Local Gov Paper IPD

8/3/2019 Local Gov Paper IPD

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/local-gov-paper-ipd 1/15

Occasional Paper No. 8

September 1997

by Eleanor M. Gonzalez

DECENTRALIZATION AND

POLITICAL P ARTICIPATION INTHE PHILIPPINES:

EXPERIENCES AND ISSUES INSOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION

INSTITUTE FORPOPULARD E M O C R A C Y

WORKPROGRESS

N



INSTITUTE FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY 1

WORK IN PROGRESS

Decentralization and Political Participation in the Philippines: Experiences and Issues in Societal Transformation

By Eleanor M. Gonzalez1

Decentralization and Political Participation in thePhilippines: Experiences and Issues in

Societal Transformation

WORK IN PROGRESS

Introduction

Decentralization and the development of civilsociety are two key ways of empoweringpeoples and communities and alteringcentralized forms of governance.

Decentralization enables the state (throughlocal government units, or LGUs) to be moreresponsive to the needs and preferences ofcommunities. It leads to more accountabledecision-making and greater innovation inhow public services are delivered. On theother hand, civil society structures, specificallynon-governmental organizations, or NGOs,and people’s organizations, are criticallyimportant in two senses: they augment therole of LGUs as providers of public servicesat the local level, and they act as pressurepoints that compel local governments to bemore efficient and effective in delivering localgoods and services.

This paper hypothesizes that it is the synergybetween decentralization and civil societystructures that could pave the way forempowering peoples and communities. Thecongruence between decentralization andnon-governmental organizations has its originin a couple of breakthrough events in the

Philippines The first is the phenomenal riseof NGOs during the Aquino administration,and the second is the passage of a landmarklegislation, the Local Government Code,described as “the biggest and mostambitious attempt (by the Philippinegovernment) for decentralization” (Lim, 1992).

The paper is organized as follows: Part 1explores the origins and persistence of theunitary, centralized bureaucracy in thePhilippines, and its adverse consequences.Part 2 describes the rise of the NGOs andthe decentralization initiatives of the Aquino

administration. Part 3 examines theanecdotal evidence on NGO-LGUcollaborations and their impact ongovernance and community empowerment.Part 4 examines some critical issues andproposes a number of policyrecommendations.

An overcentralized state

Much like the government in many developingcountries, the overcentralized state in thePhilippines is a colonial legacy. ThePhilippines inherited a politicaland administrative apparatus whose locus ofdecision-making was Manila. This setup stillremains in these modern times.

In the four centuries of Spanish colonization,starting in the 1600s, the authority that ruledover the political, social and economic life inthe Philippines was vested on the

governadorcillo or the governor general whowas appointed by the King of Spain. Thegovernor general controlled the country fromManila, the executive center. The Spaniardskeeping the natives out of the governmentsystem conducted most of the affairs of thestate. Provincial and municipal leaders werenothing more than executors of decisions on



WORK IN PROGRESS

INSTITUTE FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY2


policies, laws, taxes and governance madeby the King or the governadorcillo.

When the Americans came in the 1900s, thecenter of power was retained in Manila. TheAmerican Governor General took hismandate this time, from the President of theUnited States. The government that theAmericans instituted was a highly centralizedpresidential system. The Americans slowlyincorporated the participation of Filipinos ingovernance. The first municipal electionswere held in 1902. Philippine participationexpanded in the legislature with Filipinos

elected as representatives of their provinces,and then were elected as senators nationally.

The Americans played a pivotal role inframing the institutional setting for central-local government relations, according toRocamora (1997). “Where the Spaniardshad violently resisted the attempts of anascent Filipino elite to be integrated intonational colonial structures of power, theAmericans carefully orchestrated thisintegration. Because few Filipinos held

economic power that stretched beyond thelocal, it made sense that the Americansbegan the process with municipal elections.Provincial elections became occasions forcoalitions of municipal elites. By the time anational legislative body was formed, thecoalitional pyramid which became thecharacteristic structure of Philippine politicshad been set.”

The executive branch of government washanded over to the Filipinos after years of

tutelage. The 1935 Philippines Constitutionwas patterned after the constitution of theUnited States of America. The constitutionprovided the President of the Philippines withexecutive powers not different from the officeof the governor general of the Spanish andAmerican occupation. The constitution

continued to strengthen a central governmentwith wide powers vested in the executive.

After the Philippines won nominalindependence from the US in 1946, central-local government relations were largelydefined by the flow of resources from thecenter to the localities . The centralgovernment, through the President and theexecutive branch, was able to build a multi-layered system of patron-dependent localpolitical factions by controlling the flow offunds earmarked for the budget of localgovernment units.

In the 1950s, it was also argued thatcentralized economic planning and heavyindustrialization were the quickest path todevelopment. Consequently, the need for ahighly centralized bureaucracy and moreconcentrated economic power was stressed(Lim, 1992). During the elections from 1970-1985, then President Ferdinand Marcosmanipulated the elections by declaringMartial law in the country and ensured hisstay in power. He basically exploited the vast

powers of presidential system to hisadvantage. With martial law, the centralizedform of governance was carried to theextreme. The president’s power over localpoliticians reached its zenith during thisperiod.

Low-level political participation

The underside of centralized governance isthe sorry state of political participation at the

local levels. In the words of Lim (1992),“Weak or nonexistent institutions at the locallevel contribute to the requirements of strongcentral bodies managing and controllinglocal affairs.” This too, has been a carryoverof the Spanish period. Because the state’scivil apparatus hardly penetrated the villages,Filipinos then scarcely had a chance toparticipate in the affairs of the state. Neither




WORK IN PROGRESS


Iberian influences nor policies and mandateshanded down from the central governmentin Manila disturbed their lives as farmers,fisherfolk or hunters. The “natives” were leftalone as long as they provide labor whennecessary, paid their dues and taxes asneeded and attended church services.

Americans, for all their “integration” efforts,did not really cultivate participatoryprocesses in communities and villages.Instead, working mainly with a patron-clientculture, the American civil authorities nurtureda rural oligarchy, which also run the local

governments. Ruling landlords maintainedvast areas of lands where tenant farmersprovide labor in exchange for economicsecurity and social protection by thelandlords. This feudal situation allowed therural oligarchy to control local elections aswell, since tenants usually had no choice butto offer their votes for their landlords who runfor office. This practice to some extentremains to date.

Since independence, popular participation

in decision-making over the allocation ofgoods and services has remained low. Theorganizational weaknesses of localinstitutions and their lack of political cloutcontribute to the low level of participation, butit is also the pronounced cynicism of peopleover the efficacy of the political processeswhich plays a major role in participationfailures at the local level. For instance, peopletreat elections in instrumental rather than insubstantive ways (Kerkvliet and Mojares,1991). According to Rocamora (1997),

“since politicians do not have programs thatthey follow, voting on the basis of personal,clientelistic connections become the othermajor criteria for choice.” Elections duringmartial law were marred by a high rate ofviolence and conflict as the elite quarreledamong themselves.

It is not that popular groups simply did notexist. People’s organizations wereespecially active during the 1930s, which

was a period of social unrest in thePhilippines. They were also active asunderground guerilla groups during theJapanese occupation. But after the war,many of these groups were systematicallyrepressed, especially those with communistleanings. Indeed, a group of socialists whowere legitimately elected to the PhilippineCongress in the early fifties foundthemselves legally disbarred from occupyingtheir elective posts. Exclusion processes

prevented many popular groups fromparticipating in the formal political system.During martial rule, these instruments ofexclusion were polished. To give asemblance of local participation, the regimecoopted local politicians and prominentcitizens, reorganizing barrios into politicalentities called “barangays.” These oftenbecame the instruments of acquiescence tothe regime’s policies and programs.

The climate of repression ended in 1986,

when a popular uprising led to the so-calledPeople’s Power Revolution that installedCorazon Aquino to the presidency. Therevolt itself was a culmination of politicalparticipatory processes, some of whichwere organized underground and others theresult of spontaneous, if sporadic,mobilization at the grassroots level.

The perils of centralization and lack ofparticipatory institutions

Apart from the evidence presented above,why are the two sides of the same coin—overcentralization and poor participation—politically and economically bad? Lim(1992) offers a number of reasons:



WORK IN PROGRESS



1 Without strong local institutions andorganizations, it would be difficult for thecentralized government to undertake

distributional, equity and regionaldevelopment measures.

2 Without strong local organizations andinstitutions, regional and rural schemes caneasily be manipulated by powerful localpoliticians to further their own ends. Moreobvious would be the corruption and abuseof power that a centralized government canbe capable of.

3 A top-heavy centralized form of decision-making becomes overburdened with redtape and bureaucratic rules, breedinginefficiencies, unnecessary delays andmisallocation of resources. In the Philippines,horror stories of long delays and shortagesare merely due to red tape as well as overloadand congestion in the channels ofadministration and communication betweenthe national and local agencies.

4 Overcentralization creates wide regional

disparities as the metropolitan centerbecomes more developed (since most of theinstitutions and power centers are there) andget a bigger share of revenues. Migrationpatterns exacerbate regional disparities asmassive flows of people from backward anddepressed areas to metropolitan centersoverburden the centers of power and control.

The rise of NGOs and POs

It was during the time of President CorazonAquino, 1986-1992, that democraticreconstruction took place: fair elections,independent legislature and judiciary, freepress, free assembly leading to the creationof peoples’ organizations and numerous nongovernmental organizations, to name a few.Democratic space widened, allowing media

to proliferate. As prisoners of consciencewere freed, peoples’ assemblies wereallowed. As a result, many peoples’

organizations blossomed andnongovernment organizations mushroomedin a determined effort to rebuild andstrengthen democracy in the country(Pagsanghan, 1994). It is the existence ofthese institutions which generate localsupport, participation and responsibilities.

NGOs are self-help institutions engaged inactivities to promote better life at thegrassroots level. POs are composed of

grassroots people who undertake self-helpactivities. NGO networks are “umbrella”organizations through which individual NGOsand POs express their unity in vision, accessfunds and undertake projects together. POsand NGOs work and coordinate for a commonvision such as human rights, freedom,improving economic conditions, genderequality, sustainable development, andstewardship of the environment.

NGOs in the Philippines fall into three

broad groupings (Gaffud, 1996):

1 Relief and rehabilitation group: those thatprovide welfare, relief and rehabilitationservices in times of natural and man-madedisasters or the care of elderly and streetchildren;

2 Programs and projects group: those thatundertake programs and projects aiming toimprove the quality of life of the poor, whetherin the urban or rural setting through

community-based self-reliant initiatives;

3 Institutional and policy group: those thatseek changes in the institutional and policylevels consistent with greater localparticipation, initiative and control, throughadvocacy and lobby work.




WORK IN PROGRESS


The first cluster of NGOs is involved in short-term emergency relief work. They respond tofelt needs requiring quick humanitarian action

such as in areas destroyed by typhoons,floods, fires, earthquakes, or in conflict andwar situations. With the continuing naturaldisasters, typhoons, floods, earthquakes thatvisit the Philippines, these NGOs continuetheir services and relevance to many urbanand rural communities.

The second cluster could be classified furtherinto areas of concentration: a) enhancementof productive capacity, b) social services

delivery, c) participatory research andplanning, and d) mass-based organizing(Morales and Gaffud, 199_). In theenhancement of productive capacity, NGOsimplement programs aimed at farmproductivity improvement, provision ofagricultural and aquaculture support services,livelihood and cooperative development forlandless agricultural farmers, plantationworkers, urban poor, upland communities, andsmall fisherfolk.

The scope of NGOs doing Social services arecommunity health, housing and populareducation. Health services are done throughcommunity-based health programs thatincorporate indigenous health care practicesand involve community residents as primaryhealth care workers. Popular educationtechniques are used in information, trainingand delivery of services. Housing projects arefor the urban poor and internal refugees whosehomes are destroyed by situations of conflictor natural disasters.

NGOs concentrating on research and planningfocus on capability building in areadevelopment planning, resource inventory andmapping, community-based research, andmarket development. Their efforts are gearedtoward strategies for sustainabledevelopment. Organizing of the differentsectors in a community continues to be the

basic work of this type of NGOs. Their effortsare concentrated on mobilization of sectoralgroups, community-wide organizing, and

people’s enterprises such as cooperativesand self-help groups in the effort for peopleempowerment. People’s awareness isgeared toward the Filipino tradition ofcommunity spirit through community-basedactivities.

The third cluster of NGOs undertakes theirprograms through national networks involvedin policy formulation and changes. They areissue-centered. Examples are: Congress for

People’s Agrarian Reform, Freedom fromDebt Coalition, Green Forum Philippines andNational Coordinating Council for LocalGovernance. These are NGOs with nationalbases, but most of these NGOs and POsoperate at the local level. It is estimated thataltogether, about 65,000 NGOs and POsoperate nationwide in the Philippines(Brillantes and Tigno, 1993).

The NGOs role in development has beengiven formal recognition by both the Aquino

and Ramos administrations. NGOs now sitin national policy-making bodies such as thePhilippine Council for SustainableDevelopment, and the Agrarian ReformCouncil. In the recent Asia-Pacific EconomicCouncil, or APEC meeting held in Subic City,Philippines, NGOS were quite active eitheras “conscience blocs” within government (anenvironmental NGO, the Green Forum,managed to insert a sustainabledevelopment provision in the PhilippineAction Plan) or as “alert groups” warning the

government against the dislocating effects oftrade liberalization.

The passage of the Local GovernmentCode

A landmark legislation, the Local GovernmentCode or Republic Act 7160, was also



WORK IN PROGRESS



enacted during Corazon Aquino’s term. TheLGC is known as one of the more radicallaws passed by the Aquino government. It isher legacy of strengthening the workings ofdemocracy from below and hopefullyeffecting a sustained decentralizedeconomic and social development. Shecalled it the linchpin of her political program.The Code devolves power and resources tolocal government units at the provincial, city,municipal and barangay levels2, and allowsfor people’s participation in local governanceand development. The Code got its mandatefrom the 1987 Constitution which states that

the territorial and political subdivisions of theRepublic shall have “local autonomy” whichCongress shall provide in a local governmentcode. The LGC allows each localgovernment unit to determine its own growthand directions according to its capabilitiesand resources.

With the passage of the LGC, the exerciseof political power which used to be the soleprivilege of the central government is now

shared with the local government units.Examples of some devolved powers are todeliver basic services related to 1) health,including the running of hospitals for theprovinces, 2) agriculture, 3) social servicesand 4) tourism. It also includes the “right ofthe people to a balanced ecology, in theirrespective territorial jurisdictions.”

Within their coverage areas localgovernment units can “ensure and support,

among other things, the preservation andenrichment of culture, promote health andsafety, enhance the right of the people to abalanced ecology, encourage and supportthe development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technologicalcapabilities, improve public morals, enhanceeconomic prosperity and social justice,

promote full employment among theirresidents, maintain peace and order, and

preserve the comfort and convenience oftheir inhabitants.” This general welfareclause shows that local governments canexercise just about any power as long as theyadhere to the Constitution, national laws,public morals, and good customs.

The LGC has three main features. Carino(1992) summarizes it. First, localgovernments can now control their ownbudgets, equipment, projects and personnelwhich were formerly with the nationalgovernment. Second, the LGC increased thefinances3 accessible to local governmentunits through a bigger proportion—upwardsof 30 percent—in the internal revenueallotment. And third, it recognizes thesignificant role of the non-governmentalsector, in particular NGOs and POs, in localgovernance.

The third feature institutionalizes thepresence of NGOs as active partners in localautonomy. NGOs, POs, and other membersof the community can now participate in theplanning and monitoring of local governmentprojects through “Local Special Bodies.”These bodies include a) local developmentcouncils of the barangay, municipality, cityand provinces; b) local school boards; c) localhealth boards; d) local prequalification bidsand awards committees; and e) local peaceand order councils. The LGC also specificallyasks for the inclusion of representatives from

the women’s and workers’ sectors, the urbanpoor, indigenous cultural communities, anddisabled persons in local legislative bodies.The community through their people’sorganizations or non-governmentorganizations can insist on being consultedbefore the central and local governmentimplements any project in their area,




WORK IN PROGRESS


specially projects that will greatly impact theirimmediate environment.

The NGOs, POs and the local private sectorcan enter into an active partnership withLGUs in development work in terms of thefollowing: a) participation of NGOs and POsin local governance, b) joint undertakingsbetween NGOs/private sector and the LGUs,c) preferential treatment for cooperativesand marginalized sectors, d) providingassistance to POs and NGOs for economic,socially-oriented, environmental, or culturalprojects, and e) people empowerment and

strengthening accountability of LGUs (Villarin,1996).

How have these partnerships fared thus far?Selected case findings suggest that frequentpartnerships take place within thecooperative and socio-economic sector. Anumber of NGO-LGU joint activities centeron providing relief and rehabilitation to recentvictims of calamities and on maintainingpeace and order (Brillantes and Tigno,1993).

The variety of NGO-LGU collaboration

Taking stock of the degree of intensity andextensiveness of NGO-LGU collaboration isdifficult because of the absence of a nationalsurvey of NGO-PO-LGU joint undertakingsin the Philippines. Nevertheless, rapid fieldappraisals conducted by the USAID ondecentralization in various regions of thePhilippines, the GO-NGO Watch project of

the Institute for Strategic and DevelopmentStudies, and other documents offer anecdotalevidence on the extent of NGU-LGU coalitionin the country.

Participation in local governance:Participation in governance has opened upconsiderably. Policy positions developed

through the NGO networks are now raised inlocal government councils which opened in1991 to NGO and PO participation. TheNational Coordinating Council for LocalGovernance (NCC-LG), a nationwide NGO,has affiliates that are active in policyformulation and advocacy at the local level.

In different parts of the Philippines, NGOparticipation in governance is gaining groundas local special bodies begin to beorganized. In Negros Oriental, for each ofthe seven district hospitals, a health boardwas created with several non-government

representatives on each. In particular, thelocal health boards are now functioning. Thisis a result of an intensive effort by theDepartment of Health in late 1994 to orientand activate these local health boards. Inmost cases, health NGOs are very active inthese Local health boards. In the City ofDagupan, most of the legislation adopted bythe city council come from the activeparticipation of its newly accredited NGOmembers.

In Cotabato City, Muslims, indigenouspeoples or Lumads, and Christian settlershave bound themselves for common projectssuch as health provision and participation inelectoral governance through the UmmahDevelopment Center. It relates with otherinter-faith group of NGOs and POs and localgovernment units for common projects. InPuerto Princesa City, although the localdevelopment council meets only once amonth, NGOs have been very active indrawing up the city’s policies, especially on

environment, tourism, land use and ethnicgroups’ affairs.

Delivery of basic services: There areexamples of LGU-NGO partnership in theimplementation of service delivery programand operation of public enterprises. In Albay,“Simon of Cyrene” (a health NGO) has



WORK IN PROGRESS



attached its operation to the provincialhospital, so that referral on physicalrehabilitation can more easily beaccomplished. In Naga City, the LGU-NGOcollaboration is basically in social servicedelivery and economic development relatedactivities.

The provincial governments and NGOs in theprovinces of Negros Occidental, Cavite,North Cotabato, Palawan, Aurora, Surigaodel Norte, Benguet, Camarines Sur, NuevaVizcaya, and Davao del Norte haveconcluded comprehensive health care

agreements, or CHCAs, with theDepartment of Health to implement healthprograms. The DOH provides grants tothese LGUs which are required to put upcounterpart money to continue the provisionof basic health services to variouscommunities.

Joint undertakings between NGOs/privatesector and the LGUs: Development orientedNGOs often tap private businessmen infunding local projects. In Guagua, Negros

Oriental, private stallholders, encouraged bya local NGO, constructed a market on a lotowned by the municipality, with a seven-yearrent holiday from the municipality as anincentive. In Benguet, the province hasrecognized NGOs involved in monitoringmajor infrastructure projects in the province.In nearby Baguio City, collaboration with theprivate sector, particularly civic groups, hasbeen strongest in the area of tourismpromotion. This includes activities such asmounting of special events/festivals and the

hosting of visiting dignitaries, as well as inthe regular cleanliness drive of the city.

Preferential treatment for cooperatives:Cooperatives remain as the most visiblearea of economic partnership betweenNGOs and LGUs. In Juban, Sorsogon, theLGU and the Juban Agriculture Development

Cooperative are collaborating in operatingnurseries benefiting 53 lowland farmers. InCastilla, Sorsogon, the LGU-SorsogonIntegrated Hog Raising Cooperativepartnership developed the corn belt area inCastilla and constructed feed and edible oilmills.

In the province of Davao del Norte, it wasreported that in the municipalities of Panabo,Carmen and Maco, LGU-NGO collaborationis evident in livelihood projects such as inanimal dispersal programs. In Tagum, theLGU and the Davao Federation on Non-

Agricultural Cooperative, Inc. (DAFENACO)have gone into a joint venture for theconstruction of a Tagum Food Terminal. InDigos, Davao del Sur, a partnership betweenLGU and NGO emerged through the “ALISPAGOD” Project where a cooperative istapped as the municipal government’scollector of market fees.

In Bulacan, the loans being offered to thecooperative sector are now managed by atrust fund guided by an all-NGO advisory

council called the Sangguniang Magsasaka.In Davao City, LGU-NGO partnership isexemplified by the following undertakings: 1)privatization of comfort room operation inAgdao district public market through acooperative which is renting it at P10,000per month and 2) privatization of the terminalbuilding operation also in Agdao district,renting it to a cooperative for P20,000 permonth. Plans are underway to privatize itsslaughterhouse and eventually its publicmarkets.

Providing assistance to POs and NGOs forsocially oriented, environmental, or culturalprojects: Some of the areas open for NGO-LGU cooperation are in social andenvironmental undertakings. Regionalecumenical councils composed ofProtestant leaders in different parts of the




WORK IN PROGRESS


country form part of networks of churchNGOs collaborating with LGUs and otherNGOS in undertaking projects ranging fromdelivery of relief and rehabilitation services,health training in AIDS, herbal gardening,community medicine, to small livelihoodprojects such as marketing of rubber,advocacy for peace, and debt reduction.They are a nationwide network and theycoordinate closely with the National Councilof Churches in the Philippines. In Midsayap,So. Cotabato, a number of professionalsformed MIDSAYAP as a multi-sectoral groupwhich aims to gather resources to contribute

to the municipality’s development. Thisgroup now regularly interacts with the LGU.

Sometimes, the relationship with the LGU isadversarial. Citizen’s groups in Baguio Citysuccessfully opposed the top-down plansdeveloped for Camp John Hay by the TuntexCorporation, even though the localgovernment was willing to accept those plans(given certain conditions). In Bolinao,Pangasinan, local opposition to a proposedcement plant prevented the project from

being issued a certification of “socialacceptability” by the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources. Theproject had the support of the localgovernment.

In several areas such as Baguio City, NGO“re-greening” movements, which begin ascitizen initiatives, pool national governmentexpertise with resources raised from both theprivate sector and the local government. Inyet another example, Plan International works

exclusively with barangays in selectedmunicipalities in Benguet as part of its childsponsorship program. Communityorganizing and preparation of a barangaydevelopment plan, which is a PlanInternational requirement prior to extendingassistance, is done through the barangaycaptain and officials. Its projects include

health camps, water supply systems, accessroads and multi-purpose centers, where (forinfrastructure projects) the barangay’scounterpart is labor. It also recently started ahouse building and toilet bowl distributionprogram for its sponsored children in Tublay.

Several of the Puerto Princesa Citygovernment’s programs are implemented incooperation with broad based NGOs andpeople’s organizations. Among these are theBantay Puerto program, Oplan Linis, PovertyAlleviation Project, City Tourism Promotionand Development Program and Barangay

Mangingisda. NGOs have likewise beenactive in work among the ethnic groupsresiding within the city’s boundaries and theprevention of slash-and-burn agriculture.

Like the city of Puerto Princesa, the provincialgovernment has several undertakings whereNGO support is considered vital. Amongthese projects are the Bantay Gubat Project(a resettlement project) and Support Servicesto Tribal Communities. NGOs join provincialgovernment teams during inspection sorties

under the Bantay Gubat and Dagatprograms.

A joint program between the municipality andthe Batangas Livestock and PoultryAssociation (BALPRA) stipulates thatBALPRA shall actively support themunicipality’s drive to maintain environmentalstability by monitoring compliance with themunicipal ordinances relating to environment.The local federation of NGOs, the SANDIWA,has also supported the municipal government

in its campaign to improve the environment.

NGOs cooperate with Palawan LGU inconducting information campaigns amongkaingineros (slash-and-burn farmers),educating the latter on the need for moresustainable approaches to agriculture andfishing. HARIBON, Palawan has been



WORK IN PROGRESS



exceptionally active in this area. In EasternVisayas, NGOs actively support theimplementation of health projects byspearheading information campaigns,providing vehicles and mobilizing volunteers.

People empowerment and strengtheningaccountability of LGUs: The key tostrengthening the LGU-NGO alliance isthrough capability building and humanresource development. A group of NGOs,the Institute for Popular Democracy,Education for Life, and the Institute for PublicGovernance have participated in training

local community leaders towardsparticipating in the coming barangayelections in May 1998. The training includeleadership formation and electoral campaignmanagement. Several of these trainingprograms occurred in Luzon, Visayas andMindanao. In Bohol, a joint undertaking ofthe province, coastal municipalities, and thePROCESS Foundation led to the organizingand training of fisherfolk to protect coastalresources. The resulting organization is nowactively lobbying local government units on

issues regarding coastal resources.

The Jaime V. Ongpin Foundation or JVO,likewise, works at the barangay or communitylevel. While its activities include mostlycommunity infrastructures like roads andlivelihood projects, it also conducts trainingand planning sessions with barangay andmunicipal officials and representatives. LGUcounterparts for these are usually labor forthe infrastructure projects and costs of travelfor its participants to training programs or

planning sessions.

Reinventing collaboration andgovernance

The decentralization of power and authoritymandated by the new LGC has givencommunity residents, through NGOs and

POs, far greater chances than ever beforeof advocating their interests and demandingaccountability from their local leaders(Racelis, 1994). The trajectory of LGU-NGO cooperation now seems to go beyondthe conventional idea that non-governmentalgroups merely supplement governmentfunctions at the local level. The emergingpartnership suggests that the NGO-POsector can “have a substantive, dynamic andproactive role in community development

just as well as government” and “have astrong capacity to underwrite governmentalinitiatives (e.g., delivery of basic services,

relief and rehabilitation, socio-economicand entrepreneurial ventures)” (Brillantesand Tigno, 1993). That would enhance theirinfluence and political legitimacy at locallevels.

Some critical issues

The biggest test facing NGO-LGUcollaboration is whether the LocalGovernment Code will fall by the wayside

as a result of efforts to resistdecentralization. Already, there have beena number of bills being seriously consideredby the Philippine Congress reclaiming fornational agencies powers that have beendevolved to LGUs by the LGC. So far, theRamos administration has demonstratedstrong political will by vetoing a majorlegislation aiming to recentralize healthservices. NGOs will have always have tofunction as “alert mechanisms” which willwarn policy-makers against insidious

attempts to weaken decentralization in thePhilippines.

Even if the partnership survives this test, anumber of collaboration problems remainat various levels. NGOs fear, for example,that the mainstream bureaucratic tendencyof LGUs might restrain NGO initiatives. Onthe other hand, LGUs are concerned that




WORK IN PROGRESS


NGO thrusts in local governance are anintrusion on their traditional authority and tendto weaken their political power (Brillantes andTigno, 1992). At the other extreme iscollaboration gone bad, when NGOs and POsare drawn into the political mainstream onlyto be manipulated for clearly vested politicalobjectives.

NGO-LGU initiatives remain sporadic. Theyare not coordinated at higher levels. NGOparticipation often is at a project-to-projectlevel, rather than an full-blown effort to put forthan NGO agenda for local governance and

development. In part this is occasioned by apoor civil society structure in the Philippines.NGOs and other non-governmental entitiescannot match the breadth of the Philippinebureaucracy. In many parts of the country,NGOs are simply non-existent. Where theyhave considerable presence, NGOs areoften strangers to government mechanisms,are ineffectual in relating with localgovernment officials, and are at a quandaryon the extent of opportunities offered by theLGC to advance the interests of the non-

governmental sector.

Local governments likewise often limit thecollaboration to what is nominal orceremonial, such as attending meetings.Rather than harness NGOs for localgovernance, LGUs use them to “rubberstamp” policies already decided by localauthorities. In some cases, LGUs tend toexclude NGOs whose political principles oroperating ways are not compatible with thoseof the local authorities. Even politically

friendly NGOs suffer from the impression thatthey are a cost burden and unnecessaryadministrative layer at the local level.

Outside of the NGO-LGU partnership, NGOsface a serious dilemma in their ownbackyards. NGOs tend to direct, and imposeon, POs. Tadem (1996) argues that NGOs,being managed by urban middle class and

highly educated people, are able to articulatethe sentiments and grievances of thevoiceless and marginalised sectors ofsociety. The high profile taken by NGOs hascreated relations of dependency with POs.Just as leaders of political organizations tendto dictate on their followers, so are NGOs alsoseen as supplanting POs and reducing themto a client status. This can be a potential areaof tension, especially since in many cases,both NGOs and POs can have seriousdifferences in strategies and goals. Theyalso often compete for funding from basicallythe same sources.

Policy recommendations

It is necessary to strengthen the legalframework for NGO-LGU collaboration.NGOs have a demonstrated edge over localgovernments in many cases, especially inpursuing developmental goals. LGUs needthe support of NGOs in catering to the needsand preferences of communities because ofthe latter’s proximity, commitment, flexibility

and responsiveness to the people. NGOs,on the other hand, can benefit from LGUsbroad political mandate and resources tocarry out its programs. Because both LGUsand NGOs can benefit from each other’scomparative advantage, it makes politicalsense to fortify the NGO-LGU alliance. If theLGC were to be amended, therefore, it shouldbe in the direction of giving more authority toboth LGUs and NGOs, rather than in thedirection of recentralizing powers back to thecenter.

Separately, NGOs as a countervailing forceneed to be given more legal support.Apprehensions over decentralization oftenrest on the argument that the LGC wouldbecome an instrument for local authorities tostrengthen their grip on power, andconsequently use their control of localgovernments to sustain their own interests.



WORK IN PROGRESS



After all, many local politicians are alsopolitical warlords. Yet what the LGC hasdone is to transform Philippine politics froma multi-tiered system of patron-clientrelationships into “complex, miniscule groupsthat are increasingly difficult to mobilizearound old leaders, loyalties and symbols.”Mojares (1995) indeed suggests that “whilesuch disengagement from familiar loyaltiesmakes mobilization difficult, it also makes fora more democratic situation.” He makes thecaveat, however, that without compellingprinciples to backstop the change,decentralization can also lead to

depoliticization and demobilization.

In this context, the exposure of the NGOs inlocal governance can be considered acountervailing force to check on abuse ofauthority by local government officials andmake certain that the policy environmentremains highly politicized. Carino (1992)argues that NGOs should be able to chooseto maintain their identity apart from, ratherthan as a part of, government, and use theirmembership in the local legislative bodies

to see to it that actions of government on thelocal level are directed towards addressingthe people’s needs.

On their own, NGOs should be able todemand what is rightfully theirs under theLGC. While the LGC does provide thembroad, unprecedented opportunities, thegovernment can give them legal support intheir quest to be accredited in the localspecial bodies, and to be proactive in thepartnership.

Confidence-building measures are neededto consolidate LGU-NGO partnership gains.NGO-LGU collaboration must build on thepositive attitude and sentiments of both thegovernment and NGO partners. Constructiveexperiences shared by the partners shouldbe highlighted, and be made a model forother localities to follow. Some of these

collaborative undertakings have been madepossible even before the LGC took effect.The partnership situation can rely on morepositive reinforcements, such as the readyavailability of resources, and the eliminationof red tape and dilatory bureaucraticmaneuverings. Government can step in tosponsor teambuilding sessions for LGUsand NGOs, and capability-building programsfor NGOs.

Indicators of the outcomes of LGU-NGOcollaboration are important. It will be vitallynecessary to construct indicators which will

chart the progress of the LGU-NGOpartnership, in terms of their intendedoutcomes. The indices should be able tomeasure how substantive the participatoryprocess is, and how sustainable thepartnership would be. In the end, however,the collaboration should be evaluated by itssocial impact. Its success can be measuredby rises in income levels and productivity inthe localities, higher quality of life for thecommunities, increased quality and accessto basic social services, and greater

grassroots participation in decision-making.These indicators must provide the baselinedata with which to monitor and evaluate theprogress of the partnership.

In conclusion, it must be said that theessence of the NGO-LGU alliance is not toconsolidate local power, important though itmay be. Its substance is to harness localstrengths and willpower in order to promotegreater freedom and responsibility at thelocal level.




WORK IN PROGRESS


References

Brillantes, Alex B. and Jorge V. Tigno. “GO-NGO-

PO Partnerships in the Philippines and the 1991 Local

Government Code: An Anatomy of the Empowerment

Process,” in Institute for Strategic and Development

Studies, GO-NGO Watch, September 1993.

Carino, Jessica. The Local Government Code of 1991

and People’s Organizations and Non-Government

Organizations in Northern Luzon. Working Paper No.

20, Cordillera Studies Center, University of the

Philippines. Baguio City: September 1992.

Eleria, Wilbert, et.al. A Strategy for Devolution: The

Comprehensive Health Care Agreement of the

Philippine Department of Health. Paper submitted to

the Health Finance Development Program, 1995.

Gaffud, Romualdo, in “Citizen Particpation Under the

1991 LGC: Addressing Theoretical and Operational

Issues.” Draft 1996.

Institute for Strategic and Development Studies,

Operationalizing People Empowerment and the Local

Government Code of 1991: Summary of Case Findingsfrom Selected Local Government Units. Manila:

September 1993.

Kerkvliet, Benedict and Resil B. Mojares, “Themes in

the Transition from Marcos to Aquino: An Introduction,”

in From Marcos to Aquino: Local Perspectives on

Political Transition in the Philippines. Quezon City:

Ateneo University Press, 1991.

Lim, Joseph. “The Macro Aspect and the Political

Economy of Decentralization” in Joseph Lim and

Katsumi Nozawa (eds.), Decentralization andEconomic Development in the Philippines. Tokyo:

Institute of Developing Economies, 1992.

Mojares, Resil B. “The Dream Goes On and On:

Three Generations of the Osmenas, 1906-1990,” in

Alfred W. McCoy, An Anarchy oof Families: State and

Family in the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo

University Press, 1995.

Racelis, Mary. “POs, NGOs and Civil Society: From

the Fringes to the Maintream,” in Intersect, April-May

1994.

Pagsanghan, Joel. “An Assessment of Past ElectoralExperiences,” in Popular Participation in ElectoralReform and Governance. Institute of Politics and

Governance, 1994.

Rocamora, Joel. “The Constitutional AmendmentDebate: Reforming Political Institutions, Reshaping

Political Culture.” Draft, 1997.

Tadem, Eduardo C. “Reflections on NGO-PO

Relations,” in Communique, Nos. 34-35, March-June

1996.

Villarin, Tom S. People Empowerment: A Guide to

NGO-PO Partnership with Local Governments.

Quezon City: KAISAHAN, 1996.



WORK IN PROGRESS



Endnotes

1Director for Outreach and Publications, Institute forPopular Democracy, Manila, Philippines. Paper

presented at the “Conference on Cooperative

Development and Peace in Asia’” held on March 7-14,1997 at Chandigarh, India.

2Barangays are the smallest political unit in thePhilippines. Several barangays constitute a town or a

city. Several municipalities and cities constitute aprovince. The LGC also recognized the participation

of local peoples organizations and non governmentalorganizations in local governance.

3The local government code provides for the increase

of resources of local government units by 1)

broadening their power of taxation; 2) increasing their

Local Gov Paper IPD

Documents

Transcript of Local Gov Paper IPD