU-Institute ofPhilippine Culture, Ateneo de NagaUniversity-Social Science Research; DLSU-Social Development Research Center;Alternative Planning Institute (Alterplan);Manila Observatory; TAO-Pilipinas

• Research institutes and Researchers fromthe Academe are tapped on a researchproject to project basis.

• Technology, Sustainable Development:Appropriate Technology Center

4. Political party:

• National Institute for Policy Studies

5. Regional/ International:

• Economy, Development: Focus on the GlobalSouth; International Institute of RuralReconstruction; Asian Institute ofManagement Policy Centre; Asian CulturalForum on Development; Asian NGOCoalition, International South GroupNetwork

• Gender: UNESCO Women’s Studies andGender Research Network; Center for Asia-Pacific Women in Politics (CAPWIP);Development Institute for Women in AsiaPacific; Women’s Legal Bureau (WLB); ISISInternational; Coalition Against Traffickingin Women-Asia-Pacific (CATW-AP)

• Human Rights: Amnesty International-Pilipinas Section; Initiatives forInternational Dialogue


Chap

ter

4


Sector-based think tanks

Peasant, Agriculture, Urban Poor Labor Gender, Women IndigenousFisherfolks Peoples

Phil. Partnership for theDevelopment of HumanResources in the Rural Areas(PHILDRAA)

59 C. Salvador St. Loyola Hts.1108 Quezon CityTel.: 632-436-0702 / 436-0710 /436-0713 Fax: 632-426-0385Email: [email protected]

National Coalition for Fisheriesand Aquatic Reform (NACFAR)

P.O. Box 1390, Quezon City MainTel: 632-922-3114

Phil. Peasant Institute (PPI)

Room 319 Philippine SocialScience Center (PSSC) Bldg.,Commonwealth Ave. Diliman,Quezon CityTel: 632- 929-6211 / 922-9621local 339 or 314Fax: 632- 924-3767Email: [email protected]

Tambuyog Devt. Center

Room 108A, Philippine SocialScience Center (PSSC), Commonwealth, Diliman,Quezon CityTel.: 632- 456-1907 / 456-1908Fax: 632- 926-4415Email: [email protected]

John J. CarollInstitute on Churchand Social Issues(JJC-ICSI)

2/F ISO Bldg. SocialDevelopmentComplex, Ateneo deManila Univ.Loyola Hts, QCTel: 632-426-6070

Partnership ofPhilippine SupportService Agencies(PHILSSA)

3/F HoffnerBuilding, SocialDevelopmentComplex, Ateneode ManilaUniversity, LoyolaHeights,Quezon CityTel: 632-426-4328 /426-0811Fax: 632- 426-4327

UP School of Laborand IndustrialRelations (UP SOLAIR)

Bonifacio Hall,Magsaysay cor E.Jacinto Sts,University of thePhilippinesQuezon CityTel: 920-7717

Labor Education andResearch Network(LEARN)

LEARN WorkersHouse94 Sct. Delgado St.,Bgy. Laging Handa,Kamuning, QuezonCity,1103PhilippinesTel: 632-376 1343;332 1434; 376 6736

Miriam’s College- WAGI (Womenand Gender Institute)

Miriam College, DilimanQuezon CityTel: 632-435922932)435-922943592429+632)435-9229

UP-Center for Women Studies(UPCWS)

Ylanan St. cor Magsaysay Ave.,University of the Philippines,Diliman, QC920-6880/ [email protected]/

Women’s Education,Development, Productivity andResearch Organization (WeDpro)

P.O. Box 2985 Quezon CityCentral Post Office, NIA Road,Diliman, Quezon City, PhilippinesTelefax: +63.2.4267479

Women’s Legal Bureau (WLB)

Room 305, 3rd Flr., College ofSocial Work and CommunityDevelopment Magsaysay Avenue,UP Diliman, Quezon CityTel: 632-9214389Fax: 632- 9214389Email: [email protected]: www.womenslegalbureu.org

ISIS International3 Marunong Street Brgy.Central, Quezon City, PhilippinesTel: 632- 9281956Fax: 632- 9241065Url: www.isiswomen.org

Coalition Against Trafficking inWomen-Asia-Pacific (CATW-AP)

Room 608, Sterten Place116 Maginhawa St.Teacher’s Village, QCTelefax: 632- 434 2149Email: [email protected]

Lumah Ma Dilaut

B-1 HKI Bldg,Veterans Ave.Extension,Tumaga Road,Zamboanga CityTelefax: 63 62 9850277Email:[email protected]

PanagtagpoMindanao IPConsultativeCouncil

Sepnio Cmpd.Davao del Sur,Philippines 8000 Tel. 63-82- 2441508

Annex 2Contact Details of select groups

Chap

ter



Issue-based, Research Institutes and Regional-international think tanks

Social-Cultural Disaster Economy, Education Environment HealthPreparedness, Development

structural safety

ADMU-Institute of Phil.Culture (IPC)

CCS Bldg, Social DevtComplex, Ateneo de ManilaUniversityLoyola Hts, QCTel:Fax:Email:

DLSU-Social DevelopmentResearch Center (SDRC)

3/F William Hall, De LaSalle University2401 Taft Ave. ManilaTel: 632-524-46-11 loc 402/524-5349Telefax No. 632-524-5351E-mail: [email protected]

John J. Caroll- Institute forChurch and Social Issues(JJC-ICSI)

2/F ISO Bldg. SocialDevelopment Complex,Ateneo de Manila Univ.Loyola Hts, QCTel: 632-426-6070

Assn. of StructuralEngineers of thePhilippines (ASEP)

Suite 713 FuturePoint Plaza 112Panay Ave. QuezonCity Telefax 632-4118606Email:[email protected]

Ateneo Center forEconomic Researchand Devt

4/F Leong HallAteneo de ManilaUniversity LoyolaHts, QC

Center forAlternativeDevelopmentInitiatives (CADI)

110 Sct. Rallos,Timog, Quezon CityTel. 632- 928-3986/ 928-7608Fax: 632-928-7608Email:[email protected]

Center forEconomic PolicyResearch (CERP)

2nd Floor ZETABldg., Salcedo St.,Legazpi Village,Makati CityTel. 632-635-5201to 5Fax: 632-633-9786Email:[email protected]

Action forEconomic Reform(AER)

3rd Floor, No. 40,Matulungin StreetCentral District,Quezon CityPhilippines Tel:632-4265626url:www.aer.ph

Freedom from DebtCoalition (FDC)

11 Matimpiin St.Brgy. PinyahanQuezon CityTel. 632-921 1985Fax: 632-924 6399Url: www.fdc.ph

Linguistic Society ofthe Philippines

LSP SecretariatDe La SalleUniversity – Manila2401 Taft Avenue,Manila 1004,PhilippinesTel No (632)[email protected]@gmail.com

Green Mindanao(GeographicRediscovery ofEndangeredEnvironment andNature)

Tel: (088) 2312560

Institute of Climate,Energy andEnvironment

Tel. 4265951/4266493

Green ForumPhilippines

Lot 12, Block 8Galatians St., SacredHeart Village, PhaseII, Novaliches, QCTel: 632-935-4331Fax: 632- 935-4332Email:[email protected]

Haribon Foundation

9 Malingap cor.Malumanay Sts.,West Teacher’sVillage, Diliman,Quezon CityTel: 632-925-3332 /436-2756 / 435-3208Fax: 632- 925-3331Email:[email protected]: http://www.haribon.org.ph

Legal Rights andNatural ResourcesCenter, Inc-

Kasama sa Kalikasan

3/F Puno Bldg. #47Kalayaan Avenue,Diliman, Quezon CityTel: 632-927-9670Fax: 632- 920-7172Email:[email protected]@phil.gn.apc.org

MedicinesTransparencyAlliance (MeTA)

WHO Office -G/F Bldg. No. 3Dept of HealthCmpd.Rizal Ave., cor.Tayuman St. Sta.Cruz, Manilaurl::www.metaphilippines.org.ph

Kalusugan Alang saBayan, Inc.

4B Duplex Apt.,Dau St.,Juna Subdivision,Matina,8000 Davao City


Chap

ter

4



structural safety

DLSU-Angelo KingInstitute ofEconomic andBusiness Studies

St. La Salle Hall, DeLa Salle Univ.ManilaTel: 632–5245333Fax: 632–524–5347Email:[email protected]

Phil. Institute forDevelopmentStudies (PIDS)

4th Floor NEDA saMakati Bldg., 106Amorsolo St.,Legazpi Village,Makati CityTels: 632- 893-9592 / 810-6261Fax: 632- 893-9591Url: http://www.pids.gov.ph

Focus on theGlobal South

19 Maginhawa St.UP Village, Diliman,Quezon CityTel: 632-433 1676Fax:: 632-4330899Website:www.focusweb.org

InternationalInstitute of RuralReconstruction

Y.C. James YenCenter, Km. 39AguinaldoHighway, Silang,Cavite 4118,PhilippinesTel/Fax: 63 46 4143216Email:[email protected]

Phil. Institute ofAlternative Futures

121 Pajo St.Project 3,Quezon CityTelephone No.:632-922-0023 /435-4601 / 435-4604Fax No: 632-922-0023Email Address:[email protected]

Conservation andDevelopmentSpecialistsFoundation, Inc

2/F E.C. Arcade,Demarces, Farmville,College, Laguna 4031TeleFax No.: 63-49536-5040Email:[email protected]

Network forEnvironmentalConcerns, Inc

61-A 7th St.,Nazareth, Cagayande Oro City 9000

ADMU-ManilaObservatory

Ateneo de ManilaUniv.Tel: 632-426-5921 /426-0837 / 426-6495Fax: 632- 426-0847 /426-6141Email:[email protected]

Chap

ter




structural safety

Asian Institute ofManagementPolicy Centre

4/F, AIMConference CenterManila Bldg.Benavidez Cor.Trasierra Sts.,Legaspi VillageMakati CityTrunk Line: 892-4011 ext. 2108Fax: 751-9182 or 83E-mail:[email protected]@gmail.com

Asian CulturalForum onDevelopment

338 Tandang SoraAve. Pasong TamoQCTel: 632-9391138Email:[email protected]

Asian NGOCoalition (ANGOC)

P.O. Box 3107QCCPO 1103,Quezon CityTel. 632- 929-3019/ 433-7653 /433-7654Fax: 632-920-7434Email:[email protected]

International SouthGroup Network

c/o ResourceCenter for People’sDevelopment(RCPD) #24, Unit 7,Mapang-akit St.Pinyahan,Quezon CityTel. 632- 435-0815Fax: 632-436-1831Email:[email protected]@tri-isys.comWebsite: http://www.isgnweb.org


Chap

ter

4


OFW Peace, Human Rights, Political, Institutional, Population Control/ Technology, SustainableSecurity Governance Reform Management Development

Center for MigrantAdvocacy

72-C Matahimik St.,Teachers Village Q.C.Email:[email protected]:www.pinoy-abroad.net

Scalabrini MigrationCenter

PO Box 10541Broadway CentrumNew Manila1113 Quezon CityTel. (63-2) 724-3512Fax (63-2) 721-4296

Institute for Migrationand Development Issues

653 Sanggumay Street,Plainview,Mandaluyong CityTel: 632-9203610

Gaston Z. Ortigas PeaceInstitute (GZOPI)

2nd Floor CardinalHoffner Center BuildingSocial DevelopmentComplex, Ateneo deManila UniversityLoyola Heights QCTel: 632-426 6122 / 4266001 local 4826Fax: 632-426 6064Email:[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

Phil. Action Network toControl Arms (PhilANCA)c/oMiriam College-Centerfor Peace Education,Loyola Hts. Quezon City

Sulong CARHRIHL(ComprehensiveAgreement to RespectHR and IntlHumanitarian Law)

24-F Malingap St.Teachers’ Village,Diliman QCTelefax: 632-4347623Email:[email protected]

Philippine Coalition forthe InternationalCriminal Court (PCICC)

Rm 202, No. 21 TempusPlace Matalino Road,Diliman Quezon CityTelefax: 632-4354692Email:[email protected]:www.pcicc.wordpress.com

Mindanawon

2/F Loyola Residence,Ateneo de DavaoUniversity, Roxas Ave.Davao CityTel. 6382-2212411Email:[email protected]

Institute for Politicaland Electoral Reform54-C MapagkawanggawaSt. Teacher’s Village,Diliman QCTelefax: 632-4330764Email:[email protected]: www.iper.org.ph

Center for People’sEmpowerment andGovernance (CenPEG)

3F CSWCD Bldg.,University of thePhilippinesDiliman, Quezon CityTelefax: 632-9299526Email:[email protected];[email protected]

Institute for PopularDemocracy

Tel: 632-9280082Fax: 632-9253956Url: www.ipd.org.ph

Simbahang Lingkod ngBayan (SLB)

Loyola House of StudiesAteneo de Manila Univ.Loyola Hts. QCTelefax: 632-426-5968Url: www.slb.ph

Institute of Politics andGovernance

21-B Mabait St. Teachers’Village Diliman QCTel: 632-436-2041

Transparency andAccountability Network

Ateneo Center for SocialPolicy and Public AffairsBldg, Social DevtComplex, Ateneo deManila Univ, Loyola Hts,QCTelefax: 632-4265927Url: www.tan.org.ph

ComprehensiveResearch Program onPopulation andDevelopment-Demographic Research&Devt Found., Inc.

c/o UP PopulationInstitute, Rm. 232 PalmaHall, University of thePhilippines, Diliman,Quezon CityTel: 632- 920-5402Email: [email protected]

Appropriate TechnologyCenter

Xavier UniversityAgriculture Complex,Manresa Heights, 9000Cagayan de Oro CityTel. No.: (63)(88) 858-8962

Chap

ter



OFW Peace, Human Rights, Political, Institutional, Population Control/ Technology, SustainableSecurity Governance Reform Management Development

ADMU-Dept of PolisciWorking Group onSecurity Sector Reform

3/F Leong Hall, Ateneode Manila UnversityTelefax: 632-4260906

Institute for Strategicand Devt Studies

PSSC Bldg.Rm. 311

Commonwealth AvenueDiliman, Quezon CityTel: 632-929-0889 / Fax:632- 927-3894E-mail: [email protected]

Amnesty International-Pilipinas Section

PO Box 286 Sta MesaPost Office ManilaEmail:[email protected]:www.amnesty.org.ph

Initiatives forInternational Dialogue

27-G Galaxy Street,GSIS Heights, MatinaDavao CityTel: 63-82- 2992574/ 75Fax: 63-82-2992052

International Center forInnovation,Transformation andExcellence inGovernance (InciteGov)

11/F Prestige Tower, F.Ortigas RoadOrtigas Center,Pasig CityTel: 632-914-4059E-mail: [email protected]

UP-NCPAG Centre forLeadership, Citizenshipand Democracy

Rm. 206, NCPAG,University of thePhilippinesDiliman, Quezon CityTel. 632- 925-4109Fax 632- 920-5362email:[email protected]: www.leadership.p

UP-Third World StudiesCenter

Lower Ground Floor,Palma HallUniversity of thePhilippines, DilimanQuezon CityTel: 632-981 8500 ext.2442 & 2488Telefax: 632-920 5428Email:[email protected]@gmail.com

Ateneo Center forSocial Policy and PublicAffairs

Ateneo School ofGovernment, SocialDevelopment Complex,Ateneo de ManilaUniversity, Loyola Hts.Quezon CityTel: 632-4266001 loc CSP

DLSU-Institute ofGovernance

c/o Polisci Dept. De LaSalle University, 2401Taft Ave. ManilaTel: 632-524611 loc.Polisci

Media as Civil Society:Assessing News Media Nonprofits and Their Work for Democratization

Chap

ter

5


Chapter

Media as Civil Society: Assessing News MediaNonprofits and Their Work for Democratization

5

Jeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. OpinianoJeremaiah M. Opiniano

THIRTY one media workers and journalists killed(together with 26 civilians) at a massacre inMaguindanao province in November 2009 (NationalUnion of Journalists in the Philippines and theInternational Federation of Journalists, 2009) gave agloomy end to the previous decade of work byPhilippine media and by Filipino journalists. Thecountry in Asia that has the freest press, thePhilippines, is now regarded as the planet’s mostdangerous place for journalists and media workers.

Filipino small newspaper publishers, radiocommentators, reporters, correspondents, freelancers,photographers, television camera operators, and othermedia workers who have been killed since 1986 nownumber to 131. Given the rise of these deaths during theprevious decades, media impunity is one of today’srealities affecting media’s role in Philippine democracy.The development, no matter how sordid, shows just howinfluential the press’ role in Philippine society is.

The press has thus been given labels such as watchdogand “the Fourth Estate”. The way Philippine mediaoperates, whether it is for profit or is not, made someanalysts (Coronel-Ferrer, 1997) include this sector asone of civil society groups. Such labeling has manydebatable undertones (Spurk, 2007), even as there arePhilippine media outfits or outlets that are registeredas either non-stock/non-profit/non-governmentorganizations or cooperatives (Coronel-Ferrer, 1997).Perhaps the analysts who consider media a civil societygroup are impressed by media’s power to influenceeducation of the public, exchange of ideas among policy

makers, and articulation of social issues. (de Jesus,2001)

But whether the news media sector is formally orinformally lumped together in the greater universe ofcivil society, or of civil society organizations, is not thereal issue. A healthy democracy needs credible media,and credible media benefits sectors such as civilsociety organizations and even government.

This paper, in general, looks at the Philippine newsmedia as a civil society actor and, in particular, at itscontributions to democracy. The paper does a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis ofmedia civil society organizations. It aims to help non-journalists understand the issues journalists and themedia industry face. And last but not least, it hopes toassess, or at least trigger an effort to assess the work ofmedia as a civil society organization.

The Role of JournalismThe Role of JournalismThe Role of JournalismThe Role of JournalismThe Role of Journalism

Simply put, journalism is the recording and reporting ofnews and information that happen everyday. For somejournalists, the role of journalism is to record thingsthat, to journalists’ minds, are matters of publicinterest (Estopace interview). For Bill Kovach and TomRosenstiel (2007), authors of the book Elements ofJournalism, journalism’s purpose is “to provide citizenswith the information they need to be free and self-governing.” One other purpose of journalism is toprovide people with topics to carry on a conversation.

Chap

ter

5Media as Civil Society:Assessing News Media Nonprofits and Their Work for Democratization


Journalism involves a process: reporting, editing,reviewing, and revising stories; analyses; andcommentaries (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007). Those whoreport the news do not, as a rule, make up the news. Theyrely on sources, as they follow the “leads” provided byothers.

Journalism adheres to certain news values such asprominence, proximity, impact, relevance, oddity, amongothers. David Randall (2007), in his book The UniversalJournalist, says news values cover what happened, whatpeople are experiencing, what people say is or washappening, what people say will happen, and what peopleare saying. Good reporters, for Randall, are those who:

1. Discover and publish information that replacesrumor and speculation;

2. Resist or evade government controls;3. Inform, and empower voters;4. Subvert those whose authorities rely on a lack of

public information;5. Scrutinize the action and inaction of

governments, elected representatives, and publicservices;

6. Scrutinize business, their treatment of workersand customers, and the quality of their products;

7. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable;8. Hold up a mirror to society, reflecting its virtues

and vices and also debunking its cherishedmyths;

9. Promote the free exchange of ideas, especially byproviding a platform for those with philosophiesalternative to the prevailing ones; and

10. Ensure that justice is done, is seen to be done,and investigations carried out.

Journalists attempt to practice objectivity, even if thereare criticisms that they do not have that virtue. TheElements of Journalism answers the criticism by sayingthat objectivity is “a method employed in producingjournalism” that includes collecting data and validatingthe evidence and from these, formulating a perspective ortruthful conclusion based on verified facts. (Kovach andRosenstiel, 2007)

In a situation where everybody tries to capture theattention of the press, Elements of Journalism offers threerelevant points:

1. The essence of journalism is the discipline ofverification. What is important is to get thefacts right. Journalists must get the backgroundand contexts of the stories.

2. Journalistic objectivity follows a “scientificspirit” that involves methods such as citing asmany sources as necessary, observing carefullythe reality being reported, and referring todocumentary evidence.

3. Journalists must assure their independencefrom their sources and topics they cover.Journalists who write commentaries are stillbound by the principles of accuracy andtruthfulness as their opinions still need to bebased on verified facts. (Kovach andRosenstiel, 2007)

Journalists, whether working for profit-motivated mediaor for media that are not for profit, try to exercise theabove-mentioned roles and responsibilities. Despite themany imperfections of the Philippine press, there areastill Filipino journalists who are committed to theirresponsibility as journalists. Moreover, they look aftereach others’ welfare, especially since the spate ofkillings of journalists took place in the country.

Analytical FrameworkAnalytical FrameworkAnalytical FrameworkAnalytical FrameworkAnalytical Framework

Journalism operates in an environment where mediaoutfits or outlets provide information and stories toboth the paying and the non-paying public (for many,preferably to a paying public). The paying public caneither be those who are subsidized or those who canafford. The non-paying public can either be freeloaders(they can pay but would rather not) or those who cannotafford to pay for information.

For purposes of this paper, the three actors, namely, for-profit media, not-for-profit media, and non-mediamainstream civil society organizations target both thepaying and non-paying members of the public (seeFigure 1). As these three actors have the same targets,there might be instances when some of them will workwith each other in the sharing of information and in thetargeting of audiences.


Chap

ter

5


Figure 1: Analytical framework of the study

Note: Co-developed by the author and Dennis Estopace of the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) Journalism Consortium

Is Media PIs Media PIs Media PIs Media PIs Media Pararararart oft oft oft oft of Civil Society? Civil Society? Civil Society? Civil Society? Civil Society?

Miriam Coronel-Ferrer (1997) and Cariño (2002)provide an operational conceptualization of civilsociety, as well as the types of groups said to be a partof civil society. Civil society is neither a part of the statenor of the market. Civil society is an arena, says Ferrer,involving non-government organizations, people’sorganizations, religious organizations, the academe,media, political and social movements and parties, andbasic communities, such as families and clans.

Other scholars say that media and civil society sharesimilar functions. If civil society has seven functions—protection, monitoring, public communication,socialization, building community, intermediation, and

service delivery (Paffenholz and Spurk, 2006; Spurk,2007), the media have the following similar functions:

1. Public communication, the primary function ofmedia, and one of the many functions of civilsociety organizations;

2. Monitoring; and3. Other functions where media play minor roles

(such as building communities by providinginformation, or protection of the rights of thepeople to free speech and expression understate control.(Spurk, 2007)

In the Philippine context, for example, media and civilsociety during the time of martial law (1972-1986)shared similar aspirations such as exposing corruptionand abuse of power, demanding transparency and

Chap

ter



accountability, and protesting the curtailment offreedom of speech and of the press.

But Spurk (2007) thinks that media is not part of civilsociety because media “should not have other interestson particular issues,” and because “media relates to allsocial actors to make sure to provide them the publicspace for debate and exchange among them.” Civilsociety groups are among these social actors.

Spruk (2007) gives, however, one exception: mediaorganizations registered as civil society organizations(i.e. non-stock, nonprofit) are part of civil society. Evenwith this exception, Spruk observes this “might lead toconfusion.... These (nonprofit media) associationsbelong to civil society, but not the media asorganizations on its own.”

Media Interfacing with Civil Society:Philippine Experiences

History has shown that activists, media workers andjournalists are allies. Much earlier, during the tail-endof the Spanish colonization, Filipino revolutionariesused the “media” to share their discoveries (e.g. earlyplant species discovered), and to voice out theiropinions against colonizers. An example is LaSolidaridad (Teodoro, 1998; de Jesus and Teodoro,2001).

During martial law, especially after the assassinationof Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. such partnership wasevident. For example, the Archdiocese of Manilareleased news publications such as Cor Manila andVeritas News Magazine. These publications tried toprovide information amidst the government’scurtailment of press freedom and many other civilliberties.

Even after martial law and EDSA 1, the implicit alliancebetween media workers and journalists and some civilsociety organizations continued. When there was stillan organization called PRESS, Inc., journalists eventaught civil society organizations and activists how torelate with the media and how to get their views andadvocacies into the mainstream media. They weretrained how to write press releases and organize pressconferences. For quite some time, there were some

newspaper columnists who were affiliated with somecivil society organizations. As for the “Left,” its networkof organizations has never wavered in getting mediaattention through press releases and press conferences.At present, many journalists still feel that some civilsociety groups do not have the skill to package theirmessage to the media. Journalists and editors, eventhose belonging to media nonprofits, look for the“newsy” elements in stories, and civil societyorganizations do not know how to make their messagenews worthy (Civil Society Resource Institute or CSRI,2010). Civil society was noticed by the media as a newsworthy sector only in the late 1990s. Reporterspublished stories about them: their rallies andadvocacies. Journalists reported civil societyorganizations’ analyses of current socio-economic andpolitical issues, such as agrarian reform and disastermanagement (CSRI, 2010). National newspapers invitedsome civil society leaders to write commentaries.Television and radio networks invited them as guests intalk shows.

Civil society, indeed, has gained a space in mainstreammedia reportage since the 1990s. Some civil societypersonalities and volunteers became the darling of thepress. Von Hernandez of Greenpeace Philippines andEfren Peñaflorida and his school-on-the-streetscampaign were only two of the more prominent ones.Civil society leaders who held cabinet positionsnaturally became subjects of media reportage.Examples were former Agrarian Reform secretariesErnesto Garilao during the Ramos administration andHoracio Morales during the Estrada administration.Examples during the Arroyo administration were formerSocial Welfare secretary Corazon Juliano Soliman,former Peace Panel chair Teresita Deles, and formerCivil Service Commission chair Karina David.

Some mainstream civil society organizationscollaborate with media nonprofits. One example is theAccess to Information Network (ATIN), an advocacynetwork convened by the Makati Business Club. In thelast few years of the 1990s, ATIN, led by Vince Lazatin,co-convened with for-profit media organizations three-day conferences called “Media Nation”. It advocates forgovernment transparency and accountability ofgovernment officials. Media nonprofits and ATINcollaborated to lobby for the passage of the proposedFreedom of Information Act. Media nonprofitscollaborate with some civil society organizations in


Chap

ter

5


monitoring Philippine elections. One other noticeableengagement between media, particularly the for-profitmedia, and civil society organizations, is when thePhilippine Daily Inquirer, ABS-CBN BroadcastingCorporation, and the Sun Star Group of Publicationsjoined the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP).

But as civil society groups have gained increasingmedia attention, some journalists have also reportedon issues (e.g. financial improprieties) facing civilsociety organizations. One theme was the use offoundations by Presidents Joseph Estrada and GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo (or the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo)to allegedly divest public funds under the guise ofgiving to the poor. Another was the alleged misuse offunds granted by international and local organizations.Examples are the alleged anomalies in the NationalIntegrated Protected Areas (NIPAS) funded by the WorldBank, the alleged unauthorized expenditures by theTropical Disease Foundation, recipient of grants fromthe Global Fund to fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria,and alleged profiteering from charity donations of thePhilippine Children’s Fund of America. A specific casereported by the media in the 1990s involved the Caucusfor Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO). CODE-NGOproposed the floating of the so-called PovertyEradication Bonds, ten-year-zero coupon bonds with aface value of P35 billion. CODE-NGO raised around P1.4billion, but it turned out that the fund benefited CODE-NGO itself. (Note: The proceeds went to a separatefoundation, the Peace and Equity Foundation (PEF), andthese proceeds were earmarked to fund developmentprojects. The issue created a huge debate not justamong finance experts, but also among civil societygroups themselves. The bonds will mature by 2011.)

The history of media and civil society organizationsengagement and the dilemma faced by the Philippinepress with regards to advocacy and objectivity is aptlydescribed by Luis Teodoro (2001):

The Philippine press... is torn between thevalues of the advocacy tradition that came intobeing as a Filipino nation was being born, andthose of the American tradition, with its claimsto press freedom and “objectivity.” Dailypractice, as well as recent experienceparticularly the Martial Law period, haveconfirmed the press’ need not only for pressfreedom but also to include the right to

question the very validity of the social,economic and political structures that havebeen so sacrosanct... [The press] is caughtbetween assumptions that are still based onthe nebulous and indefensible principle of“objectivity,” on the one hand, and the starkdemarcation of practice which, at least forsome newspapers, has revealed the imperativeof advocacy in a society vastly imperfect.

Nature of Media Civil SocietyNature of Media Civil SocietyNature of Media Civil SocietyNature of Media Civil SocietyNature of Media Civil SocietyOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizationsOrganizations

The Philippine media sector is largely operated and runby private companies and individuals. The decades-oldsituation of business operating news media has beencriticized for the following reasons: The businessman -publisher controls news reporting to the interest of thebusinessman; media is used to malign businesscompetitors and government adversaries; and the editorhas no independence. (Coronel, 1998)

But there are a few media outfits registered as non-stock, non-profit corporations or as cooperatives.(Note: Actually, a cooperative as an organizationalstructure is the most ideal set up of an independentmedia organization. It is because all journalists andeditors are part-owners of the news organization, theorganizational set up allows for greater editorialindependence, and there is also an economic model toensure the financial sustainability of the mediaorganization. A leading example of a news cooperativeis the Associated Press (AP). AP is a cooperative ownedby its member-newspapers, radio stations, andtelevision stations in the US.) These are the mediaoutfits Miriam Coronel-Ferrer (1997) classifies asmedia civil society organizations. They do privateaction for the public good. Although, the civil society ofprinciple of doing “private action for the public good” issomething for-profit media outfits also do. Yet thesemedia outfits are primarily for-profit.

Formation of Media Civil SocietyOrganizations

All the few media nonprofits in the Philippines pursuecredible stories. This pursuit as well as the crediblestories themselves is their contribution to democracy.

Chap

ter



The development of these Filipino media nonprofitsexhibits certain trends and characteristics, namely:

1. Nonprofit media journalists and workers areconcerned with the way the news is reported by themainstream commercial media. One focus ofconcern is the proliferation of sensational storiesand of “infotainment” (i.e. the merger of informativeand entertainment elements in a news story, suchas stories about movie and television celebrities).Another is the lack of depth in many of the newsreports. To remedy this, some media nonprofitsfocus on investigative reporting. Others writestories about specific sectors or issues that carrysubstance and fresh angles (e.g. women, overseasFilipinos, environment)

It does not mean, however, that the mainstreammedia does not entirely produce credible storiessuch as investigative and explanatory reports.Some of the leading newspapers, even at the risk oflosing advertising revenue, form investigativereporting teams and produce investigative reports.There are also notable for-profit mediaorganizations with respectable news content.Newsbreak is an example, even if it has mergededitorially and operationally with ABS-CBNNews.com (the online media outfit of ABS-CBNChannel 2) since 2008. It is now called ABS-CBNNews.com/Newsbreak.

Regardless of nonprofit media’s concerns aboutmainstream media, journalism, whether for-profitor nonprofit, always asks the following criticalquestions about a story: “what’s in it for thepublic?” and “why should the public even careabout the story?” (Estopace interview)

2. Suspecting that some critical socio-economic andpolitical issues are underreported or reportedwithout enough explanations and analysis of thepublic’s stake in them, media nonprofits producemainstream stories with substantial explanationand analysis. These efforts tend to pushmainstream media to investigate issues and writeabout them with better explanations and analysis.

3. The development of nonprofit media has been inpart, due to issues involving the media, such ascorrupt journalists, curtailment of press freedom,

and the safety and welfare of journalists. Nonprofitmedia responds by promoting ethics in journalism,building the capacities of journalists to practicethe science of news verification (de Jesus, 2009),and exerting more efforts to write better stories.

4. Mainstream journalists and media workersencounter difficulties in practicing the science ofnews verification because of time pressure – theyhave to produce news everyday, and swiftly. Mediacivil society organizations makeup for them byproducing stories with sufficient content anddeeper analysis.

5. Some nonprofit media link journalists and mediaworkers to ordinary people (Blundell, 1980), whilemaintaining editorial independence. They do thisnot only to hear peoples’ views on certain issues, orto impress upon the people the relevance of news totheir daily lives, but to stir the public to act.Nonprofit media and partner media outlets providevenues for dialogue. Through the news they report,citizens, government, business, mainstream civilsociety organizations and other actors are providedwith material to discuss. (Batario, 2004)

Brief History and Profile of MediaBrief History and Profile of MediaBrief History and Profile of MediaBrief History and Profile of MediaBrief History and Profile of MediaCivil Society OrganizationsCivil Society OrganizationsCivil Society OrganizationsCivil Society OrganizationsCivil Society Organizations

Historical retrace. The Philippines was host to thegrowth and development of an Asia-wide nonprofitmedia organization. The now defunct Press Foundationof Asia (PFA), whose headquarter was in Manila, wasformed in the 1970s and batted for a concept called“development journalism.” Its contention was that themainstream media did not cover enough stories onissues of population, science and technology, health,nutrition, and education. PFA had programs to instillupon journalists “a new value system and a sense ofmission appropriate to... conditions in Asia.” PFA wasfounded by Amitabha Chowdhury. It had Alan Chalkley(British), Jose Luna Castro, Romeo Abundo and Juan L.Mercado as either chiefs executive or as editorialdirectors. A PFA operated a news service, DEPTHNews(Development Economic and Population Themes News),was broadcasted in several Asian countries.

PFA won a Ramon Magsaysay Award for InternationalUnderstanding in 1991 for its trailblazing work on


Chap

ter

5


reporting socio-economic issues in Asian countries andfor training journalists. It formally ceased operationsin the mid 1990s. (Ramon Magsaysay AwardsFoundation, 1991)

Under martial law the government controlled the press.Journalists who wrote or broadcast stories critical ofthe government were either seized, jailed, forced toresign, fired by newspaper owners, slapped withharassment suits, or killed. Among the journalists whowere jailed was PFA stalwart Mercado. Newspapersknown to be critical of Marcos were shut down. TheDepartment of Public Information ordered thepublication of “objective news reports” and bannededitorial commentaries (de Jesus and Teodoro, 2001).Philippine Daily Express, Times Journal, Bulletin Today,and Evening Post continued to operate under theseconditions.

Martial law was lifted in 1981, but President Marcosretained authoritarian power. He issued presidentialdecrees that limited the freedom to information. It wasat this time that the mosquito press (de Jesus andTeodoro, 2001), underground publications that carriedstories critical of the Marcos administration, appeared.They were We Forum, Mr. and Ms. Magazine, BusinessDay, Malaya, Philippine Times, Cor Manila, Veritas NewsMagazine, among others.

The assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.provided a turning point for the Philippine media andits efforts at fighting suppression. Civil societyorganizations and activists allied with mediaorganizations. Finally, the victory of People Power in1986 restored the freedom of speech, expression, and ofthe press. Some of the newspapers that closed downduring the Marcos regime, such as Manila Chronicle andManila Times reopened: Two new broadsheets, thePhilippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star werepublished and are now the Philippines’ most renownednewspapers.

Democratic restoration and press freedom offered anopening for some journalists to set up media nonprofitorganizations.

A media civil society organization leader calls medianonprofits “media development organizations” (Batariointerview). Others refer to media nonprofits as “mediaadvocacy groups” (Article 19 and Center for Media

Freedom and Responsibility, 2005). Regardless of howthey are called, the few media civil societyorganizations may be classified into:

• Registered nonprofit organizations ofjournalists, newspaper publishers, andoperators of broadcast media outlets;

• Facilitator groups promoting press freedomand democracy;

• Specialized reporting groups;• Media nonprofits working with communities

and citizens;• Sector-oriented reporting groups;• News cooperatives; and• News outlets run by church groups.

1. Registered nonprofit groups of journalists,newspaper publishers, and operators of broadcastmedia outlets. These groups are also consideredindustry associations.

The oldest of these associations is the NationalPress Club (NPC), formed in 1952 by the father ofPhilippine journalism, Teodoro “Ka Doroy”Valencia. NPC is housed in its aging office locatedin the heart of Intramuros, Manila where there is abar and a restaurant, a VIP conference room, and amembers’ lounge. NPC holds elections annually(www.nationalpressclub.multiply.com). NPC, in itsfirst years of formation, sought to disseminate newsthrough a center for the advancement of journalists’professional standards and skills. NPC wouldreprimand abusive media practitioners, such asthose who engaged in the so-called “envelopmentaljournalism.”

The Philippine Press Institute (PPI), founded in1964 by then Evening News editor Juan L. Mercadois committed to the defense of press freedom andpromotion of ethical standards. PPI holds annualmembership conferences, journalists’ fora onspecialized reporting themes and on press ethics,and sponsors the annual community / civicjournalism awards to the best provincialnewspapers. This non-stock, nonprofit nationalassociation of newspapers and newspaperpublishers was closed during martial law andresumed its activities in 1987 soon after thedownfall of Marcos. (Note: The old communitypress awards got support from the Konrad

Chap

ter



Adenauer Stiftung-Philippines. When KAS-Philippines ceased supporting the awards, theCoca-Cola Export Corporation’s Philippine officetook over the giving of support. Since 2008, theawards are now called the “Civic JournalismAwards”.)

Regarded by some media peers as the rival of NPCis the National Union of Journalists in thePhilippines (NUJP). Like PPI, NUJP was dormantduring martial law. Revived in 2004, it now has anoperational national secretariat. NUJP (Paraaninterview), has 62 chapters nationwide, and over800 journalists as members. NUJP looks after theinterests of Filipino journalists and aims tomaintain media workers’ commitment to pressethics. Among its activities are: a) managing amedia safety institute that records media workers’killings, reports threats to journalists, conductssafety training to journalists, and providesscholarships to the family members left behind bythe slain media workers and journalists; b)conducting workshops and journalists’ fora onspecialized reporting themes and on press ethics; c)organizing activities related to its being thePhilippine affiliate of the International Federationof Journalists (IFJ); and d) collaborating with othermedia development organizations on specialprojects.

Regarded as the “archrival” of PPI is the Publishers’Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PAPI). Amajority of PAPI’s membership are publishers ofcommunity newspapers, but it also includespublishers of tabloids. PAPI annually holds annualconferences called “National Press Forums.” Notmuch documented history about PAPI is available.

There are many press clubs and associations ofjournalists whose members are based on certaintypes of news beat, such as news about nationalgovernment agencies, police beats, business beats,sports beats, science beats, among others.Examples of these associations are the EconomicJournalists Association of the Philippines (EJAP)and the Philippine Science Journalists, Inc.(PSciJourn). There are press clubs based in theprovinces and rural communities, but many of themare not registered as nonprofits. They are primarilyfocused on solidarity of the reporters covering the

same beat. The Cagayan de Oro Press Club (COPC)is one example.

Some beat reporters for national broadsheets alsoobserved that some of these “press clubs” or“newsbeat organizations” are closely linked to theirsources in the beats (e.g. government sources).

The broadcast media has an industry-levelorganization called the Kapisanan ng mgaBrodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP). As the foremostbroadcast media organization, it aims to advanceresponsible broadcasting and to sustain thehighest standard of quality in the broadcastindustry through self regulation. KBP’s regularmembers consist of owners and operators of radioand television stations. The radio and televisionstations themselves are associate members. Stationmanagers of these stations sit in KBP meetings andassemblies.

KBP’s program currently includes: a) enforcementof the Broadcast Code, which sets the standards ofperformance and ethical conduct for the broadcastindustry; b) maintenance of the KBP StandardsAuthority, the body of peers that acts as the self-regulation mechanism of KBP); c) broadcastjournalism training; d) advocacy throughannouncements of issues such as health, voters’education, children’s welfare, among others; e)screening of advertisements on television throughthe Advertising Standards Council; f) enforcing theTechnical Standards and Operating Requirementsfor Broadcast Stations; f) maintaining highstandard of radio surveys through the RadioResearch Council, which acts as a clearinghouse ofradio audience surveys; g) accrediting radioannouncers; h) promoting radio as an advertisingmedium through the sales directors’ meetings ; andi) accrediting advertising agencies. Connected withthe accreditation of advertising agencies are KBP’sGolden Dove Awards and Radio Ad Awards. Stillrelated to the accreditation of advertising agenciesare its conferences for local leadership and toplevel management. (www.kbp.org.ph)

2. Facilitator groups promoting press freedom anddemocracy. The Center for Media Freedom andResponsibility (CMFR), created in 1989, was one ofthe new media civil society organizations formed


Chap

ter

5


after EDSA 1. Its initial aim was to monitorperformance of the media and to insure pressfreedom under the newly restored democracy.Behind its establishment were two veteranjournalists during the anti-Marcos struggle,Melinda Quintos de Jesus, then associate editor ofVeritas News Magazine, published by theArchdiocese of Manila, and former University of thePhilippines College of Mass Communication deanLuis Teodoro, Jr.(de Jesus interview) CMFR’sprograms cover the following areas:

a) Media monitoring and review, where the centerpublishes stories about the press’ coverage ofcertain issues. The stories are published in thePhilippine Journalism Review and in the PJRReports. Stories written by the mainstreammedia on certain socio-economic and politicalevents are also analyzed.

b) Journalistic excellence, where CMFR givesawards to outstanding investigative as well asexplanatory reporting pieces. The awards areknown as the Jaime V. Ongpin Awards forExcellence in Journalism (JVOAEJ). All Filipinojournalists writing stories for media outlets,including media nonprofits, are eligible to benominated for the awards. (Note: The annualJVOAEJ ceased temporarily after the 20th editionof the awards was held in 2009 (Melinda deJesus, 2009) due to lack of funding. The JVOAEJalso had various winners that came from afamiliar institution: the nonprofit PhilippineCenter for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ).)

c) Freedom watch, where CMFR monitors threatsto press freedom, such as the killings ofjournalists, laws, regulations and policiesaffecting press freedom and the media industry,such as the proposed Freedom of InformationAct. CMFR publishes a yearly publication,Journalism Asia that reports on the state of thepress and the issues affecting media in Asia.

d) Setting up Citizens’ Press Councils (CPCs),where CMFR works with media partners, theacademe, and non-government organizations inplanning, building, and launching local presscouncils. Citizens and stakeholders incommunities may present their complaints

about the accuracy of media reports andmedia’s failure to respond to complaintsthrough the Citizens’ Press Councils. CMFR hashelped set up CPCs in Cebu City, Baguio City, andPalawan province. (www.cmfr-phil.org)

3. Specialized reporting groups. In 1989, a band of ninejournalists working for national broadsheets led byformer Manila Chronicle reporter Sheila Coronelestablished the Philippine Center for InvestigativeJournalism (PCIJ). The nine journalists had realizedfrom their years of experience at the news desk andon the field that newspapers and broadcastagencies had to go beyond day-to-day reportage andhad to conduct investigations on current issues,especially on matters of large public interest. Theyclaimed, they did not intend to replace commercialmainstream media but rather, they merely wanted toencourage investigative journalism in the daily workof journalists. (www.pcij.org)

PCIJ has produced over 500 investigative reports,including the ones that exposed the unexplainedwealth of former President Joseph Estrada. It hasalso published books that give tips to reporters onhow to get sources and documents for story themes,such as environment, judiciary, and others. PCIJconducts training workshops on investigativejournalism. It gives grants to Filipino reporters whowish to pursue stories. It has a multi-media deskthat uses broadcast and electronic media (includingits renowned website, www.pcij.org) to share itsinvestigative reports and to produce full-lengthdocumentaries.

PCIJ, perhaps the most renowned media civil societyorganization in the Philippines, is a multi-awardedmedia outfit locally. But internationally, it has beenrecognized by the US-based Center for InternationalMedia Assistance “as a model among independentmedia organizations” (www.pcij.org).

PCIJ, now 20 years old, has been successful iningraining the concept of “investigative journalism”into the consciousness of Filipino journalists, amidthe risks and costs of pursuing investigative reports.

4. Media nonprofits working with communities andcitizens, The Center for Community Journalism andDevelopment (CCJD) is a nonprofit working with

Chap

ter



communities and citizens. Established by a group ofjournalists and development workers forjournalists working with communities, citizens, andinstitutions for social change, it was registeredwith SEC in 2001. CCJD promotes “publicjournalism,” “a framework that encourages andprovides a forum for public debate over issues thatare most important to citizens” (Center forCommunity Journalism and Development, 2004).Journalists report about issues affecting localcommunities, and media outfits facilitate dialogueamong community stakeholders (citizens, localgovernment units, business groups, civil societyorganizations, academics in the community, etc.) onissues affecting their communities. Duringdialogue, journalists maintain their independenceas they report the stories. In public journalism, themain job of journalists is to observe and reportwith a certain degree of detachment, and to“challenge communities to seize opportunities forcharting their own future” (Center for CommunityJournalism and Development, 2004).

CCJD runs the following programs: a) Publicjournalism training program, where it acts as afacilitator to bridge journalists with communitystakeholders, and then train journalists and fellowmedia civil society organizations (CSOs); b) Media,Democracy and Development Initiatives (MEDDIA)program, which seeks to renew media ethics andsense of responsibility, increase public awarenesson the right to information, improve investigativereporting, and strengthen media-citizens relationsto better address governance issues and concerns;and c) Publications and knowledge tools. CCJD actsas the Southeast Asia office of the InternationalNews Safety Institute (INSI). In addition, CCJD offersa certificate course on public journalism incooperation with academic institutions. (Note:Under the MEDDIA program, CCJD collaborated withfor-profit independent media group Newsbreak andthe PCIJ to do: i) investigative reporting training; ii)promote citizen journalism activities; and iii)launch a news and database portal on democracyand local governance. This project was funded bythe United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) andhad the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) in the Philippines as partner.)

In collaboration with other media CSOs, CCJDthrough its MEDDIA program, carried out a two-year project called the Philippine Human RightsReporting Project (PHRRP) — co-implementersinclude the NUJP and MindaNews, a mediacooperative based in Davao City. This project isunder the United Kingdom-based Institute for Warand Peace Reporting (IWPR). A project coordinatorfrom IWPR is stationed in the Philippines. PHRRP,from 2008 to 2009, when cases of killing ofjournalists were on the rise, posted on a website,www.rightsreporting.net, reports about thesekillings and shared them to the mainstream media.PHHRRP also came out with a reporters’ manualand tool kit on human rights reporting in thePhilippines.

Taking off from the success of PHRRP, CCJD andimplementing partners will soon launch thePhilippine Public Transparency Reporting Project(PPTRP), a project that aims is to see to it thatjournalists report and monitor incidences ofpublic corruption. The PPTRP will train localjournalists on transparency reporting, conductroundtable discussions on specific issues relatedto transparency and accountability, run a newswebsite through which it will share reports ontransparency, accountability, and corruption, andpilot four projects on monitoring transparency andaccountability in the Visayas and Mindanao(Fajardo interview).

Among the showcases of public journalism, carriedout with the help of CCJD are a) the reportage ofenvironmental issues by Bandillo ng Palawan, acommunity newspaper in Palawan; b) the reportageabout the work of NGOs and about the hazards of ahospital’s incinerator by The Visayas Examiner, acommunity newspaper in Iloilo City; c) the two-hour Pulso ng Bayan radio program of DXCA-FM inNorth Cotabato that allows local communitymembers to monitor the performance of the mediain North Cotabato; d) and the work of thePhilippine Broadcasting Networks in the Bicolregion, such as DZGB Legazpi City, which airscommunity dialogues on issues such as aproposed cement plant, and DZMD in Daet,Camarines Norte, a media partner of a bilateral


Chap

ter

5


organization in a campaign against child labor(Center for Community Journalism andDevelopment, 2004).

A sub-group under this classification are medianonprofit organizations that do all sorts of storiesincluding investigative journalism.

The Alipato Media Center, born after the ouster offormer President Joseph Estrada in 2001, is thepublisher of Bulatlat, an online media outfit thatruns stories on various socio-economic andpolitical issues. Bulatlat describes itself as an“alternative media organization” that “seeks toreflect the people’s views and stand on issues thataffect their lives and their future”(www.bulatlat.com). Some of these issues arehuman rights and civil liberties, nationalpatrimony, workers’ and peasants’ rights, overseasmigrants’ rights and welfare, women, indigenouspeoples, and environment. Bulatlat seeks tocontribute to the fight for truth, justice, andfreedom, to fight against all forms of oppression,and, abuse misuse of power by the country’s toppolitical leaders. Its stories have made it to thefinals of the Jaime V. Ongpin Awards for Excellencein Journalism.

Vera Files was established as a nonprofit in 2008 byeditors and journalists, some of whom wereformerly with the mainstream media, while othersare still with it. It is a young nonprofit, but itsstories had gained public notice even before 2008.Vera Files’ stories have been published in nationalbroadsheets, and its writers have won awards andproject grants from donor organizations. Vera Filescovers not only investigative reports, but alsofeature stories and movie and book reviews. Some ofthese stories are shared with media organizationsfor free, while others (especially investigativereports) are syndicated to the national broadsheets.Vera Files has videos and pod casts. Complementingthe online journalism of Vera Files are sideactivities such as: a) commissioned research andreporting projects; b) special editorial projects (e.g.manual on reporting about maternal health,supported by the United Nations Population Fund);c) capability-building activities with other sectors;and d) mentoring of journalism students andprovincial journalists (Chua and Olarte interview).

5. Sector-oriented reporting groups. There are medianonprofits that report about specific issues andsectors. Some of them were formed upon theinfluence of foreign media organizations, whileothers were initiated by local journalists.

One sector-oriented media nonprofit is thePhilippine bureau of the Women’s Feature Service(WFS), a news service for women, and the onlywomen’s news/features syndicate. It is a project ofthe international media group Inter Press Service(IPS), a news organization reporting aboutdeveloping countries and civil society issues. WFSPhilippines offers: a) special print coverage onissues such as children, environment, humanrights, women politics, overseas workers, andothers; b) consultancy services to produceinformation materials, edit publications, andproduce popular versions of research papers; c)advocacy campaigns such as conceptualizingmedia applications to media strategies; and d)training on news and feature writing. WFSmaintains a pool of journalists, reporters,stringers, and contributors who are women.(www.wfsphil.com)

Another sector-oriented media is the OverseasFilipino Workers (OFW) Journalism Consortium.Initially created in 2002 as a media-civil societyproject of a nonprofit organization — the Instituteon Church and Social Issues (ICSI), it spun off intoan independent media nonprofit in 2004. Thisproject was funded by Oxfam-NetherlandsOrganization for International Assistance (OxfamNovib) initially, until the Philippine office of theFriedrich Ebert Stiftung provided counterpartsupport. The Consortium aims to produce qualitynews and features on overseas Filipinos and onissues related to international migration. Theseissues were particularly important in the beginningof 2000, when mainstream stories about overseasFilipinos tended to focus on crime, abuse, andremittances.

The consortium produces monthly news packetscontaining four stories, and circulates them for freeby electronic mail and postal mail to Filipinos andFilipino-run media abroad and to Filipino-runmedia organizations in Metro Manila andPhilippine provinces. The consortium allows its

Chap

ter



stories to be re-produced at no cost provided it isacknowledged (Estopace and Cabuag interview;Move Magazine, 2008). The consortium is anadvocate of unconditional access to informationfor overseas Filipinos and their families.

Some journalists acknowledge OFW JournalismConsortium as a pioneer of “migration journalism.”The group’s activities are mostly funded byvolunteers and members. Its budget in 2004 wasP150, 000.

Peace and Conflict Journalism Network (PECOJON)is another sector-oriented media group. PECOJONwas founded in 2004 as a Philippine-Germanpartnership project. It grew into an internationalnetwork of print and broadcast journalists,filmmakers and journalism teachers from fourcountries, “who focus on implementing andmainstreaming responsible and high qualityreporting of conflict, crisis, and war”(www.pecojon.org). PECOJON’s internationalheadquarters is its Philippine chapter office inCebu City. Its activities are: a) implementing a“refined journalistic framework” on conflict andpeace reporting; b) information sharing amongconflict reporters at an international level; c)training and education activities on peace andconflict journalism and on handling stress andtrauma for war journalists; and d) activities relatedto improving the safety and security of journalists.PECOJON also offers travel services for journalists,such as assistance in scheduling trips, securityadvisories about the country of destination, andprofessional assistance by linking journalists toPECOJON members in various countries.(www.pecojon.org).

Another media CSO focusing on a specific sector isthe Union of Catholic Asian News (UCANews), whosefocus is the Catholic Church in Asia. UCANews waslaunched in Hong Kong in 1979, and currently hasits administrative headquarters in Hong Kong andits editorial headquarters in Thailand. UCANews,with close to 200 commissioned writers andreporters provides news, features, interviews,commentaries, journals, photographs, and videos(www.ucanews.com). The news organization,registered as non-stock and, nonprofit, receives

grants from Catholic donor organizations. ThePhilippine office covers lay activities, social work,protests, conflicts, and stories on faith.

6. News cooperatives. The Mindanao News andInformation Cooperative Center, which runs themedia outlet MindaNews is an active media-oriented cooperative. It was formed after a series ofmeetings collectively called the Forum of Reportersfor Empowerment and Equality (FREE)-Mindanao,attended by an informal group of 16 Cotabato City-based journalists, the Mindanao Institute ofJournalism, NGOs, and the Center for CommunityJournalism and Development. It is composed ofindependent, professional journalists who producebalanced reports about Mindanao, a regionperceived by most journalists and televisionreporters as an unsafe place. The primary activityof MindaNews is a news service that syndicatesstories to newspapers and radio stations inMindanao. It also operates a one-stop-shop forbooks about Mindanao, a photo service, aneighborhood print shop service; does video newsclips and documentation; and conducts training fornon-journalists, journalists in Mindanao, campusjournalists, and others (www.mindanews.com). Itused to convene the Mindanao Media Summits.MindaNews also has projects that receive grantsfrom donors. It collaborates with fellow medianonprofits (e.g. CCJD, NUJP) on identified specialeditorial projects.

7. Civil society organizations running media outlets.There are mainstream civil society organizationsthat publish or broadcast media outlets. TheCatholic Church is one example. The PhilippineCatholic bishops adhere to a concept called “socialcommunication” where the media is used forevangelization. Church-run media outlets producejournalism that benefits the audience.

For 62 years now, the religious congregationOblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI) publishes theMindanao Cross. Mindanao Cross, a weeklycommunity newspaper, reports socio-economic andpolitical events in Cotabato City, Maguindanao andthe nearby provinces of North Cotabato, SultanKudarat, and others. Mindanao Cross has its owneditors, reporters and correspondents, as well as


Chap

ter

5


advertising and marketing personnel that ensuresthe financial viability of the newspaper(www.balitapinoy.net).

Just recently, Mindanao Cross, in pursuit of publicjournalism, launched the Tapatan Program. This isa monthly section that will carry interviews,briefings, and informal conversations withinfluential persons and decision makers aboutrelevant issues in the communities. Journalistsfrom three media outlets (Mindanao Cross, I-Watch, and the NBDC stations) will interview apersonality of the month, publish the interview inMindanao Cross, and broadcast the same interviewin DXMS and DXND (Mercado, 2010).

The Ina nin Bikol Foundation, whose formation wasinfluenced by the Social Action Center of theArchdiocese of Nueva Caceres, has published acommunity newspaper Vox Bikol for over 25 yearsnow, Just like Mindanao Cross, Vox Bikol, based inNaga City, reports news relevant to the community.Vox Bikol also has editorial and advertising staff(www.voxbikol.net).

Similarly, the Diocese of Bangued in Abra provinceis publisher of the community newspaper Abra Today.

An environmental nonprofit group, Pusod, Inc.(based in Batangas province), was, for a long-time,the publisher of the weekly community newspaperBalikas. In 2009 Pusod sold the rights of Balikas totwo former Pusod staff members who are now thepublishers of the newspaper. The newspaper is nowfor profit.

Balikas’ stories were primarily anchored onenvironmental issues in the province. Balikas twicewon accolades in PPI’s Civic Journalism awards.

The Catholic Media Network (CMN), sometimescalled the Philippine Federation of CatholicBroadcasters is a network of some 51 radiostations that are run by the Catholic Church. WhileCMN radio stations have their own public serviceradio programs, the Catholic Church uses itsstations for social communication activities. Onepublic service radio program, CMN VeritasPilipinas-Nationwide, tackles socio-economic andpolitical issues affecting the Catholic faithful.

Another public service radio program is the SagipBuhay School on Air program, a one and half hourprogram that focuses on disaster preparedness.

CMN has an in-house sales and marketing arm,called the First to Deliver (FTD) Media Services Inc.FTD contracts services in various areas of mediamanagement, communication strategies, and eventsorganizing. FTD ensures the financial viability ofCMN and its member radio stations.(www.catholicmedianetwork.org)

The Milieu of Philippine MediaThe Milieu of Philippine MediaThe Milieu of Philippine MediaThe Milieu of Philippine MediaThe Milieu of Philippine MediaNonprofitsNonprofitsNonprofitsNonprofitsNonprofits

The Philippine media industry is not big, and somemedia outlets are struggling to survive (de Jesus andTeodoro, 2001). For-profit media outlets make up theentire industry and the above-mentioned medianonprofits make up only a small fraction.

Based on a 2003 Functional Literacy and Mass MediaSurvey (FLEMMS) of the National Statistics Office (NSO),Filipinos are mostly television viewers. In this year,radio listenership sharply declined and newspaperreadership markedly and surprisingly went up markedly.The Internet was then slowly increasing in popularity.

As of 2004, according to the Philippine Media Factbook, the Philippines has 51 broadcasting stations, 89channels (including 12 VHF channels, mostly in MetroManila), and 645 newspapers and tabloids. Some 552newspapers and tabloids are from the provinces. Thefewer newspapers and tabloids in Metro Manila have adaily circulation of over five million copies (seeAppendix 1).

All media organizations are covered by laws andregulations governing the mass media (see Appendix 2).But the country has yet to pass a Freedom ofInformation Act. Once passed, this law will providecitizens with the opportunity and right to accessinformation and records from the government. Theproposed Freedom of Information Act is being lobbiedby, among others, media CSOs and mainstream CSOs.

Media nonprofits are small-sized organizations workingon humble budgets. They are largely dependent on theproject portfolios of donor organizations. Other

Chap

ter



sources of funds come from syndicated stories (i.e.selling stories to the mainstream media), training-relatedactivities where participants pay fees, publications, andothers. To raise funds for the support of families of slainjournalists and legal fees to pursue the case against thealleged killers, the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists(FFFJ) was founded. It has raised over-P5 million frommedia outlets and the general public (de Jesus interview).

There are exceptions to the situation of small budget ofnonprofit media. Industry associations, civil societygroups that publish local community newspapers aresome of them. PCIJ, for example, has received a bigendowment from the Ford Foundation in 2003. Still, it is afact that globally, independent media organizations facethe problem of looking for who can support their kind ofjournalism and media nonprofits in the Philippines havemuch bigger challenge.

SWOT analysis of media nonprofitsSWOT analysis of media nonprofitsSWOT analysis of media nonprofitsSWOT analysis of media nonprofitsSWOT analysis of media nonprofits

This section comments on the strengths, weaknesses,opportunities of and threats to nonprofit media,presented in the table below.

As to strengths, media nonprofits produce quality storiesmainly due to the skills of the journalists and theextensive geographical reach-out of their news reports.While big newspapers and broadcast outfits (e.g.Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin,ABS-CBN Channel 2, and GMA Channel 7) attract asizeable local audience, media nonprofits attractFilipino audiences abroad who, where it not for thenonprofits, would have much less access to information.An example is the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW)Journalism Consortium. The Consortium shares storiesthat national, local and overseas-based newspapers,news websites, and broadcast media outfits havepublished/post online/broadcast.

Regarding weakness and opportunities, nonprofits havemeager resources (especially since these groups remainto be largely donor-dependent), limited economies ofscale, and are beset with politicization within theirorganizations. On the other hand, media nonprofits areflexible. Flexibility is an opportunity for them. “Citizenreporting,” for example, is an opportunity by itself, but italso makes up for the small scale of nonprofits.

But threats to media CSOs are real, and opportunitiesare not purely opportunities, for they can also bethreats. Systemic violence and focused attacks onjournalists, as well as the culture of media corruptionare obviously threats. Communication technology, onthe other hand, is a double-edged sword. Google, forexample, is a powerful medium of information, but ittends to clutter the Internet and overwhelm its userswith loads of information. The challenge for web users(including journalists and news readers) is to findcredible pieces of information and to sift facts fromopinion. Google also threatens the news media industrybecause it can post news and stories produced byjournalists and obtain advertising profits from thesenews and stories. An American columnist observes:“Google’s emerging control over publishing is shockingand worse than most people think… Journalism —reporters and editors— create much of the content thatdrives Google. After feeding, pampering and protectingthe beast that is devouring them, journalists only noware waking up to the fullness of Google’s threat toy theFourth Estate. Publishers will deserve to lose theirbusiness if they continue to roll over and let Google playits totall rigged game of ‘relevance.’” (Cleland, 2009)

Another threat is the perception that nonprofit media inthe Philippines is leftist, or at least, left-leaning. Thishas origins in the martial law days, when everyonecritical of the establishment was accused of being acommunist. Such a perception which, in a way, is linkedto the politicization within the ranks of the nonprofits,is a threat because media is supposed to be objectiveand is expected to present balanced reporting.Nonprofits should try to exercise editorialindependence, i.e. independence from any sector ofsociety. While nonprofits have more leeway in terms ofreporting about advocacies and reform agenda of civilsociety organizations, they are still expected to producestories which are news worthy, timely, relevant, andhave impact). (Batario, 2010)

Generational gap is another threat. Young journaliststend to maximize technology and old journalists havedifficulty catching up. Radio stations owned by old-timers tend to criticize local politicians. Youngreporters and anchors, on the other hand, prefer todiscuss ethics and tend to think that old-timers arecorrupt and trouble makers (Roundtable Discussion,2010). Old journalists claim they pound the beat and


Chap

ter

5


Table 1: SWOT analysis of media nonprofits

Strengths Weaknesses

• In-depth stories that even get used by the for-profit • Limited access to fund sourcesmedia (e.g. newspapers, online news websites) • Small organizational structures• Fresh angle on old subjects (limited economies of scale)• Credible sources • Fractious community of media nonprofits

• Links to mainstream CSOs • Tendency to linger in comfort zones• Independence of journalists from rent-seekers (related to economies of scale)• Credentials of the members of media nonprofits • Politicization• High threshold on contentious matters that border • Like the mainstream media, economic

on the personal and the professional operations are small.• Extensive geographical reach-out of news reports

(local communities, overseas audiences)

Opportunities Threats

• Citizen reporting • Systemic violence and focused attacks on journalists• Flexibility (small organizational structures of • Culture of media corruption

media nonprofits) • “Googlelopoly”• Technology (e.g. email, social networking, • Commodification of information

blogs and micro-blogs) • Information black-out from government and other sectors• Media convergence (print with websites/blogs (e.g. business)

and mobile phones) • Fractious “Left”• Filipino audiences worldwide eager to remain abreast • Generational gap between old and young journalists

with developments in the Philippines • Inflation

get the more newsworthy and analytical stories, whilethe young ones have a hard time digging up facts, andare easily swayed by what sources, such as pressreleases, tell them. The gap between the old and theyoung journalists will always be there. The old willalways think their way is “the standard.” The challengeis for the young to shake off apathy and try to be betterjournalists.(Estopace interview) [see Table 1 below, aswell as Appendix 3 for a list of recommendations tosupport the work of media nonprofit organizations].

Concluding ThoughtsConcluding ThoughtsConcluding ThoughtsConcluding ThoughtsConcluding Thoughts

The very existence of nonprofit media is proof that thePhilippines is a democracy. On the whole, nonprofitsare not a big sector in the media industry nor in civilsociety. But if mainstream civil society organizationsare worried that they are unable to bring forward theirissues and concerns with the “help” of the moreestablished and renowned media organizations, themedia nonprofits are there awaiting their stories.Mainstream civil society organizations mustunderstand, however, that journalists will not onlyverify the information they and other sectors (e.g.government, business, etc.) provide, but will also siftfact from opinion.

Mainstream CSOs are affected by what they observe as“standard practice” of some journalists: that CSOs’stories will be published only if journalists are paid orgiven gifts. If mainstream CSOs or other sectorsencounter such corrupt journalists, they should reportthe situation to newspaper editors, radio and televisionnews producers, and news website editors. In otherwords, mainstream CSOs should not stoop down to thelevel of the existing of culture of corruption in themedia and, all the more, remind journalists and mediaworkers that the public interest is at stake.

But mainstream CSOs themselves should uphold thevalues of civil society organizations. Since journalistsmonitor and report the activities of all sectors(including civil society organizations), these reportersassume that the anti-corruption advocates within theranks of civil society exercise transparency andaccountability within their organizations. If civilsociety organizations were to play the role of exposingthe corrupt, quoting the founder of TransparencyInternational Peter Eigen, “they have to grow into thisresponsibility”. Eigen (2009) said:

“Not all civil society groups are good. We mustbe aware that civil society has to shape upitself. They (civil society organizations) musthave a transparent financial governancesystem and have more participatory

Chap

ter



governance (structures). We also need muchmore competence among civil society leaders”.

Both nonprofit media and for-profit media can workhand in hand with mainstream civil societyorganizations in many areas, but the most visible areais reporting about the government. There is a perceptionthat media is “an adversary” to the government. As aretiring government official once told this author, “it isthe press’ fault that we have developed a society thatloves to bash each other.” This adversarial relationshipbetween government and the press “has sometimes beendeplored, while it is the only possible relationship thatis of any service at all to a free society” (de Jesus andTeodoro, 2001).As Adrian Cristobal writes: ‘

“It is government which aggravates therelationship with its policy of concealment,suppression, and secrecy. This kind of policyprecludes debate, when debate is thegovernment’s only legitimate defense againstpress criticism. On the other hand,concealment risks discovery, and the debatethen lies to the disadvantage of governmentbecause it has concealed and therefore (asperceived) lied to the public. The journalisticpresumption (and apparently the public’s aswell) is that government and others hide thingsand habitually lie to the press. Their idea of thepress is that it is a propaganda outlet. Whenthe press consents to this, it becomes the majorculprit of a conspiracy. For good rather than illis when government and business find reasonto complain about a ‘bad press,’ althoughbusiness has an edge because of itsadvertisements. As if has often been said, thepress should afflict the comfortable andcomfort the afflicted. Some believe that this is aradical formulation when it is, in fact, aconservative way.” (de Jesus and Teodoro, 2001)

At the same time, there is a mixed view as to howgovernment views civil society. On one hand, some thinkcivil society has helped a lot in reaching out to the poorand the vulnerable sectors of society —even withlimited resources. On the other hand, civil society isand has always been viewed as critical of governmentand does not offer practical alternatives in solvingsocio-economic and political problems.

The clear role of the mainstream civil societyorganizations is to press for reforms. The clear role for

journalists is to report all sides of the issue, verify factsthrough documentary evidence, and carefully observethe dynamics between government and civil society. Letthe public decide if government has done a good job ornot. Never should media’s independence be sacrificed.(de Jesus interview)

The news media should also give space to peoples’views. Some media analysts think “there is enoughevidence that people desire some clarification anddirection. There are those who are not happy with thepress, who wonder about the limits of freedom, whoquestion the effects of negative and adversarial contentthat so much of the news carries” (de Jesus andTeodoro, 2001). The experience, for example, of sectorsof the community in North Cotabato “dissatisfied” withmedia’s insensitivity, bias, prejudice, andsensationalism in reporting conflict” has forced mediaactors to provide venues for peoples’ views to be heard.(Francisco, 2004)

However, there is very little empirical data about howFilipinos view the credibility of Philippine media. In theUnited States, the Pew Research Center for the Peopleand the Press (2009) conducted a review of its 1985 to2009 surveys of the American news media. The Centerconcluded that “the public’s assessment of the accuracyof news stories ‘is not at its lowest level’” andAmericans’ views of media bias and independence “nowmatch previous lows”

In the Philippines, a survey (n=1,100 covering 14 citiesin Metro Manila) of how television viewers in MetroManila evaluate television news reveals that majorityof viewers watch television news peripherally. They payattention only to most or some, rather than all, newsitems because “they do not truly see the personalrelevance of the news to them”. Says the study’s authorsfrom the University of the Philippines Diliman’sDepartment of Communication Research (2008), “[since]people pay little attention to the main source of news.This raises a concern about how well informed thecitizenry is about current events and public affairs”. Theultimate question is: “are television viewers truly mgamanunuri ng ulat... (at) mulat?”

Journalism’s first loyalty is to the citizens. If audiencesview the stories from the Philippine press as lacking inrelevance, Filipino journalists and media workers havework to do.


Chap

ter

5


Hernando Abaya (2001). “Our vaunted Press: ACritique.” In Melinda de Jesus and Luis Teodoro(editors). The Filipino Press and Media,Democracy and Development. Quezon City:University of the Philippines Press. Pages 7 to16.

Manuel F. Almario (2001). “The Press as Social Critic.”In Melinda de Jesus and Luis Teodoro (editors).The Filipino Press and Media, Democracy andDevelopment. Quezon City: University of thePhilippines Press. Pages 16 to 19.

Article 19 (United Kingdom) and Center for MediaFreedom and Responsibility (Philippines),(2005). Freedom Expression and the Media inthe Philippines. London, United Kingdom:Article 19.

Red Batario (2004). Breaking the Norms: PhilippineCommunity Media Innovations through PublicJournalism Show that the Practice of the CraftCan Go Beyond mere Agenda Setting.Philippines: Center for Community Journalismand Development.

William Blundell (1986). The Art and Craft of FeatureWriting (First Edition). New York, United Statesof America: Penguin Books USA Inc.

Pura Santillan-Castrence (2001). “The Impact of thePress on Philippine Society.” In Melinda deJesus and Luis Teodoro (editors). The FilipinoPress and Media, Democracy and Development.Quezon City: University of the PhilippinesPress. Pages 5 to 7

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (2004a).Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Study inContradictions. Makati: CMFR.

______________________________________ (2004b). AReport on the Campaign and Elections Coveragein the Philippines 2004 (Citizen’s MediaMonitor). Philippines: CMFR.

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (2003).Media and Local Government: Corruption andAccess to Information. Makati: CMFR.

Scott Cleland (2009). “Wake up to Google’s threat tojournalism.” The Seattle Times, 6 February. Inhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/

Bibliography and other recommended references

opinion/2008716301_opinb07cleland.html(accessed on 26 July 2010).

Sheila Coronel (2008). “The Media as Watchdog.”Presentation at the Harvard University-WorldBank Workshop on the Role of the News Mediain the Governance Reform Agenda.” 19 May,Washington, D.C. USA.

_____________ (2001). “The Media, The Market andDemocracy: The Case of the Philippines.” ThePublic, 8 (2): pages 109-126.

_____________ (1997). “Media Responsibility and thePolitics and Business of Media Ownership.” InMiriam Coronel-Ferrer (editor). Civil SocietyMaking Civil Society (Philippine DemocracyAgenda Volume 3). Quezon City: University ofthe Philippines—Third World Studies Center.Pages 243-258.

Adrian Cristobal (2001). “An Apology for an Unbridled,Irresponsible Press.” In Melinda de Jesus and LuisTeodoro (editors). The Filipino Press and Media,Democracy and Development. Quezon City:University of the Philippines Press. Pages 19 to22.

Randy David (2001). Reflections on Sociology andPhilippine Society. Quezon City: University ofthe Philippines Press (the articles “PublicService Broadcasting: A Talent to Amuse or aMission to Explain,” pages 138 to 149; and“Nationhood, Democracy and Development: TheQuestions of our Time,” pages 150 to 160.)

Melinda Quintos de Jesus (2008). “What is JournalismFor?.” PJR Reports, April: pages 8 to 9.

_____________________ (2001). “Media and Society:News Media in a Democracy.” In Melinda deJesus and Luis Teodoro (editors). The FilipinoPress and Media, Democracy and Development.Quezon City: University of the PhilippinesPress. Pages 22 to 31.

Maria Serena Diokno (1997). “Becoming a FilipinoCitizen: Perspectives on Citizenship andDemocracy.” In Maria Serena Diokno (editor).Democracy and Citizenship in Filipino PoliticalCulture (Philippine Democracy Agenda Volume1). Quezon City: University of the Philippines—Third World Studies Center. Pages 17 to 38.

Chap

ter



Mike Dobbie and Ruth Pollard (editors) (2009). Massacre inthe Philippines: International Solidarity MissingRapid Assessment. Australia : InternationalFederation of Journalists-Asia Pacific and theNational Union of Journalists in the Philippines.

Peter Eigen (2009). “How to expose the corrupt,” in http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/peter_eigen_how_to_expose_the_corrupt.html(accessed on 2 March 2010)

Miriam Coronel-Ferrer (1997a). “Civil Society: AnOperational Definition.” In Maria SerenaDiokno (editor). Democracy and Citizenship inFilipino Political Culture (Philippine DemocracyAgenda Volume 1). Quezon City : University ofthe Philippines—Third World Studies Center.Pages 5 to 15.

___________________ (1997b). “Civil Society MakingCivil Society.” In Miriam Coronel-Ferrer (editor).Civil Society Making Civil Society (PhilippineDemocracy Agenda Volume 3). Quezon City:University of the Philippines—Third WorldStudies Center. Pages 1 to 19.

National Union of Journalists in the Philippines and theInternational Federation of Journalists (2009).“Massacre in the Philippines (InternationalSolidarity Mission Rapid Assessment.”December.

Rufa Cagoco-Guiam (1997). “Media and NGO/PO RebelGroup Relations and Tensions in the PeaceProcess: A Case Study.” In Miriam Coronel-Ferrer (editor). Civil Society Making Civil Society(Philippine Democracy Agenda Volume 3).Quezon City: University of the Philippines—Third World Studies Center. Pages 289-290.

Bill Kovach and Rom Rosenstiel (2007). The Elements ofJournalism: What Newspeople Should Knowand the Public Should Expect. United States of

America (where in the US?): Project forExcellence in Journalism.

Jun Mercado (2010).. “Mindanao Cross LaunchesTapatan Program,” in http://www.omiphil.org/cgi-bin/news/details.asp?news_id=144&news_category=8(accessed on 3 March 2010), 9 February.

OFW Journalism Consortium (2008). Move Magazine,October.

Ramon Magsaysay Awards Foundation (1991).“Biography of the Press Foundation of Asia.” Inwww.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Biography/BiographyPFA.htm (accessed on 2 March 2010).

David Randall (2000). The Universal Journalist. SouthAfrica: University of Cape Town Press (Pte). Ltd.

Vergel Santos (2007). Civic Journalism. Quezon City:Philippine Press Institute.

Luis Teodoro (2001). “The Philippine Press: Between TwoTraditions.” In Melinda de Jesus and Luis Teodoro(editors). The Filipino Press and Media,Democracy and Development. Quezon City:University of the Philippines Press. Pages 31 to35.

The Chronicle of Higher Education (United States)(2009). “Journalism in a Crisis (A SpecialIssue).” The Chronicle Review (section B), 20November.

University of the Philippines College of MassCommunication-Department of CommunicationResearch (2008). “MULAT (Manunuri ng Ulat):Viewers’ Reception and Evaluation of TelevisionNews Programs.” Ninth Extension ResearchProject, Department of CommunicationResearch.

Key informants InterviewedM. Quintos de Jesus, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (executive director)

R. Batario, Center for Community Journalism and Development (executive director)

Y. Chua and A. Olarte, Vera Files (founding trustee and reporter/member)

R. Fajardo, Philippine Public Transparency Reporting Project (project coordinator)

R. Paraan, National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (secretary-general)

D. Estopace and V. Cabuag, OFW Journalism Consortium (resident editor and treasurer, respectively)


Chap

ter

5


Appendix 1:Philippine media landscape

Table 1: Profile of the Philippines’ media infrastructure

Medium NCR I CAR II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII Total

Print 68 47 17 23 73 138 74 42 23 12 19 18 37 21 17 629

Newspapers 28 45 17 23 73 133 73 42 22 12 19 18 37 21 17 580

Magazines 40 2 5 1 1 49

Radio stations 48 45 27 30 31 74 69 59 58 25 35 45 41 32 32 651

AM 25 25 9 12 9 17 24 21 21 14 12 19 19 15 8 250

FM 23 20 18 18 22 57 45 38 37 11 23 26 22 17 24 401

Television stations 12 3 3 1 - 4 15 9 12 4 8 8 7 6 8 100

Source: Philippine Media Factbook, 2005

The Philippine media industry, while influential, is notthat big. Even some media outfits, such as nationalbroadsheets or community newspapers, are strugglingto survive —a reality that continues to this day. (deJesus and Teodoro, 2001)

Audiences. The 2003 Functional Literacy and MassMedia Survey (FLEMMS) of the National Statistics Office(Philippine Information Agency, 2005), though outdated,shows a changing landscape as regards Filipinos’media access. The 2003 FLEMMS had a sample size of83,375 individuals. Highlights were:

• Television is now Filipinos’ most preferredmedium as source of knowledge andinformation (61.8 percent);

• Filipinos who got their information andknowledge from radio in 2003 decreasedsharply from 1994 figures 80.7 percent in 1994to 56.7 percent in 2003).

• Meanwhile, those who read newspapersincreased to 46.5 percent in 2003, from 9.1percent in 1994;

• Only one-fifth of the Philippines accessinformation/knowledge from computers/Internet;

• Just above a fifth of the working Filipinopopulation (23 percent) read newspaperseveryday —and most of them are aged 50 yearsold and above. Nearly a sixth of Filipinos (58.6percent) listen to the radio everyday, while only7.4 percent of Filipinos get information/knowledge from the computer/Interneteveryday; and

• More females nationwide get their informationand knowledge from newspapers, magazines/books, television, radio, and computer/Internetthan males.

Overseas Filipinos are the unaccounted-for audiencesof Philippine media outlets. Their numbers are close to8.7 million —as overseas contract workers, permanentresidents, and undocumented migrants— and they arefound in 239 countries and territories (Institute forMigration and Development Issues, 2009). Theremittances these overseas Filipinos send to thePhilippines are a means for them to keep in touch withtheir immediate family members and relatives. Thus,these compatriots abroad communicate to kith and kin,and keep themselves abreast with news about thehomeland or their home communities. Mobile phonesare commonplace for Filipinos abroad, while thewebsites of newspapers and stand-alone news websitesoperating in the Philippines have Filipinos abroad as avisible audience segment.

Media, media outlets, and their geographical reach. As of2004, data from the Philippine Information Agency (2005)show that:

• There are 651 broadcasting stationsnationwide, 250 of which are in the AM band(see Table 1);

• There are 12 VHF channels (i.e. majortelevision stations operating in Metro Manila)and 87 UHF television stations. But thePhilippines also has 386 cable televisionoperators nationwide (see Table 1);

• There are 645 print publications, of which 89.9percent of them are broadsheet newspapersand tabloids and 7.6 percent are magazines.There are 552 newspapers and nine magazinesin the provinces, even if Metro Manila-produced national newspapers and tabloidscontinue to lord over the newspaperpublishing industry (see Table 2). Metro Manilabroadsheet newspapers have a circulation ofover 1.4 million copies daily, while tabloids

Chap

ter



Table 2: Print newspapers and magazines in Philippine provincial regions

Region Daily Weekly Monthly Others Total

No. Circulation No. Circulation No. Circulation No. Circulation No. Circulation

I 1 n.d. 35 65,350 7 5,500 2 2,120 45 72,970

CAR 1 8,000 15 65,250 1 500 17 73,750

II n.d. 12 30,300 5 2,500 6 6,600 23 39,400

III 1 46,000 67 79,000 4 9,000 1 73 134,000

IV 1 2,000 73 130,600 19 41,400 40 76,900 133 250,900

V n.d. 65 58,550 3 3,000 5 4,000 73 65,500

VI 17 249,000 15 38,450 3 100 7 36,650 42 324,800

VII 9 53,200 9 16,350 1 4,000 3 9,200 22 82,750

VIII 1 6,300 9 11,150 2 150 12 17,600

IX 3 8,000 13 17,000 3 5,000 19 30,000

X 5 23,000 8 10,000 5 8,500 18 41,500

XI 11 54,350 26 48,850 37 103,200

XII n.d. 21 30,000 21 30,000

XIII 5 1,600 9 5,200 1 2 17 6,850

Total 55 452,050 377 606,100 44 66,000 76 149,120 552 1,273,270

Source: Philippine Media Factbook, 2005

have a circulation of 4.515 million copiesdaily.

Some national newspapers and television stations setaside the non-Metro Manila media, in terms of the newsbeing reported in national media and, indirectly, interms of the provincial; media’s minuscule operationsand audience outreach (refer to Table 2). But it is theseprovincial media outlets that provide rural Filipinoswith news and information that happen in theircommunities, which the national media outfits cannotprovide. At the same time, most of the journalists andmedia workers killed come from the provincial media—one of the few developments or news from the ruralareas that land in the major headlines of nationalmedia outfits.

The 2003 FLEMMS questionnaire did not includecellular or mobile phones as sources of knowledge andinformation. Estimates show that over-45 millionFilipinos have a pre- and post-paid cellular phone, andmobile phone industry analysts worldwide once taggedthe Philippines as the mobile phone capital of theworld. Remember EDSA 2 that booted out formerPresident Joseph Estrada: After the Philippine Senatevoted not to open the envelopes containing the alleged“Jose Velarde” bank account, rallyists went to EDSAimmediately after receiving messages from the mobilephone brigade.

Filipinos abroad, even if only a scant few of them areprofessional media practitioners prior to their overseasmigration, publish community newspapers, launchwebsites for the Filipino community, and a few operateeither small radio stations or radio programs for hostcountry-operated radio networks. Unless these mediaoutfits are set up and created in overseas countries,Filipinos in those countries will not have a source ofnews information about their communities. These mediaoutlets abroad, however, circulate content that mostlycomes from the Philippines by citing stories from MetroManila newspapers and news websites

The Internet has become a relevant medium. Technologyhas allowed users, including ordinary citizens, to betheir own publishers, journalists, columnists,broadcasters, commentators, and informationadministrators. Aside from being cheap, informationfrom the Internet is swiftly delivered to intendedaudiences. Websites, social networking sites, blogs, andother Internet platforms have become visible media thathave affected the way newspapers, radio, and televisiondisseminate information. Question on this regardinclude: is the information accessed throughcyberspace quality information? Are Internet users ableto assess what is quality and relevant information fromwhat are not? Will audiences still be able to process theinformation they receive online while technology forcesaudiences to be swift, immediate, and in a hurry?


Chap

ter

5


Laws and regulations governing the media sector. LuisTeodoro says the country has no special or press lawsapplicable only to the media. There is legislation,however, that has a bearing on media performance andpress freedom such as the Philippine Constitution (Billof Rights), civil and penal codes, and Philippinejurisprudence. The Philippines also has a host of self-regulatory codes for the media (Teodoro, 2004).

According to Teodoro, laws with a regulatory characteraffecting the Philippine mass media may be classifiedinto three groups:

• Those affecting all mass media (e.g. theConstitution’s provisions on media ownership,the Revised Penal Code’s provisions onspeeches, writings and banners that tend toincite rebellion or supervision);

• Those affecting the print media (e.g. Act 2580 of1916 that requires the publication of thenames and contact information of newspaperowners and editors; Presidential Decree 1079that allows community newspapers to publishjudicial notices and other similar governmentissuances); the 1991 Campus Journalism Actthat sets rules for school publications). Note:There have only been a few court convictionsrelated to libel law. These convictionshappened during the last two years. Still, evenif libel-related convictions come few and farbetween, it has not stopped alleged parties tosue journalists and their media outfits, and toharass journalists. Analysts in the media

Appendix 2:Laws and regulations governing the media sector

industry think these recent convictions willsend a chilling effect to the entire industry.; and

• Those affecting broadcast, film, televisionprograms, and video (e.g. Executive Order 546)that requires radio companies to havecertificates of public convenience andnecessity from the NationalTelecommunications Commission; self-regulatory efforts by the Kapisanan ng mgaBrodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP). (Teodoro, 2004)

But the Philippines has yet to have a law concerningfreedom of information, which is why media and civilsociety groups are working together for years to lobbyfor the passage of a Freedom of Information Act. Theproposed Freedom for Information Act (FOA) seeks toaddress the problem of government’s refusal to providethe public with information. Among the importantprovisions of the proposed FOA bill include: a) makingall government agencies (executive, legislature, judicial,independent Constitutional bodies, and regional/localtiers of government) comply with this law; b) providingcitizens with the opportunity and right to accessinformation (except for some information that are partof a narrow list of “exceptions”) whenever there isgreater public interest in the information’s disclosure;c) providing clear, uniform, and speedy procedure forpublic access to information; d) providing mechanics tocompel government to dutifully disclose information ongovernment transactions; and e) spelling out numerousmechanisms to actively promote openness of accessinginformation from government (Transparency andAccountability Network, 2009).

Chap

ter



1. Support for efforts to address the economicconditions of journalists (e.g. studies looking at theproblem; livelihood projects for broadcasters);

2. Capacity-building activities addressed at journalists,but to be conducted by media nonprofitorganizations, such as:

a. Press ethics;b. Training on better journalistic reporting, or

reportage on certain themes (e.g. human rights,election monitori ng); and

c. Safety and security of journalists;

3. More support to journalists and media organizationsin the provinces. Provinces are where most of themedia workers and journalists are killed, andwhere journalists and broadcasters lack skills todo a better job. These rural communities are alsobattlefields for local-level transparency,accountability and good governance;

Appendix 3:Supporting the work of media nonprofits (CSRI, 2010)

4. Media nonprofits training civil society organizationsand donor agencies on: media literacy,understanding the reportage and determination ofwhat is news and the independence of the newsmedia, packaging advocacy statements forjournalists and broadcasters, generalcommunication planning, among others;

5. Occasional networking activities by medianonprofits to determine their lines of work, to helpbuild up legitimate socio-economic and politicalissues for society to debate about and discuss, andto determine how to improve reportage by medianonprofits; and

6. Beefing up of the work of citizen press councils sothat mainstream civil society organizations canreport on the problematic practices of journalistsand media workers (e.g. media corruption), orletting mainstream civil society organizationsreport to media organizations on these practices byjournalists and media workers.


Chap

ter

5


A Statement of PurposeAfter extended examination by journalists themselvesof the character of journalism at the end of thetwentieth century, we offer this common understandingof what defines our work. The central purpose ofjournalism is to provide citizens with accurate andreliable information they need to function in a freesociety.

This encompasses myriad roles—helping definecommunity, creating common language and commonknowledge, identifying a community’s goals, heroes andvillains, and pushing people beyond complacency. Thispurpose also involves other requirements, such asbeing entertaining, serving as watchdog and offeringvoice to the voiceless.

Over time, journalists have developed nine coreprinciples to meet the task. They comprise what mightbe described as the theory of journalism:

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth

Democracy depends on citizens having reliable,accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalismdoes not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophicalsense, but it can—and must—pursue it in a practicalsense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that beginswith the professional discipline of assembling andverifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair andreliable account of their meaning, valid for now,subject to further investigation. Journalists should beas transparent as possible about sources and methodsso audiences can make their own assessment of theinformation. Even in a world of expanding voices,accuracy is the foundation upon which everything elseis built—context, interpretation, comment, criticism,analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges fromthis forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow ofdata, they have more need—not less—for identifiablesources dedicated to verifying that information andputting it in context.

Appendix 4:Principles of Journalism

(by the US-based Project for Excellence in Journalism, in http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles)

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens

While news organizations answer to manyconstituencies, including advertisers and shareholders,the journalists in those organizations must maintainallegiance to citizens and the larger public interestabove any other if they are to provide the news withoutfear or favor. This commitment to citizens first is thebasis of a news organization’s credibility, the impliedcovenant that tells the audience the coverage is notslanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment tocitizens also means journalism should present arepresentative picture of all constituent groups insociety. Ignoring certain citizens has the effect ofdisenfranchising them. The theory underlying themodern news industry has been the belief thatcredibility builds a broad and loyal audience, and thateconomic success follows in turn. In that regard, thebusiness people in a news organization also mustnurture—not exploit—their allegiance to the audienceahead of other considerations.

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification

Journalists rely on a professional discipline forverifying information. When the concept of objectivityoriginally evolved, it did not imply that journalists arefree of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method oftesting information—a transparent approach toevidence—precisely so that personal and culturalbiases would not undermine the accuracy of their work.The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking outmultiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possibleabout sources, or asking various sides for comment, allsignal such standards. This discipline of verification iswhat separates journalism from other modes ofcommunication, such as propaganda, fiction orentertainment. But the need for professional method isnot always fully recognized or refined. Whilejournalism has developed various techniques fordetermining facts, for instance, it has done less todevelop a system for testing the reliability ofjournalistic interpretation.

Chap

ter



4. Its practitioners must maintain an independencefrom those they cover

Independence is an underlying requirement ofjournalism, a cornerstone of its reliability.Independence of spirit and mind, rather than neutrality,is the principle journalists must keep in focus. Whileeditorialists and commentators are not neutral, thesource of their credibility is still their accuracy,intellectual fairness and ability to inform—not theirdevotion to a certain group or outcome. In ourindependence, however, we must avoid any tendency tostray into arrogance, elitism, isolation or nihilism. 5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power

Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve aswatchdog over those whose power and position mostaffect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be arampart against despotism when they ensured anindependent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens relyon it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protectthis watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivoloususe or exploiting it for commercial gain. 6. It must provide a forum for public criticism andcompromise

The news media are the common carriers of publicdiscussion, and this responsibility forms a basis forour special privileges. This discussion serves societybest when it is informed by facts rather than prejudiceand supposition. It also should strive to fairly representthe varied viewpoints and interests in society, and toplace them in context rather than highlight only theconflicting fringes of debate. Accuracy and truthfulnessrequire that as framers of the public discussion we notneglect the points of common ground where problemsolving occurs. 7. It must strive to make the significant interestingand relevant

Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should domore than gather an audience or catalogue the

important. For its own survival, it must balance whatreaders know they want with what they cannotanticipate but need. In short, it must strive to make thesignificant interesting and relevant. The effectiveness ofa piece of journalism is measured both by how much awork engages its audience and enlightens it. This meansjournalists must continually ask what information hasmost value to citizens and in what form. Whilejournalism should reach beyond such topics asgovernment and public safety, a journalismoverwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimatelyengenders a trivial society. 8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional

Keeping news in proportion and not leaving importantthings out are also cornerstones of truthfulness.Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a mapfor citizens to navigate society. Inflating events forsensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or beingdisproportionately negative all make a less reliablemap. The map also should include news of all ourcommunities, not just those with attractivedemographics. This is best achieved by newsrooms witha diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. The map isonly an analogy; proportion and comprehensivenessare subjective, yet their elusiveness does not lessentheir significance. 9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise theirpersonal conscience

Every journalist must have a personal sense of ethicsand responsibility—a moral compass. Each of us mustbe willing, if fairness and accuracy require, to voicedifferences with our colleagues, whether in thenewsroom or the executive suite. News organizations dowell to nurture this independence by encouragingindividuals to speak their minds. This stimulates theintellectual diversity necessary to understand andaccurately cover an increasingly diverse society. It isthis diversity of minds and voices, not just numbers;that matters.

The Growing Force of Civil Society Disability Stakeholders in the Philippines

Chap

ter

6


Chapter 6

Eva Marie FamadorEva Marie FamadorEva Marie FamadorEva Marie FamadorEva Marie Famador

The Growing Force of Civil Society DisabilityStakeholders in the Philippines

This chapter aims to describe the major civil societyorganizations in the disability sector, such as theirmandate, constituency, type of services they provide,their location, contact details, and funding. The paperwill also analyze their achievements, weaknesses, andproblems. And finally, recommendations will be offeredon several aspects of these particular civil societygroups and the environment in which they operate.

Regarding DisabilityRegarding DisabilityRegarding DisabilityRegarding DisabilityRegarding Disability

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitydefines persons with disabilities (PWD) as those “whohave long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensoryimpairments which in interaction with various barriersmay hinder their full and effective participation insociety on an equal basis with others.”

The number of persons with disability in the Philippinescontinues to increase due to economic, political andsocio-cultural factors. This section provides a briefsituationer on disability and history of movements toaddress disability in the Philippines.

The World Heath Organization (WHO) estimates that 10percent of any country’s given population has someform of disability. In the Philippines, the governmentestimates that 70 percent of those with disabilities livein rural areas where services are often not accessible.

Disability or impairment in the Philippines is caused byseveral factors. The Department of Health (DOH) citesmalnutrition and unsanitary living conditions

(especially among the urban slum dwellers), which inturn, are caused by extreme poverty. Another cause isthe lack of knowledge about pre-natal care benefits,thus depriving pregnant women opportunities to preventimpairments in their babies. These factors areaggravated by the fact that hospitals and clinics areconcentrated in cities and municipal urban centers(ADB, 2002).

Impairments are also caused by armed conflict,particularly in the southern part of the country.Vehicular and industrial accidents are also factors.Unsafe environments due to pollution, illegal loggingand indiscriminate mining lead to man-made disastersthat in turn cause impairment (McGlade, 2009).

People with disabilities (PWD) in the Philippines face amultitude of physical, social, attitudinal, economic andcultural barriers, reinforcing the vicious circle ofpoverty and disability. PWD are often viewed as objectsof protection, treatment, and assistance. Services areprovided them, but they are not viewed as people withrights to these services. They are denied equal access tobasic rights and fundamental freedoms such as healthcare, employment, education, suffrage, participation incultural activities.

The Philippine government has passed severalmeasures meant to address the concerns of people withdisabilities. Some of these are the White Cane Act, theAccessibility Law, and the Magna Carta for DisabledPersons. Moreover the government has created theNational Council for Disability Affairs (NCDA) and thesub-committee on children with disability in theCouncil for the Welfare of Children (CWC). Various

Chap

ter

6The Growing Force of Civil Society Disability Stakeholders in the Philippines


government organizations have been mandated toimplement programs for the rehabilitation, developmentand provision of opportunities for people withdisabilities and their integration into the mainstreamsociety. But gaps between officially-promulgatedpolicies and actual rights-based activities haveremained.

Similarly, some global initiatives address themainstreaming of disability issues. These are programsand networks of multilateral and bilateral developmentagencies, as well as international non-governmentalmainstream and specialized developmentorganizations. Despite these initiatives and theexistence of appropriate policies and strategies forequal opportunities and social inclusion, the effectiveimplementation remains a major area of concern.

The 2009 Philippines Preliminary Report on Monitoringthe Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities identifiesthe following measures as of immediate necessity:

• Implement and enforce the provisions of theMagna Carta for Disabled Persons, UnitedNations Convention on the Rights of Personswith Disabilities (UNCRPD) and other pertinentlaws on persons with disability withperseverance, willpower and determination,notably through awareness-raising campaignsdirected to the general population, institutions(business, educational, health, etc.), localgovernment units and all government agencies,as well as to persons with disabilitiesthemselves and their organizations.

• Provide immediate economic relief to personswith disabilities and their families.

• Eliminate barriers to participation in sociallife (particularly in the public transportsystem), and tackle disability discrimination inaccess to education and the labor market sothat people with disabilities can live lives withdignity and equality.

• Adopt a cross-disability focus to address theneeds and human rights of all persons withdisabilities and not just a few groups.

The “medical model” which defined people withdisabilities by their condition or impairment

constrained the realization of equal opportunity andinclusion of persons with disabilities but was notconsidered as such in the “medical model.” Only sincethe last two decades that persons with disabilities areviewed as holders of rights. This shift in perspectivebrought about significant changes, albeit, slow anduneven.

Movements in the interest of personsMovements in the interest of personsMovements in the interest of personsMovements in the interest of personsMovements in the interest of personswith disabilitieswith disabilitieswith disabilitieswith disabilitieswith disabilities

According to NCDA, “the government’s concern for thedisabled persons began as early as 1917 and thenational concern for rehabilitation was manifested bynon-government organizations as well” (NationalCouncil for Disability Affairs, 2010). The PhilippineFoundation for the Rehabilitation for Disabled Persons(PFRDP) is among the first foundation to engage withthe government to advance concerns of the PWDs.

Since then, the number of nongovernment organizationsconcerned with disability and the number of disabledpeoples organizations (DPO) have increased. ManyNGOs focus on a specific disability (i.e., visual,hearing, mobility, developmental and mentaldisabilities) while other organizations cater to cross-disabilities. The growth of these civil societystakeholders is attributed to international and nationalinstruments and laws.

The disability movement gained momentum with theUnited Nations General Assembly’s proclamation of1983 to1992 as the United Nations Decade of DisabledPersons. The proclamation encouraged member statesto support the establishment and growth oforganizations of disabled persons and to facilitate theparticipation of disabled persons and theirorganizations.

The Philippines’s observance of the Asian and PacificDecade of Disabled Persons (1993 to 2002) wasinstrumental in advancing the disability concerns inthe country. Government policies encouraged thedevelopment and growth of self-help groups (SHGs) ofpeople with disabilities. The National Council for theWelfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), now theNational Council of Disability Affairs, worked closelywith major disability umbrella organizations such as


Chap

ter

6


the Katipunan ng Maykapansanan sa Pilipinas, Inc.(KAMPI), the Philippine Blind Union (PBU), and thePhilippine Federation of the Deaf (PFD). Also,government social workers have been instrumental inthe establishment of organizations of self-help groups inareas where they previously did not exist (InternationalDisability Rights Monitor, 2005).

One of the most notable features of the two decades hasbeen the leading role played by non-governmentorganizations headed by disabled people, and theacknowledgement of their status as experts in their ownaffairs. Self-help groups have proven themselves to beeffective lobbyists and advocates on issues affectingthem and other persons with disabilities. Disabledpeople’s organizations (DPOs) were actively involved inthe formulation of the Magna Carta for Persons withDisabilities. Also, some people with disabilities broughtlawsuits against inaccessible restaurants. Some of therestaurants responded by putting facilities for thedisabled.

The efforts of the government and self-help groups havedeveloped and strengthened the capability of disabilityorganizations particularly their capabilities inidentifying leaders; establishing links with potentialfunding partners; providing training on cooperativeoperation and management; advocacy and awarenessraising; and organizing seminars on development andmanagement of small business.

An example is Samahang Ikauunlad ng mga mayKapansanan Ating Palawakin (SIKAP) Multi-PurposeCooperative. With the help of Christoffel BlindenMission (CBM), SIKAP members were trained on schooldesk manufacturing enterprise and later organized ascooperative. The government provided a start up fundfrom the Countryside Development Fund (CDF) of SenatorRobert Romulo and the Department of Education grantedinitially a trial order of the school desks, whichconsequently led to a bigger contract to supply otherschools.

However, given the large number of people withdisabilities in need of assistance and the diversity of theassistance they require, the services available are notsufficient to satisfy everyone in need (InternationalDisability Rights Monitor, 2005).

At the social level, increasing importance is attached tothe disabled persons’ integration in the community. Thishas been reflected in the conceptual transformation ofrehabilitation, which now looks beyond the individual’simpairment and focuses instead on his/her environment– physical, social and attitudinal factors, whichcontribute to disability.

CSO stakCSO stakCSO stakCSO stakCSO stakeholders concerned witheholders concerned witheholders concerned witheholders concerned witheholders concerned withdisabilitydisabilitydisabilitydisabilitydisability

This section describes the composition, role,geographic presence, and contribution of civil societygroups concerned with disability stakeholders inaddressing the needs and promoting the rights ofpersons with disabilities.

Composition

Civil society organizations concerned with disability iscomposed of nongovernment organizations (NGOs),disabled people’s organizations (DPOs), self-helpgroups of parents of persons with disabilities,cooperatives, corporate foundations and professionals.Each of these groups has distinct contributions inpromoting the rights and welfare of persons with disabilities.

a. Self-Help Organizations

The disabled people’s organizations (DPOs),sometimes referred to as self-helporganizations of persons with disabilities, areorganizations run by self-motivated disabledpersons that aim to enable disabled peers intheir community to become similarly self-motivated and self-reliant. DPOs play a vitalrole of providing mutual support mechanismsand advocating for disabled persons to achievetheir maximum potential and assumeresponsibility for their own lives. They areresources for training, referrals, delivery, andmonitoring of services. DPOs arespokespersons who try to get the government’s,the service-providers’ and the public’sattention. They speak of a barrier-free society.

The Katipunan ng Maykapansanan saPilipinas, Inc. (KAMPI), a national cross-

Chap

ter



disability federation of at least 241 self-helpgrassroots organizations of persons withdisabilities, was established in 1990 to serveas a voice in pushing for the implementation ofrelevant programs and policies for the sector.

In recent years, KAMPI has been activelyinvolved in providing services to its ownmembers, especially in the areas ofrehabilitation, education and vocationaltraining, and self or open employment. KAMPIhas been widely involved in the following: (1)advocacy and creation of positive attitudestowards people with disabilities, (2) provisionof rehabilitation services, (3) provision ofeducation and training opportunities fordisabled persons, (4) creation of micro andmacro-income generation opportunities, (5)provision of care facilities, (6) prevention ofthe causes of disabilities, (7) monitoring andevaluation of disability-related programs andactivities.

Recently organized in 2004, Alyansa ng mgaKapansanang Pinoy (AKAP PINOY) is a biggerfederation of cross-disability organizations ofpeople with disabilities. The organizationfocuses on organizational development of itsmembers and advocacy for the rights ofpersons with disabilities.

A recent effort is the formation of self-helpgroups of parents of children with disabilities.Government and nongovernment organizationsfacilitate the organization and capability ofthese organizations.

b. Non-Government Organizations

The Philippines has a considerable number ofnongovernment organizations providingservices to persons with disabilities. SomeNGOs specialize on one type of disability (i.e.,Resources for the Blind, Inc., Deaf MinistriesInternational, Tahanang Walang Hagdanan,Ma. Lena Buhay Foundation) while the otherscater to cross-disabilities (i.e., NorfilFoundation, Simon of Cyrene, Loving Presence).As service providers, NGOs adopt any one ofthe two specific strategies – prevention of

disability through information and advocacy,and rehabilitation (center- or community-based rehabilitation) and training foremployment.

NGOs play the role of trainer, referral agent,and catalyst in working with DPOs. NGOsprovide the know-how on delivering qualityservices, addressing causes of disability, anddismantling barriers to inclusion. NGOs asintermediate organizations are designed tostrengthen the capacity of DPOs.

The Philippine government has recognized theimportant roles of NGOs and therefore seeks toenlist their support and assistance inproviding services to the disability sectors(Jandayan,2009).

NGOs are instrumental in catalyzingcommunity volunteerism through advocacy ofthe rights of persons with disabilities at thecommunity level. A significant achievement inthis area is the increased visibility of peoplewith disabilities within the community and thegrowing number of people with disabilitieswho voluntarily identify themselves.

NGOs with community-based approachstrategy have transferred their socialresponsibility to other partner organizationsand groups such as people with disabilitiesand their families, POs, the Local GovernmentUnits (LGUs), church groups, and other NGOs.Moreover, children with disabilities have beenincreasingly included in mainstream educationand people with disabilities have beenincreasingly included in mainstream socialorganizations and economic developmentprocesses (Ingar, 2006).

While NGOs have been invaluable resourcesfor the betterment of the lives of people withdisabilities, their operations tend to be small-scale and geographically restricted. ManyNGOs tend to cluster in urban areas; hence,unable to reach persons with disabilities infar-flung areas.


Chap

ter

6


Many organizations focus on single disability.Some stakeholders think that NGOs need toembrace all the disabilities as they may be theonly resource in a particular location.Specialization on single disabilitiesunintentionally promotes unequalopportunities for other persons withdisabilities (McGlade, 2009).

There is a need to develop a framework forcollaboration among NGOs to preventduplication of activities and to promotecoordination, complementarities of efforts andsharing of examples of good practices as wellas resources at all levels (Jandayan, 2009).

c. Professional Organizations

Professionals, whether individually or ingroups, provide specialist interventions intheir field of expertise. They are physicaltherapists, occupational therapists,counselors, psychiatrists, developmentalpediatricians, special education (SPED)teachers, neurologists, endocrinologist, etc.Some professional associations make theirservices available through medical missions.Others offer their expertise at affordable rates.Professionals as trainers build the capabilityof local communities to help identify disability,and provide the know-how when to referdisabled persons to specialists. They also helpdevelop referral systems.

Unfortunately, there is a general lack ofprofessionals willing to serve persons withdisability. Those who are available charge feesthat is not within the reach of poor patients.

Moreover, there is the issue of communicationgap between the professional and the patient.Usually, the professional lacks communicationskills understandable to people who are notprofessionals (Famador, 2010; McGlade, 2009)

d. Cooperatives

Cooperatives are good vehicles for employmentopportunities and for integrating disabledpeople into the mainstream society. The

National Federation of Cooperation of Personswith Disability (NFCPWD) is a secondary levelcooperative organization owned and managedby persons with disabilities. NFCPWD is one ofthe biggest cooperatives, with 1,474 individualmembers from different regions of the country. Its main line of business is school furniture or,more specifically, school chairs and deskproduction, which employs around 1,000PWDS.

e. Corporate Foundations

As a result of awareness-raising campaigns ondisability concerns, resources of corporationsor corporate foundations have been mobilizedto address the needs and concerns of personswith disabilities.

Ortigas Foundation and Philippine AirlinesFoundation are active partners of disabilitystakeholders. Some foundations such asMetrobank Foundation, Inc. and CanonMarketing Philippines support activities ofpersons with disabilities.

f. Others

The academe is an institution that providesresearch and education services for personswith disabilities.

Faith-based groups have set up schools andsupport groups for persons with disabilitiesand their families. Faith-based groups alsoprovide technical assistance and conductsymposia as part of awareness campaign.

There is also an emergence of family self-helpgroups delivering community-basedrehabilitation services.

CSO presence and scope of coverageCSO presence and scope of coverageCSO presence and scope of coverageCSO presence and scope of coverageCSO presence and scope of coverage

The following are significant observations regarding thedistribution of disability stakeholders in thePhilippines:

Chap

ter



• Generally, the offices of NGOs are located in oraround urban areas. The medium-sized and bigNGOs have field operations in provinces.

• The National Capital Region has the largestnumber of NGOs. Strong NGO presence is alsoobserved in Region 4A in Luzon, Regions 6 and7 in the Visayas, and in Region 9 in Mindanao.

• Presence of disability stakeholders in theAutonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao isweak.

• Cooperatives of persons with disabilities arefound in different parts of the country. NFCPWDalone has fifteen primary cooperatives indifferent regions of the country: nine in Luzon,two in the Visayas and four in Mindanao.

• Parents Associations of persons withdisabilities have been organized in eightregions. NORFIL-initiated parents’organizations are found in Bulacan, Batangas,Nueva Ecija, and Cebu. KAMPI’s parentsassociations are found in Regions I, II, VI, X, theCordillera Administrative Region, and theNational Capital Region.

• Associations of organizations specializing on adisability are based in Metro Manila but theyhave formed chapters in different cities of thecountry.

• AKAP Pinoy has at least 400 self-helporganizations in 51 provincial/city chapters.

Internal Capacities of CSO DisabilityInternal Capacities of CSO DisabilityInternal Capacities of CSO DisabilityInternal Capacities of CSO DisabilityInternal Capacities of CSO DisabilityStakStakStakStakStakeholderseholderseholderseholderseholders

Civil society organizations concerned with disabilityface most of the management problems common amongthe mainstream NGOs and DPOs, such as lack of fundsand shortage of office staff. But self-help organizationshave some management issues more prominent thanothers, because of the situations that people withdisabilities face. This section will discuss commonmanagement issues experienced by self-helporganizations.

Leadership

One critical concern among disability stakeholders isensuring organizational continuity through developmentof new leaders. The need for a new generation of DPOleaders has been voiced a number of times (Dyer, 2009).The main reason why many self-help organizations donot have young members trained for management andleadership positions is the lack of adequate educationamong people with disabilities, especially those in therural areas and from low-income families. Furthermore,the need to develop leaders in the disability sector is notbeing adequately addressed by the government, whichclaims lack of funds for this kind of program. KAMPI andNGOs like Philippine Council of Cheshire Homes for theDisabled (PhilCOCHED) are two of the few organizationsthat have taken the initiative to identify, nurture andsupport young leaders.

The development of new leaders is also partly hinderedby the fact that current leaders enjoy holding power andare not ready to pass on the responsibility to newleaders. One organization has resolved this problem bypromoting the leaders to positions of adviser orconsultant.

The quality and quantity of leaders and members alsosuffer from changes in the government. There is nocontinuity of sub-sectoral leadership that changes whenleadership in the government changes. Some leaders arenot properly trained, while those who are trainedeventually leave. Second-line leaders are not developed.

In ARMM, growth is constrained by issues of securityand political instability. Potential mechanism for growthis through traditional modes at the community-level (i.e.mosques).

Representation

Generally, there are very few leaders in the disabilitysector who are articulate enough to express their ideas,especially to the government. Most of their leaders areshy in bringing out their opinions due to their low levelof education and lack of training. Hence, the need tostrengthen the capacity of local DPOs to form new localgroups. Strong DPOs can help increase public awarenessabout the needs, aspirations and abilities of people withdisabilities and generate commitment to addressdisability at the community level (Dyer, 2009).


Chap

ter

6


Due to poverty, some DPO leaders are more concernedwith their economic well-being. Because they are therefor personal gains, they do not exercise effectiveleadership and the members do not trust them.

Established leaders in the urban areas are detachedfrom the grassroots and are not effective bridgesbetween the disabled people and the decision-makersand service-providers (Dyer, 2009). Needs and prioritiesof DPOs in the rural areas should be properly heard. Therural areas should be properly represented.

Staffing

NGOs for disability concerns vary in size. The number ofstaff members ranges from three to one hundred fifty. TheResources for the Blind, Inc. and International DeafAssociation Philippines are some of the large NGOs,employing more than 150 people.

NGOs generally are understaffed and hence do multi-tasking. Given the limited resources, some NGOs operatethrough volunteers who are paid only if there are fundedprojects. NGOs with regular staff have a mixture ofpermanent and contractual members. Other NGOsstructure their organizations by establishing a coregroup of volunteers who work in partnership with theparents in certain projects.

Cooperatives are adequately staffed. Some staffmembers are paid on daily basis. Other cooperatives arerun by volunteers. Likewise, many self-helporganizations depend on volunteers for their day-to-dayoperations. It is feared that as the self-helporganizations grow, their need to hire regular staffmembers will grow too, for which, more financialresources would be needed.

A common problem of the organizations is the quickturnover of trained staff. They keep on training them butafter a certain period of time, only a few are left with theorganization. Two reasons why people leave are lowcompensation and attraction of work abroad.

Capabilities

At present, many NGOs do not focus on human resourcedevelopment. Human resource development is treated asmerely a part of administrative concerns. NGOs have no

program on security of tenure and staff promotion. DPOsdo not have specific training program on how to managethe organization, how to manage data and how toempower people with disabilities and their leaders.

Some NGOs find difficulty in shifting from the medical tothe social paradigm and such difficulty affects the entireproject design, activities, and approaches. Moreover theknowledge and expertise of NGOs are often limited to theneeds and requirements of the specific disability groupswhom they serve or represent. There is a need to addressthese limitations (Jandayan, 2009).

To promote the economic independence of people withdisabilities (PWD), project staff members should begiven greater exposure to alternative income-generatingactivities and successful economic models, which, theycan share with PWDs. And they should be giventechnical skills to do the sharing (Ingar 2006).

A common concern of the government and NGOs is thelack of knowledge and skills to manage children withdisabilities (CWDs). The United Nations Committee onthe Rights of the Child, recognizing the need for capablestaff and professionals to address the needs of childrenwith disabilities, recommended to the Philippinegovernment “to strengthen its measures to protect andpromote the rights of children with disabilities, byproviding training for professional staff working withchildren with disabilities, such as teachers, socialworkers, medical, paramedical and related personnel”(United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child2010).

NGOs encounter the problem of specialists not wantingto share their know-how to SPED teachers, despite thefact that they earn higher salaries. NGOs also find itdifficult to hire people willing to work with children withdisabilities in remote areas. To address these problems,NGOs train younger staff and nonprofessionals andimpart to them the knowledge and skills in handlingPWDs/CWDs. It is also easier to assign younger membersto remote areas.

Moreover, DPOs still need better understanding ofgovernment processes and systems so that they caneffectively work with and influence government decisionmakers. They also need to fully understand themechanics of monitoring and reporting on the

Chap

ter



Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities(Dyer, 2009).

Funding

NGOs for disabled persons are largely dependent onforeign funding. A list of partners of a developmentorganization reveals that most NGOs operate on arelatively small budget, less than P1 million a year anda few large ones operate on an annual budget of P18million.

NGOs tap other sources for funds. They charge trainingfees and solicit local donations. They also pursuelivelihood program alongside with children’s programs.Some charge fees for their services but poor personswith disabilities do not have the capacity to pay.

DPOs with inadequate resources have limited optionsfor engagement and networking and implementation ofprojects. Small DPOs have difficulty in accessing evensmall grants, thus limiting their opportunities forcapacity development (Dyer, 2009).

The search for alternative sources of funding is an areathat needs to be systematically explored. CSOsconcerned with disability have yet to establish relevantnetworks of contacts and prospective partners in thecorporate and government sectors in order to generatefunds and supplement donor contributions. Tappingcorporate foundations, however, has proved difficultsince these foundations have committed their funds tothe foundations of major television networks with theassurance of pro-bono publicity.

In contrast, cooperatives of disabled people aregenerally self-sufficient. Some cooperatives are evenable to provide loans to their members.

Recently, local government units (LGUs) have become asource of funds in implementing community-basedrehabilitation programs. This is especially true whenLGUs become aware that the foreign funding has beenexhausted and that there is a need to sustain the effortsof NGOs (Jandayan, 2009). Some LGUs like Ligao City,Albay, Cebu City, Cagwait, Surigao del Sur have annualallocation to support programs for persons withdisabilities. Other LGUs like Davao City provide fundson project basis.

In the case of organizations with nationwideoperations, the tendency is for funds to remainconcentrated among the urban members; they do notfilter down to the provincial members. It would bebetter for donors to fund directly the chapters ratherthan through the main office.

Accountability

In a workshop conducted for the purpose of this paper,discussions on accountability revolved around threethemes: finance, reporting, and participation ofstakeholders.

The NGOs’ operational concept of accountability is “upand down”, meaning, they report to their funders (up) onhow the funds were used and to the people they serve(down) on programs implementation and the programs’outcomes. They do this as part of the leaders’responsibility and effort for transparency.

Registered NGOs and cooperatives are required tosubmit yearly audited financial statements but some donot submit reports. Even though NGOs with multipledonors face the challenge of submitting many reportsand required documents, they comply with therequirements because at stake is their credibility.Maintaining donors’ trust facilitates obtaining fundsfor program activities.

Not all DPOs fully understand the concept ofaccountability. Many are not familiar with theaccounting process. Their financial managementsystem is not in place. Members are not aware thattheir leaders are accountable to them in terms ofperformance and management of resources. They areafraid to ask their leaders about these matters becausethey are afraid of antagonizing them. Donor agenciesare worried about how they use the funds.

Gender

Consultation participants discussed gender issue interms of opportunity of women with disabilities inpursuing their own development. They claimed that “inthe past, women with disabilities are triplydisadvantaged.” Today, women are prioritized, givenimportance, preferred, and proven more dedicated.There is a high-level of consciousness among disabilityorganizations in Visayas and Mindanao on gender


Chap

ter

6


sensitivity, except in ARMM where gender is a sensitiveissue that still needs to be studied carefully.Participants stated that there are many programs forwomen PWDs because these do not depend on genderbut rather on capability/capacity of the PWD to take onthe work and responsibilities.

NGOs and DPOs try to observe gender sensitivity intheir organizations and programs. Marginalization ofwomen is less of an issue. Women are reported to beactive and they also occupy leadership positions. Theproblem is more on eliciting the involvement of fathers.They are usually detached from their children withdisability, which poses difficulty when the mother is notaround.

Hiring a balanced number of male and female staff is aconcern. There are more women working with NGOs.Moreover, some male staff have cross-genderorientation. NGOs do not discriminate against cross-gender males, but the confusion they cause amongchildren with disabilities is a concern.

Many organizations do not have gender-specific policyin place and this is manifested in various ways. Oneexample is the lack of separate toilets for men andwomen in evacuation centers during relief operations.Another example is when a woman volunteer has toassist an adult male with disability in the toilet.

Psychological violence is an issue among persons withdisabilities. They suffer verbal and non-verbal ridiculeand vilifications from their own family, in the schoolsand their neighborhood. Even the media contributesnegative projections on persons with disability. Insupport to the Magna Carta for Persons withDisabilities, the Movie and Television Review andClassification Board (MTRCB) issued a MemorandumCircular -05-08 to all television managers, block timersprohibiting verbal, non-verbal ridicule and vilificationagainst persons with disability.

An equally serious issue is sexual violence against girlsand women with disabilities. No consolidated report isavailable on the extent crimes are committed againstwomen with disabilities. But crimes of sexual abuseagainst girls with disabilities are covered in the newsfrom time to time.

Knowledge base

The Philippines does not have a comprehensive profileof persons with disabilities. The 2000 census was thelatest comprehensive data on PWDs. Subsequent censusdid not have questions on PWDs. Attempts to come upwith a national profile system so far have not succeeded.The lack of data constrains the development ofappropriate policies and programs.

NGOs and DPOs have basic data on PWDS registeredwith their services, but these are not systematicallyconsolidated and therefore, do not provide a totalpicture of the disability sector. Most of the studiesconducted by the academe are limited to certainlocalities. Still, where data is available, the capacity ofPWDs to analyze to influence government is certainly agap. Civil society stakeholders should articulate theneed for situationer studies of various disabilities,documentation of best practices, list of companiesaccepting disabled employees, and other importantinformation.

Networks for Disability ConcernsNetworks for Disability ConcernsNetworks for Disability ConcernsNetworks for Disability ConcernsNetworks for Disability Concerns

The rising number of networks of civil societyorganizations responding to disability is a significantdevelopment in the disability movement. This sectiondiscusses the reasons for network formation; the levelsand types of networks; networks relationships ofgovernment, nongovernment and self-help groups; andthe lessons and challenges of networking.

Reasons for the formation of networks

Commonality of purpose and advocacy for the rights ofPWDs bring together civil society groups in coalitions.Although purposes or interests of people in the disabilitysector may vary, their rights as defined by the UnitedConvention on the Rights of People with Disabilities(UNCRPD) are the same. Organizations in the disabilitysector recognize and support their rights.

Although interests may differ from one sub-sector toanother, a common concern is on discrimination againstPWDs. Another concern that binds them together is theinadequate governmental response to the needs ofPWDs. The inadequacy is observed not only in terms of

Chap

ter



policies but more so on programs to address specificneeds.

Cooperatives of disabled people are established as aresponse to the lack of opportunities for employment inmainstream society. Cooperatives are first organized atthe local level and then they expand to the nationallevel. Cooperatives form into a federation to facilitateaccess to resources. Contracts are secured byfederations, which in turn enter into sub-contracts withthe local or primary cooperatives.

Although networks are set up for different purposes,activities tend to be similar: providing mutual support,sharing of resources and expertise, joint advocacy,lobbying and negotiations, and information-sharing.Networking has increasingly become the primary meansfor NGOs to mainstream their alternative approaches,to scale up their activities, and to implement varyingdegrees of mutual accountability and self-regulation.

Levels of Networks

Networking occurs at several levels. At the local level,the players are usually the people with disabilities andtheir families, community groups, community-basedorganizations, local government units, agencies andinstitutions. At the regional/national level, non-governmental organizations, national governmentalagencies and institutions, disabled people’sorganizations and training centers coordinate witheach other. At the international level are theinternational non-governmental and governmentalorganizations, development agencies, disabled people’sorganizations, federations and networks, trainingcenters, etc. (Ingar, 2006).

DPOs and NGOs are not equipped yet to network withinternational organizations. Since their credibility withthe international funders is not yet established, theyreceive limited funds. Some large foundations do notprioritize these DPOs and NGOs.

DPOs and NGOs do not have leaders who can effectivelycommunicate the needs and interests of all sub-sectors.Each sub-sector has diverse needs (i.e., facilities, tools,technology, assistive device, skills training) and unlessthe sector talks of rights, it is hard to unite all the sub-sectors. Support organizations are not strong enough tounite DPOs.

Relationship among civil society groups andinternational organizations is inhibited by a lack ofconsultation with PWDs, unclear set of goals, lack ofdeep awareness about how it is to have a disability, andlow priority given by the government to disabilityconcerns. On the other hand, there are a few facilitativefactors, such as the principle of inclusion andintegration, UNCRPD and supporting local laws, accessof local NGOs to national organizations, and capacityof NGOs to implement programs.

Types of Networks

The networks may be issue-based, area-based, andsector-based. NGO networks are of two basic types:associations (having formal membership) andcoalitions (built on common agenda)

Disability-focused network

NGOs have formed networks based on the type ofdisability they focus on. These networks areestablished to a) address distinct needs of specialgroups of persons with disability; b) meet theirmutual needs as service delivery providers; c) shareresources and expertise; d) focus on advocacy andlobbying.

The prominent networks are Autism Society of thePhilippines (ASP), Down Syndrome of thePhilippines (DSP), Cerebral Palsy Association, Inc.(CPAI), Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD), Society of The Philippines, Inc., thePhilippine Blind Union (PBU), and the PhilippineFederation of the Deaf. All these are formalassociations with membership rosters.

Alliances among professional associations arealso being developed, similar to the work done inEye Care. Physical therapists, for example, areuniting to adopt a community-based approach, sothat they can train community members to do muchof the PT work under close supervision andmentoring McGlade, 2009).

Issue-based network

Networks relations are formed due to a commonagenda. This type of network or coalition generallydoes not formally register and exists only until the


Chap

ter

6


common cause or concern is attained. A recentexample was the May 2010 national election. AKAPPinoy, a network of more than 446 disabled people’sorganizations (DPOs) joined forces with theCommission on Elections (Comelec), Parish PastoralCouncil for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), andVolunteer Services Overseas (VSO) Bahaginan toempower persons with disabilities to exercise theirright to vote.

AKAP Pinoy and VSO Bahaginan coordinated with theComelec to set up six special registration sitesnationwide – Cabanatuan City, San Fernando City inPampanga, Iloilo City, Cagayan de Oro City, DavaoCity and Zamboanga City. This was the first time inthe history of Philippine elections that Comelec helda Special Registration Day for the benefit of PWD.PPCRV agreed to have a person with disabilityassigned at help desks at selected election precinctsto assist fellow persons with disability. The groupsaddressed the lack of infrastructure for PWDs (i.e.,ramps and elevators) in the voting centers. VSOBahaginan worked with AKAP Pinoy by providingtechnical support and mentoring so that they caneffectively manage volunteers (VSO Bahaginan,2010).

When the Philippines formulated the Magna Cartafor Disabled Persons, the civil society for disabilityconcerns worked with government agencies todevelop it. The National Council for the Welfare ofDisabled Persons, the government’s main partner forlegislative matters to protect the rights of peoplewith disabilities facilitated consultation with NGOsand DPOs. People with disabilities were activelyinvolved in advocacy, consultations and publicawareness-raising activities pertaining to theformulation, revision and enactment of the MagnaCarta. Service delivery organizations at theinternational, regional and national levels, alsoplayed an important role in galvanizing the attentionof policy makers.

The disability sector recognizes that most civilsociety organizations do not include disability aspart of their mandate. They have to link up withbigger civil society organizations concerned withhuman rights and environment to address many ofthe socio-political causes of disability. CSOs fordisability need to scale up their efforts at national,

regional and local levels and engage with thehousing, business and religious sectors to includedisability in their mandate (McGlade, 2009).

Area-based network

One notable recent trend is the rise of provincial orlocal NGO networks. Alliances are formed invarious provinces and municipalities of the countryto address concerns, and in a programmatic way,to meet real needs of persons with disabilities,maximize resources, avoid duplication of efforts,and provide technical support to LGUs and DPOs.

Some local networks adopt the strategy ofcommunity-based rehabilitation (CBR). Thesenetworks are composed of NGOs, DPOs,professionals, community and government leaders,business leaders. The Community-BasedRehabilitation (CBR) framework promotescoordination, complements efforts and sharesresources among stakeholders. As of 2009,alliances have been established in Mindanao,Bicol, Visayas and Metro Manila. They reach themillions of persons with disabilities not yet served;they remove barriers; and they ensure that thedisability agenda is included in the work of othersectors (McGlade, 2009).

Networking with the governmentNetworking with the governmentNetworking with the governmentNetworking with the governmentNetworking with the government

Philippine government policies and legislation stronglyshape the network mechanism. The Local GovernmentCode of the Philippines provides transfer of powers andresources from the national to the local government.Avenues for civil society participation in governmentprograms have also been created, such as sectoralrepresentation in Congress and legislatures of LGUs, aswell as in various planning and consultative bodies.

The National Council for Disability Affairs (NCDA) is thecoordinating body for disability issues and concerns.Its composition is inter-sectoral and multidisciplinary.Its Board consists of national government agencies,non-government organizations, representatives oforganizations of persons with disabilities, as well ascivic and cause-oriented groups. The sectoralrepresentative of the National Anti-Poverty Commissionsits on the Board.

Chap

ter



NCDA coordinates with government agencies and localgovernment units. Civil society groups hold dialogue andconsultations with local chief executives and otherconcerned groups at the local level. This undertakingrepresents an institutionalized strategy to monitor,update and gather feedback on the needs, issues andconcerns of persons with disabilities (Jandayan,2009).

NCDA formulated guidelines for the establishment ofRegional Councils on Disability Affairs (RCDA) in placeof the existing Regional Committees for the Welfare ofDisabled Persons (RCWDPs).

The Council for the Welfare of Children’s Sub-Committeeon Children with Disability is another mechanismthrough which NGOs discuss issues and concerns ofchildren with disabilities. There are supposed to be localstructures such as Regional Council for the Welfare ofChildren (RCWC) and Barangay Councils for Protectionof Children (BCPC), but BCPC does not exist or if it exists,it does not function. RCWC should give closer attentionto the concerns of Children With Disabilities. TheCouncil for the Welfare of Children (CWC) should giveequal attention to the children with disabilities andchildren in need of special protection.

The National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) ismandated to deal with the concerns of the so-calledmarginalized sectors of society, which include personswith disabilities. KAMPI has representatives in NAPC.

.In relating with the Local Government Units (LGUs), lineagencies with devolved functions have to coordinatewith LGUs regarding implementation of policies andprograms. NGOs and POs participate in local governancethrough a) membership in local bodies; and b) expandedmechanisms for LGU/PO/NGO collaboration in thedelivery of basic social services, including capacitybuilding, local enterprise development and livelihoodprojects.

The difficulty in over-all coordination is being addressedby the recently approved R.A. 10-070 and ActEstablishing an institutional mechanism to ensure theImplementation of Programs and Services for Personswith Disabilities in every Province, City andMunicipality. In pursuance of this law, the Persons withDisability Affairs Office was created. The office serves asover-all coordinating body to implement programs and

services for persons with disabilities and enforcementof all relevant laws on disability.

Management of NetworksManagement of NetworksManagement of NetworksManagement of NetworksManagement of Networks

Managing network organizations has its distinct issuesand concerns ranging from process of decision-making,representation, degree of participation, accountability,level of capacity.

To arrive at a consensus toward sub-sectoral agenda,consultations are conducted with various DPOs andNGOs in the disability sector. DPOs and NGOs givemajor consideration to the rights of disabled personsand common interests and needs of each group whenthey draft their agenda.

Cooperatives and NGOs adopt 50+1 quorum beforemaking a decision relating to policy-making. Incooperatives, the General Assembly is the highestpolicymaking body. Bigger federations consult membersor chapters.

In ARMM, consensus building is through traditionalchannels of decision-making, which gives weight toopinions of the religious leaders and powerful politicalleaders.

Some NGOs and DPOs are not active in coalitionbuilding. They stay within their own organizations andbecome parochial in their views. With the creation ofthe Office of Disability Affairs, which will be headed bya PWD, NGOs and DPOs might be encouraged to joincoalitions or networks so that their expertise can beshared with other groups.

Some groups, like AKAP-Pinoy, network with governmentagencies such as the Department of Transportation andCommunication (DOTC) for the provision of access toPWD and with Department of Justice (DOJ) for the filingof cases of disability concerns. DPOs monitorcompliance of and implementation by the governmentoffice.

The operational capacity of networks is stillinadequate. For example, AKAP-PINOY ties up withvarious schools such as the College of St. Benilde,Miriam College and the Manila Institute of the Deafwho have the capacity to train them. They network with


Chap

ter

6


other organizations to avail themselves of the expertisethat they lack.

Lessons in Networking

Ownership. Government’s attention, commitmentand ownership of project activities has beenstrengthened through:

• Presentations of baseline study results andproject success stories

• Charismatic and influential personsidentified to communicate with governmentsat local levels.

• Memorandum of understanding with thelocal chief executive.

• Technical or project management team withrepresentation of government line agenciesand local communities.

• National networks of developmentorganizations.

These factors have facilitated structural changeswithin the government agencies and engenderedgreater transparency and accountability (Ingar,2006).

Sustainability. Potential for sustainability ofproject activities is considered high if thegovernment takes ownership of the project fromthe beginning. Ownership entails continuousadvocacy, personalized communication andsharing of information (Ingar, 2006).

Continuous information and advocacy with theLGU and government agencies accord priority todisability programs in the governmentdevelopment plans (Ingar, 2006).

Challenges in NetworkingChallenges in NetworkingChallenges in NetworkingChallenges in NetworkingChallenges in Networking

Perspectives on Disability. Local government unitsneed to reassess their perspective on disabilityand acknowledge the benefits of rights-basedapproach to development of PWDs. Not all LGUsare aware of the international and nationalinstruments on persons with disabilities. Mostlocal government units, in general, have nocomprehensive development program for

rehabilitation, detection, and prevention ofcauses of disability – services that would benefitthe whole community. This is a constraint to localnetworking. Some NGOs on the other hand, stillespouse medical rather then rights-basedapproach to disability.

Categories of Disabilities. Government and civilsociety stakeholders still do not share the samedefinition and classification of disabilities.

Clarity of roles, functions and systems ofstakeholders. Government and NGOs do not knowthe workings of the other, blocking collaboration(McGlade, 2009).

Government priority. In spite of international andnational laws and policies, NGOs encountervarying responses from the local governmentunits and government agencies regarding personswith disabilities. Disability issue is not a priorityof the local chief executives. A few supportivelocal government units have limited funds forchildren with special needs. Because of thegovernment’s limited budget, it is difficult toimplement programs and services that would fullyaddress the needs of children with disabilities.There are no standard guidelines in theimplementation at the local level. This meansprovision of auxiliary services varies from oneLGU to another.

Weak coordination. There is a need to strengthencoordination between the government andnongovernment agencies to establish a referralsystem. Close collaboration is necessary toestablish a common direction and to formulate aprogram that streamlines the delivery of servicesfor children with special needs. Committees onChildren with Disabilities (CWDs) should be moreactive. Participation of persons with disabilitiesand of parents in drafting programs and servicesshould be maximized. Given limited resources,close coordination will help avoid duplication ofprograms and will help identify areas, which arenot yet served (Famador, 2010; McGlade, 2009).

Lack of referral agencies. Inter-agency effort ishampered by insufficient information and the lackof agencies for referral of services.

Chap

ter



Absence of inter-agency collaboration. There islittle or no local interagency collaboration inundertaking programs for children withdisabilities in many parts of the country. Supportmechanisms must be strengthened to increaseprivate entities’ participation.

Institutionalization. In line agencies, concerns ofpersons with disability are assigned to “focalpersons” who coordinate activities and concernswithin the department and with other governmentagencies. A more permanent office that willhandle PWD concerns within the department maybe a better arrangement to ensure continuity.

Sustainability of programs for persons withdisability hinges on NGOs’ integration with thelocal government. Through integration theinterpersonal relationship between local socialworker and local chief executives becomessmooth, resulting in better delivery of services.

Weak monitoring. Monitoring is necessary tostrengthen the current efforts of government andnongovernment organizations. There should alsobe a mechanism for the evaluation of PWD-relatedpolicies and programs. There is a need toregularly assess performance and servicedelivery. CWDs should also be included in thismonitoring mechanism.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) shoulddevelop benchmarks related to disability concerns.Maternal and childcare is an aspect that connects tothe issue of disability. Access to basic educationshould be included in the monitoring of participationand survival rate of children with disabilities. Most ofthe socio-political causes of disability are not beingaddressed despite the country’s commitment to theMDGs.

Broad concerns of civil society groupsBroad concerns of civil society groupsBroad concerns of civil society groupsBroad concerns of civil society groupsBroad concerns of civil society groupsfor the disabledfor the disabledfor the disabledfor the disabledfor the disabled

Civil society organizations for persons with disabilitiesdo not yet have a common voice because the leadersand members of the sub-sectors are not united. They

think only of their own sectors. In spite of this, there isalready a significant improvement in the area ofeducation. But there is more to be done.

There is also an awareness campaign to make thepublic see the special needs of the disabled. Forexample, they need access to big shopping malls. Publicfacilities for PWD, such as elevators, underpass, etc.,need to be modernized. New technology has to beutilized to make life easier for PWDs.

Creation of more jobs is a common concern ofFilipinos, much more for disabled persons. Armedconflict in various part of the country causes disability.Proliferation of party lists competing for seats incongress partly contributes to the difficulty in winningrepresentation for disabled people.

Including the disabled in mainstream governmentprograms should be considered. For example, theyshould have been included in the Conditional CashTransfer program. Also, the transfer of NCDA from theOffice of the President to the Department of SocialWelfare and Development without consulting the sectorcalls for an action from the sector.

Reforms needed to advance the causeReforms needed to advance the causeReforms needed to advance the causeReforms needed to advance the causeReforms needed to advance the causeof disability sectorof disability sectorof disability sectorof disability sectorof disability sector

Stakeholders identified several areas for reform:

• Early detection and identification through new-born screening should be followed up withtests to identify specific forms of disabilityamong babies

• Inclusion in Philhealth of rehabilitationservices as a reimbursable expense

• Inclusive education• Representation of PWDs in congress• Amend accessibility law and comply with

universal requirements. The GeneralAppropriations Act should define institutionalarrangements between agencies and otherstakeholders such as NGOs

• Review existing studies on disabilities and usethem for policy formulation andimplementation. Some stakeholders hold the


Chap

ter

6


view that full implementation of laws shouldbe given more importance than policyformulation.


1. Establish partnership with the Department ofEducation on its functional literacy programand program for itinerant teachers to reachDPO leaders in rural areas. The partnershipwill serve as a foundation for other leadershipprograms for these leaders. This move will alsopromote inclusive education with functionalliteracy program as an entry point and thetapping of the itinerant teachers.

2. Establish partnership with area-basedcoalitions, specifically those implementingcommunity-based rehabilitation programs.They can provide functional literacy to DPOleaders within their area.

3. Establish partnership with other organizationsproviding leadership program for DPOs.

4. Support the capability building onparticipatory governance, in order to equipDPO leaders with skills in advocacy andlobbying and knowledge on the avenues ofparticipation with the government.

5. Support seminars on accountability,representation, transparency and managementof organizations.

6. Support the formation of interagencycollaboration addressing children withdisabilities in selected areas by tappingexisting partners, which are focused onchildren with disability.

7. Tap a member of KAMPI or AKAP PINOY in anarea where there is no interagencycollaboration and facilitate the formation of acoalition or network in their area.

8. Support the identification of specific agenda,coalition activities, monitoring anddocumentation of good practices and lessonslearned.

9. Help existing coalitions to have one voice inelectoral issues.

10. Help existing coalitions to push for electoralreforms such as

• Having a party-list for disability sector inCongress. This entails providing supportfor awareness-raising among disabledsector on the purpose, features andrequirements of party-list.

• Expansion of the geographic coverage ofhelp desks during registration and electionperiods, and rooms in the polling placeswhich are accessible to persons withdisability

11. Support activities that develop indicatorsrelated to disability concerns and relevantMDG goals; activities that will lobby thegovernment for the inclusion of MDGindicators on disability; and activities thatactually monitor the achievement of MDGindicators.

12. Support the development of research oneffective practices in inclusion and bestpractices of local government units respondingto disability.

Chap

ter



References

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2009. Disability in thePhilippines.

Dyer, Sarah.2009. Disability in the Philippines: Asituational Analysis. AusAID.

Famador, Eva Marie. 2010.” Rights and State of Childrenwith Disabilities in the Philippines.” UnitedNations Children’s Fund. (unpublished)

Ingar, Düring 2006.”Disability in Development” .. InHandicap International. Lyon, France and.Bensheim, Germany:, CBM ChristoffelBlindenmission Christian Blind Mission.

International Disability Rights Monitor Regional Report ofAsia. 2005. Chicago: Center for InternationalRehabilitation.

Jandayan, Marieta Sonia Rina Figueroa, and DondonCanales. 2009. Monitoring the Human Rights ofPersons with Disabilities. Preliminary Report -Philippines. Marcia Rioux, Paula Pinto:Disability Rights Promotion International.

McGlade, Veronica Barney and Ester Mendoza. 2009.Philippine CBR Manual: An Inclusive DevelopmentStrategy. Manila: CBM-CBR Coordinating Office.

National Council for Disability Affairs. 2010 .”HistoricalBackground.” http://www.ncda.gov.ph/about/historical-background/. Accessed April14,2010.

“VSO Bahaginan and AKAP Pinoy empower the disabledfor May 2010.” January 31, 2010. http://www.philstar. com/Article.aspx?articleId=545280&publicationSubCategoryId=473.Accessed May 4, 2011.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.2010. Committee on the Rights of the Child, fifty-second session. October 2, 2009 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/CRC.C.52.1.pdf


Chap

ter

6


Annex AList of Participants of the Disability Civil Society Stakeholders in the Philippines

Manila Consultation WorkshopGreat Eastern Hotel, Quezon City , April 27, 2011

Group 11. Mr. Arturo Quiroz, Samahang Kapatiran sa Hanapbuhay Para sa May Kapansanan, Manila2. Ms. Julie Esguerra, Philippine Institute for the Deaf (PID), Manila3. Ms. Ma. Cristina Hebron, Cerebral Palsied Association of the Philippines (CPAP), Marikina4. Mr. Ricky Pabilonia, CBR Foundation, Diocese of Iba, Inc., Olongapo City5. Ms. Jenette Callada, Philippine Leprosy Mission, Inc., Quezon City6. Ms. Grace Domondon, International Children’s Advocate, Inc. Niños Pag-Asa Center, Olongapo City7. Ms. Angelica J.T. Muyco, BAHATALA, Inc., Puerto Princesa City, Palawan8. Mr. Noli V. Agcaoli, AKAP-PINOY/TWH, Quezon City9. Ms. Belinda M. Polintan, Our Lady of La Salette School for Special Children, Santiago City, Isabela10. Mr. Abraham Macario, SIKAP Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Pasig City

Group 21. Ms. Josephine Palomares, Autism Society Philippines (ASP) Diliman Chapter, Quezon City2. Ms. Myra Magno, Special Education Assistance, Manila3. Ms. Pilar Santiago, Special Education Assistance, Manila4. Mr. Cherrie Oringo, Simon of Cyrene Children’s Rehabilitation and Development Foundation, Inc., Daraga, Albay5. Mr. Francis Choy, Parent Advocates for Visually Impaired Children (PAVIC), Quezon City6. Ms. Charineflor Serapion, Granada Educational Foundation Inc., Manila7. Eufemia J. Borgonia, Vincentian Missionaries Social Development Foundation, Inc. (VMSDFI), Quezon City8. Ms. Ma. Carmen Sarmiento, PAL Foundation, Inc., Pasay City9. Ms. Catherine Vasseur, Handicap International, Makati City10. Ms. Antonita Gomez, Inocencio Magtoto Memorial Foundation, Inc., San Fernando City, Pampanga

Cebu City Consultation WorkshopDiamond Suites and Residences, Cebu City . April 29, 2011

Group 11. Ms. Anna Jaranilla, Professionals for Child and Adolescent Reception and Education Foundation, Inc. (ProCARE),

Cagayan de Oro City2. Ms. Annalyn Hernandez, ProCare, Cagayan de Oro City3. Ms. Mariepeth Masion, PRIME Center Foundation, Inc., Mandaue City4. Ms. Mary Stephanie Agbay, Gualandi School for the Hearing Impaired, Banilad, Cebu5. Ms. Lanie Magsimbol, Gualandi School for the Hearing Impaired, Banilad, Cebu6. Ms. Melagros Maquiling, Differently-Abled Women Network, Inc.(DAWN), Cagayan de Oro City7. Ms. Ma. Helen Carmilotes, Children’s Help and Assistance Foundation, Inc. (CHAFI), Cebu City8. Mr. Romulo Velasquez, Children of Cebu Foundation, Inc., Cebu City9. Ms. Annalou Suan, Great Physician Rehab (GP Rehab), Dumaguete City

Group 21. Mr. Redendo Martinez, Association of Differently-Abled Persons, Inc. (ADAP), Davao City2. Ms. Thelma Castulo, Bangon Agusan del Sur Alang sa Kalambuan (BASAK), Agusan del Sur3. Ms. Estrella Daleon, PWD Gensan Multi-Purpose Cooperative, General Santos City4. Ms. Ruth Miral, Differently-Abled Women Network, Inc. (DAWN), Cagayan de Oro City5. Mr. Jovencio Concha III, PARE6. Mr. Rey Envidiado, Feed the Children Philippines (FTCP), Tagbilaran City7. Mr. Gerardo Sepada, AMCHA Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Toledo City8. Ms. Judith Virata, Rainbow Intervention Center for Children with Autism Foundation (RICAFI/GUSP), Davao City9. Ms. Laura Merida, AMCHA Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Toledo City10. Mr. Jerome Zayas, PARE, Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)11. Ms. Sandra Espina, ASP Cebu Chapter, Cebu City


Research Team

Fernando T. Aldaba. Nandy is the research team leader of this CSO Mapping and Strategic Assessment Publication. He is theProfessor and former Chair (2003-2009) of the Economics Department of the Ateneo de Manila University. He is currently thePresident of the Civil Society Resource Institute and Kasagana-Ka, a microfinance NGO, former President of the PhilippineEconomic Society (2008) and board member of the East Asia Economic Association. He was also Director of the Ateneo Centerfor Community Services and the Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs. He worked with various coalitions asSecretary-General of the LakasManggagawa Labor Center (1986-87) and the Caucus of Development NGO networks (1990-1993). Nandy graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Management Engineering (cum laude) from the Ateneo deManila University (1980) and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Economics from the University of the Philippines (1996) inDiliman.

Carmel Veloso Abao. Melay is currently a faculty member of the Political Science Department of the Ateneo de ManilaUniversity. Before joining the academe in 2008, Melay was extensively involved with a number of Philippine NGOs andmovements including the Workers College, LakasManggagawa Labor Center, PHILSSA, and, the Institute for PopularDemocracy.

Maria Dolores Bernabe. Risa is a research consultant on agriculture, trade and climate change issues. She has been workingclosely with smallmen and women farmers’ organizations for more than 15 years now.

Eva Marie F. Famador has been engaged in social development work both as an implementor and a technical consultant.Her fields of expertise are organization and program development and management, advocacy, and research andevaluation. At present, she is the general secretary of Christian Convergence for Good Governance.

Roberto Mina. Since graduating from college in the mid-1980s, Litit has been involved in various fields of socialdevelopment such as student politics and social involvement, agrarian reform, permaculture, zero-waste management,renewable energy and cooperative development. He is a member of the Barangka Credit Cooperative based in Marikina andis currently working with Christian Aid in promoting Disaster Risk Reduction in small islands.

Jeremaiah M.Opiniano is the President and Reporter of the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) Journalism Consortium. Healso teaches at the Journalism program of the University of Santo Tomas.

Jennifer Santiago Oreta. Apple is a PhD holder in Political Science. Her field of specialization is gender and security, and hasdone extensive research on small arms proliferation and gun-violence, security sector reform, private armed groups, andpeople’s democratic participation.

Philip Tuaño. Randyis a lecturer at the Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University. He is also a board memberof the Foundation for Media Alternatives and the International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence inGovernance, and has assisted the Caucus of Development NGO Networks in several studies on the NGO sector.

Elizabeth Yang and Elena Masilungan. Beth is currently National Coordinator of PILIPINA, a national feminist organizationpushing for increasing women’s political participation in decision-making. Elenais a free-lance writer and a member of thePILIPINA-NCR chapter. Beth and Elena are the co-authors of this publication’s chapter on women’s movement

Ana Teresa de Leon-Yuson and Maria Tanya Gaurano. Annie has been long involved with the urban poor movement, as acommunity organizer-trainer in the 80’s, as the former executive director of Foundation for Development Alternatives in the90’s, the previous national coordinator of the now defunct Urban Poor Colloquium and eventually she became one of theformer national coordinators of the PHILSSA national network. She is the corporate secretary of the Civil Society ResourceInstitute. Tanya is currently doing freelance research on urban poverty and governance issues for different organizations.She expects to earn her Master’s degree in Social Development from Ateneo de Manila in the summer of 2011. Annie andTanya are the co-authors of this publication’s chapter on the urban poor movement in the Philippines.


Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI)c/o Kasagana-Ka Development Center, 5 Don Francisco St., Don Enrique Heights,

Barangay Holy Spirit, Commonwealth, Quezon CityTel. (632) 382-1827

Founded by a pool of development professionals in 2005 the Civil Society Resource Institute (CSRI) wasset-up to provide an avenue for the seasoned CSO practitioners to mentor and share their expertise andexperience in strengthening the civil society organizations in South East Asia. As CSRI envisions adynamic and effective civil society sector to be an essential foundation of a democratic and progressivesociety, it aims to contribute to its capacity building and good governance through the following keyservices:

Capacity Building- seminars, trainings, formation programs and workshops enhancing capacities ofleaders and staff of civil society organizations

Organizational Development – strategic assessment and planning, organizational assessments andother programs strengthening civil society organizations

Research and Consultancy – researches and case studies on key civil society issues; consultancyservices related to civil society strengthening

Databank and Information – build up of database of development experts, development organizationsand donor institutions

CSRI’s Board Members are:

Fernando T. Aldaba, Ph.D. - President

Anna Maria M. Gonzales - Vice President

Ana Teresa De leon-Yuson - Secretary

Ma. Anna De Rosas-Ignacio - Treasurer

Dr. Anna Marie A. Karaos - Member

Rev. Jose Cecilio J.Magadia, S.J. - Member

Silvida Reyes-Antiquerra - Member


The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) is the AustralianGovernment’s agency responsible for managing Australia’s oversees aid program.AusAID is an Executive Agency with the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio andreports to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The objective of the Australian aidprogram is to assist in the developing countries reduce poverty and achievesustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest. AusAID providesadvice and support to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on development policy, andplans and coordinates poverty reduction activities in partnership with developmingcountries. AusAID leads and coordinates Australia’s responses to humnitarian anddisaster crises and represent Australia in international development forums. AusAIDis strongly committed to evaluating and improving Australia’s aid program and tocollecting, analyzing and publishing development data and other information.

Cso Mapping Assessment

Documents

Transcript of Cso Mapping Assessment