ngo and phil democracy

7/31/2019 NGO and Phil Democracy

1/14

Non-Governmental Organization and Philippine Democracy PALLON, Anna Leah

The essence of democracy is citizen participation in the political process. In the liberal tradition, it

means, at a minimum, citizens participation in elections through voting. Elections must be held regularly,

and there must be a competitive struggle for peoples vote among contenders. (Silliman and Noble 1998)

A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a legally constituted organization created by natural or

legal persons with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are

funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status insofar as it

excludes government representatives from membership in the organization.

NGOs exist for a variety of reasons, usually to further the political or social goals of their members

or funders. Examples include improving the state of the natural environment, encouraging the observance

of human rights, improving the welfare of the disadvantaged, or representing a corporate agenda.

However, there are a huge number of such organizations and their goals cover a broad range of political

and philosophical positions.

NGOs are committed to addressing social needs and improving the human condition. In addition to

this broad mandate, many NGOs share a number of other characteristics. They recruit and engage

volunteers for many of their activities and are usually led by volunteer boards; they place mission before

profits; and they engage in activities, such as grassroots advocacy campaigns that would be difficult or

impossible for other organizations. By focusing on a specific mission and drawing on the passionate

support of local communities and loyal volunteers, NGOs are able to address issues that organizations in

other sectors cannot or will not. Perhaps most important, NGOs enjoy a unique independence in their

service to the public. Unlike organizations in the public sector, which are often subject to constant

political pressure and regulation, and those in the corporate sector, which are beholden to their owners

and shareholders, NGOs are accountable primarily to the public's trust.

With the rise of the modern nation state, social development has increasingly been viewed as the

responsibility of government. The growth of social democracies and the welfare state during the 20 th

century clearly reflects this belief. However, despite massive investment in social programs, governments

have never been able to address fully the many needs of their citizens, nor are these needs often met by


2/14

the corporate sector. NGOs have emerged in large part to bridge the gap between what governments and

corporations can do and what society needs or expects.

The development of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in both developed and developing

countries represents a significant advance for democracy as NGOs are developing new ways of doing

politics. NGOs have reshaped the public agenda to reflect the interest of a broader range of people.

Furthermore, they have achieved modest success in affecting the outcomes of government decision

making.

In Philippines, a significant number of studies on the work of NGOs have been published. Most of

these studies, however, have concentrated on the role of NGOs as social development agencies. From this

perspective, NGOs are seen as mechanisms for promoting economic and social development through the

delivery of social services to the poor. From the political science perspective, this emphasis on the socio-

economic roles in contemporary NGO literature has obscured the significant political character of

NGOs. (Clarke 1995) while such studies remain significant, the NGO literature has underplayed the

explicitly political dimension of NGOs activities in the process of democratizing politics and governance.

NGOs represent highly functional cogs in the wheels of the democratic process. They serve to place

issues on the political agenda, and to formulate coherent demands for insertion into the legislative

process.

First used by the United Nations in 1953, the term NGO was used to refer to those non-state

organizations that interfere with the UN agencies and serve as their sounding boards.(Serrano 1994)

from then on, the term began to be used in many different ways, usually depending on the perspective of

the user. Of course, an NGO is by, definition that is not part if the government. Given this definition, the

NGO label can refer to a variety of organization-research institutions, foundations, professional

associations, labor unions, youth and student citizens organization, and womens organization or is

independent of the government.

Secondly, NGOs are often seen to men the same as voluntary organizations, the problem with this

definition is that it would overlap with membership organizations and that organization which help others

like cooperatives, mass organizations, religious, and trade and professional organizations. While all seek

to promote government decisions that advance their groups interest, each of these grouping is unique.


3/14

A more precise and useful definition of NGOs in the developing world is that NGO is a non-

membership organization formed for providing welfare and development series to the poor. NGOs are

generally non-membership organizations. They are private and non-profit, and operate within a legal

framework. They are most often established as relatively small organizations, possessing some kind of

specialist knowledge, which provide a service to, or act on behalf of, interest-based organizations or

subsections of the population.(Putzel 1999) NGO often work on development projects that benefit the

poor and other popular sectors. Their commitment to their organizational goals is articulated through their

emphasis on peoples participation and through the provision of support and professional services to those

popular sectors.(Padron 1987) While most NGOs take a direct role in implementing development

programs for the poor, usually through working with groups they help to formed called peoples

organizations (POs), others take indirect roles as they help fellow NGOs to improve their implementation

of projects through training, technical assistance, research, lobbying, etc. NGOs articulate interests that

are not historically represented within the political system. NGOs picket, set up barricades, pressure

candidates for elected office, lobby the legislature, and negotiating with executive departments and local

governments-all efforts to press the views and agendas of the poor on public officials. Since NGOs apply

their energies to the political arena, trying to articulate and aggregate interest of the poor and other

popular sectors and to influence policy outputs.

NGOs, however, are different from POs. POs are local, non-profit, membership-based associations

that organized and mobilized members in support of collective welfare goals. POs are member ship-based

organizations, like farmer organizations and cooperatives, womens organizations, community and

cooperatives organizations, which are set up primarily to promote the interests of their members. POs are

committed to securing benefits for their particular membership though they still articulate their aims and

objectives within the more general development discourse. Although the NGO/PO distinction is now

accepted in much of the NGO literature, a number of alternative labels are often used. Caroll distinguishes

between Grassroots Support Organizations (GSOs) and Membership Support Organizations (MSOs),

while Fisher distinguishes between Grass-roots Support Organizations (GRSOs) and Grassroots

Organization (GROs).

NGOs are also distinct from political organizations, in particular, political issues. Political organizations,

unlike NGOs are primarily oriented toward attaining state power and joining the administration. NGOs

are also clearly distinct from other societal organizations, such as privately owned firms and corporations

that operate on a profit-making basis. One explanation is that NGOs fill up a gap in the function of the

government as a stimulating agent for community development while it creates opportunities for the


4/14

politically marginalized to become active participants in the socio-political process of society.

(Gregorio-Medel 1993) another view is that NGOs fill an institutional vacuum by articulating issue-based

platforms and by mobilizing groups and individuals that the political party system has proved unable or

unwilling to reach.

The emergence of NGOs in areas where government intervention is prevalent can also be seen as

recognition of governments inability to deliver basic services due to resource limitations exacerbated by

bureaucratic problems including red tape, graft and corruption. (Brillantes 1994) NGOs also play a role

in the privatization of policy implementation that benefits both local government and NGOs, and

enhances the quality of community life. Collaboration between government and NGOs to implement

policy falls within the scope of privatization. In the interest of cost saving and effective policy

implementation, government may contract NGOs to carry out services or offer subsidies and grants to

them to do so. NGOs on their part, seek out sufficient government funding so that they can fulfill their

missions. While much of the privatization of policy implementations initiated by the state to reduce its

service provision obligations, local governments also called upon local organizations aid policy

implementation.

In addition to service provision, Philippines NGOs also play significant roles in policy advocacy,

elections, and governance. The phenomenon of NGOs becoming a major political force in the Philippines

dates back to the 1960s when the country was in a state of worsening political and economic exploitation

by ruling elite. This situation fueled the growth of angry mass movements and started the conflict

between the state and large sections of the civil society. This period was characterized by intensifying

political unrest and rapid mobilization of revolutionary mass organizations. Alongside the growth of

militant social reform movements was the emergence of a parallel movement for grassroots development

involving organizations engaged in empowering the local communities for self-reliant development. The

shift by the Catholic Church in the late 1960s away from the purely spiritual aspects of Christianity

toward an emphasis on social justice was clearly a major factor in development of grassroots

organizations. Church organizations played a key role in the conscientization and development of

political groups. (PCC-SVC 1962-65) The declaration of Martial Law in 1972 hit the progressive and

militant NGOs hard. During this period, torture and arbitrary arrests of their members were widespread.

While the state activities posed enormous threat to their existence, the militant organizations continued to

organize POs to address socially significant issues such as agrarian reform, land and housing, and human

rights. While there were co-operations due to the pressures of continued repression, the political situation

allowed for the rebirth of both individual NGOs and united front efforts.


5/14

The Marcos dictatorship was a potent force in the development of NGOs apart from its declaration

of martial law. Within the context of authoritarian rule, the Marcos administration failed to address the

problems of development. Discarding the view that the government functions to promote social welfare

and further the public interest, NGO emerged with a radically different approach to development. NGOs,

funded by international, largely European donors, became an important base for activist committed to

opposing the dictatorship and working with socio-economic groups adversely affected by its economic

policies thus, making the NGOs visible in the action of immediate response in the alarming situation of

the society.

The Ninoy Aquino assassination in 1983 marked the second wave of activism. It led to the

politicization of various social sectors and interest group. Broad mass-based organizations were

formed for the protection and assertion of human rights and development agenda. This period also marked

a new phase in the political involvement of organized groups such as the NGOs. Their opposition to

Marcos pushed them or initiate a concerted effort participate in the electoral process and adopt a more

directly political stance. It pushes back the people to unify their objectives as the dictatorship is making

the rule out of democracy.

The People Power Revolution of February 1986 furthered the growing political prominence of

NGOs. A democratic space in which NGOs and POs could proliferate was created as democratic rights

were restored including the right to organized, to free assembly, to participate in elections, and to a free

press. Such state-based changes enabled various sectors to participate more actively in governance. This

phase of political environment fostered the general strategy of decentralization, concretized by the 1991

Local Government Code. Through this development, the significant roles of NGOs in re-democratization

and decentralization processes were recognized and NGOs took on the challenge brought by the

opportunities for participation and partnership in governance. Domestic developments in the Philippines

that brought about the proliferation of NGOs were paralleled by developments in the external

environment. The most obvious international factor was the global debt crisis of the 1980s and the

dramatic increase in poverty that followed in its wake. The debt crisis was exacerbated by famine, wars,

and natural disasters. This series of economic, political, and natural crisis triggered international response

on a massive scale. International NGOs expanded their levels of operations to cover more countries and

more concerns. (Briones 1992)


6/14

Another international factor was the increased preference of official aid institution to work directly

with NGOs. Political failure on the part of the government led official donors to aid to focus more on

NGOs rather than the state to provide services. The need to reduce the role of centralized and

monopolistic state structures in production and service provision became a part of these institutions

policy thrusts. This move to working with NGOs helped transform NGOs into popular alternative agents

of socio-economic changes, both in the eyes of donors and beneficiaries. Thus, in the 1980s, major

donors, like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank,

turned increasingly to NGOs as flexible and inexpensive instruments for their development activities. The

funding of NGO-based development projects increased substantially. This development furthered the

growth and social relevance of NGOs.

The present Philippine NGO community spawned from those political circumstances is characterized

by a high degree of heterogeneity and by conflicting political or strategic orientations. The heterogeneity

of Philippine NGOs is a result of this sectors evolution as NGOs responded to changes in the external

and internal environment, especially the dramatic shifts in the socio-political and economic situation of

the Philippines. Such heterogeneity is also explained in large part by the institutional forces that underpin

it and the completing objectives that motivate NGOs. Karina Constatino-David captures much of this

heterogeneity and conflict. Constatino-David differentiates membership organizations from institutions

and agencies and classifies the different types of institutions and agencies into DJANGOs, TANGOs,

FUNDANGOs, MUNGOs, GRINGOs, BONGOs, and COMEN GOs.

DJANGOs are more commonly called development NGOs. They perform a mixture of direct and

indirect support service functions with POs. Since 1986, POs has become a generic label for a complex

range of largely traditional organization structures such as account for only 11.5 % of the total number of

NGOs.

TANGOs are charitable, welfare and relief organizations that perform valuable services for the

poor. While they intersect with POs and DJANGOs, their primary focus remains providing assistance to

marginalized individuals and families.

FUNDANGOs are foundations and grant-giving organizations that are essentially extensions of the

state or personal interests of state actors as they are usually set up by politicians and government

functionaries. BONGOs are the groups that are created primarily as tax dodges, vehicles for quelling labor

unrest, or means to project a benevolent company image.


7/14

Finally, COMENGOs relate to fly-by-night organizations that package proposals to attract outside

funding and promptly disappear with the funds.

With 1986 and the success of People Power, President Corazon Aquinos reinstatement of

formal democracy, her receptiveness toward NGOs, and increase in foreign subsidies, further growth of

NGOs was encouraged. Some NGOs pursued agendas that were directly political, urging or opposing

particular state actions, supporting electoral candidates, or influencing appointments. Some were, at most,

indirectly political aiming at changing socioeconomic conditions. Most were a combination of the two,

with a common emphasis on empowerment.

The positive policy environment of the Aquino administration explains why NGOs increases

geometrically in number during her presidency, as an apparent alternative to institutionalizing a political

party in the post 1986 period; President Aquino gave her blessing to NGOs as the vehicles to democratize

political power. This policy preference for NGOs was evident in the major policy frameworks of the

Aquino administration, especially the 1987 Constitution.

The 1987 Constitution acknowledges NGO participation through Article II Section 23, Article X Section 14,

Article XIII Section 15 and Section 16.

The 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) recognizes NGOs, farmers organizations,

cooperatives and rural workers not just for their traditional delivery roles, but also as public interest groups

involved in negotiation and mediation of conflict. The 1987-92 and the 1993-98 Medium Term Development

Plans of the Philippines (MTPDP) acknowledge NGOs as partners in development work, specifically, in

poverty alleviation, environmental protection, delivery of social services, and the promotion of peoples

participation in governance. The passage of the Local Government Code in 1991 (RA 7160), and known as

popularly as LCG, clearly reaffirmed the role of NGOs as legitimate representatives of popular interests. The

enactment of the Code formalized NGO and PO involvement in the structure and processes of local

governance. The Code also entitles NGOs and POs to:

1.) Representation on elective bodies at the municipal, provincial, and regional level, including 25% of

Development Council seats at each level.

2.) Sectoral representation in the local legislative assemblies (the provincial, city and municipal

assembly). (RA 7160)

3.) Consultation on programs and projects planned or administered by national government agencies.


8/14

The Code also empowers local government units (LGUs) to establish NGOs and POs and to jointly undertake

projects with NGOs and POs as partners in development and the promotion of the welfare of the communities:

Section 34.Role of Peoples and Non- Government Organizations.

Section 35.Linkages with People\s and NGO

Section 36.Assistance to People and Non- Governmental Organizations

A. Building Bases of Democratic Participation

This expansion of officially supported political participation represents the main political achievements

of the Philippine NGOs. In the realm of individual/group expression and autonomous action, NGOs are

touted for their prominent role in the development of civil society. Civil society is the politically active

popular sector of society. (Serrano 1993) encompassing masses of citizens engaged in public protest, social

movements, and NGOs acting in the public sphere. NGOs help consolidate the social space between the

market and state by providing organizational mechanisms through which people come together to pool their

energies and resources so as to pursue certain personal interest of the group members, or meet the social

service needs of particular sectors, or promote activities they believe are in the communitys general interests

and are of interest to people in general. Civil society is enlarged and solidified by virtue of these groups

being self-organized autonomous entities that are free of state control and operate outside the marketplace.

NGO participation in the political process is a form of mobilization and a struggle for power. NGOs

stand between individuals and the large, overpowering market and government bureaucracy by providing the

institutional means for mediating between the conflicting interests and social values of the various sectors of

the society. As NGOs enable people to achieve success in group endeavors, subsequently, they help build up

efficacious attitudes toward participation in government.

The area of public policy formulation is probably one of the most in need of NGO intervention as such

intervention allows people greater involvement in public policy making. NGOs engage in the policy process

to add the voice of the poor and marginalized to the policy equation by assisting POs in the formulation of

their policy agendas. They also provide space for people for maneuver given the political and economic

context of the country and the specific policy changes aimed at.


9/14


10/14

NGOs, formed AKBAYAN to merge tow main NGO electoral conditions: Project 1992, coordinated by

MPD, and Project 2001, a DSK initiative with PANDAYAN as its main member. Running no candidates of

its own, AKBAYAN supported the Liberal Party-Partido Demokratikong Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (LP-PDP-

Laban) coalition at the national level including Jovito Salongas candidacy for President and Aqulino

Pimentels for Vice- President. Despite expectations, AKBAYAN and LP-PDP-Laban candidates were

defeated.

Elections are indeed additional venues for NGOs and POs to advance their cause. However, most NGO

activists tend to view elections as merely an extension of their advocacy work. Furthermore, because

elections in the Philippines still conform to the clientelist model, an issue-oriented approach such as that

subscribed to by most of the NGO community, is an insufficient basis for mobilizing voters. Obviously,

traditional politicians have more resources than NGOs for mobilizing voters and winning elections.

Another important contribution of NGOs is their impact on the policy-making process. Many NGOs

view policy advocacy as one of their primary responsibilities. Advocacy refers to the advancement of so-

called popular interests and agendas along the general lines of a participatory, equitable, and sustainable

development. Policy advocacy encompasses overt political activity of NGOs and POs. Such explicit

political action includes efforts to influence and change public policy, challenge the existing structure of

political power, make overt demands of policy makers, and affect elections outcome. NGOs in the

Philippines are intimately involved in this realm of political activity. Often, they act as pressure groups

through which people express opinions and make policy demands, and through which they work with

government administrative and policy making bodies to formulate and implement public policy. As pressure

groups or collaborators in social movements, NGOS broaden citizens repertoire of political action, enabling

them to directly engage political authorities through which street protests and other forms of group action.

One striking lesson from the Philippine NGOs is that they help to bring critical development issues and

concerns into open public debate and to the attention of policy makers. Examples of such groups include

environmental NGOs which lobby government to protect habitats and species, and social welfare

organizations that in addition to their service activities press government officials to adopt new programs and

allocate more funding for existing projects. NGOs have also launched campaigns for rural and urban land

reform, the recognition of human rights, an end to commercial logging, and numerous other policy changes.

Through continued advocacy and lobbying efforts, the NGOs gained recognition and impact in the policy

making process. NGOs have achieved some success in shaping public policy. At the national level, health

NGOs worked with the health department to develop a national drug policy and secure the passage of the


11/14

Generics Act in 1988. Over the opposition of the Philippine Medical Association and the drug industry, As a

result of Haribons challenge to destructive logging practices in Palawan, the Philippine Congress enacted

Republic Act 7611 in 1989, a legislation that bans commercial logging in all natural forests in the Philippines

and mandates the protection of Palawans natural resources base through a Strategic Environmental Plan. In

March 1992 The Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) was signed into law by President Aquino.

The UDHA is a direct product of lobbying by the urban poor, social development NGOs, and the Catholic

Church. In February 1995, President Ramos signed into law the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law which is

considered a significant victory for womens NGOs is also another success.

B. Building and Enhancing Areas of Governance

Participation in governance refers to the broadening of representative democracy through the

utilization of venues within the state to actualize genuine peoples participation in the formal structures of

government primarily through actual presence in the legislative and executive departments. In the

Philippines, the increasing participation of NGOs and POs in the process of governance particularly at the

local level has gained increasing recognition over the recent years. This has become more particularly

marked since the enactment of the LGC in 1991.

NGOs have also been in the fore front of advocacy for local governance. The St. Magdalena Alliance for

Community Development (SAMACD) a 10 member network of local NGOs and POs in Bicol- worked to

popularize the salient points of LGC of 1991. This alliance participated in the local legislature to bring to the

officials attention the problems of the municipality. In the latter part of 1992, the Alliance facilitated the

formation of local special bodies among the POs.

There are three key areas whereby NGOs and POs can participate in local governance as highlighted in

the LGC of 1991. These are: 1) strengthening the local bureaucracy; 2) de-bureaucratizing local governance;

and 3) institutionalizing peoples governance.

NGOs engage with the government in various ways at the national level. They are active participants in

the policy making and implementing bodies and processes. NGOs and POs in the country can influence the

executive branch of government through various mechanisms. The most common institutional mechanism

for direct influence at the policy level is participation in national councils or inter-agency, cross-sectoral

committees, cabinet clusters, etc., responsible for the formulation of policies addressing broad national

concerns. These mechanisms give NGOs direct access to members of Cabinet and other senior officials of


12/14

the executive branch. NGOs have also become important sources of political leaders for political and other

government positions since 1986, and personnel from the NGO/PO community have been recruited to the

upper tiers of the bureaucracy.

In the legislature, NGO participation is institutionalized in the appointment of sectoral representatives in

Congress and in local law-making bodies. Sectors which are represented consist mainly of the marginalized-

the urban poor, women, peasants, indigenous cultural activities, etc.

Among NGOs and POs, the most utilized mechanism to intervene in Congress is the indirect area of

intervention, particularly mass actions, but these are not necessarily always the most effective. The

legislation on the anti-terrorism bills is another area where NGOs and POs have played significant roles. As

an expression of their opposition to the anti-terrorism bills, and in order to influence the law-makers to

withdraw the bills, the Coalition Against State Terrorism (CAST), a coalition of 24 NGOs and POs from the

human rights community, church, peasants, women, health, urban poor, internal refugees, indigenous people,

professionals, and small businessmen, and concerned individuals utilized a wide variety of methods, which

included, among others, mass mobilizations, lobbying and dialogues with key state actors, education and

information drives, propaganda, signature campaigns, international networking and linkages, the issuance of

a pastoral letter from the Catholic hierarchy, and consolidation and organizing of the opposition. The

campaign against the anti-terrorism bills was largely successful because it pushed government to temporarily

withdraw the measures. Their optimism, however, was tempered with caution.

The NGOs, indeed, play an essential role in democratizing politics and governance. They have made

significant contributions in facilitating meaningful participation of the people in the policy making and

execution processes of the government. NGOs used to be involved only in building community and peoples

organizations, in protecting human rights violations, and in providing social services to the needy. Before,

NGOs were at the margin of political forces in the mainstream, now, they are successfully positioned as a

key participant political force.

The awakening on the part of NGOs has led them to explore means on how they can broaden their role

in enhancing democracy. The NGOs are seen as organizers of communities, advocates of peoples issues,

mediators between the dominant sectors of the society and the disadvantaged sectors, and facilitators in

provision of basic social services. Over the years, NGOs have become important institutional vehicles for

mobilizing, articulating, and aggregating peoples interests and political demands.


13/14

The ability of NGOs to influence elites, government agencies, and to advance their political agendas or

those of beneficiary POs or communities depends on the particular means by which NGOs participate in

politics, NGOs and POs have utilized both parliamentary and non-parliamentary means to intervene in

politics. The NGOs and POs have worked to create and strengthen the democratic process through policy

advocacy and institutional reforms. They have aimed at building genuine democracies so that; the poor

communities and popular grassroots organizations can have access to both economic and political

opportunities and thereby, contribute effectively to national development. With the growing recognition of

NGOs as vital components of civil society, and numerous spaces for governance, engaging government has

emerged as a continuing challenge. While NGOs are seen to be able to influence the formulation of critical

policies, they may not be able to influence the implementation of such policies. Whether the NGO sector can

sustain its participation is an important question that needs to be addressed.

To sum it up: NGOs, do not supplant the responsibility and the obligation of the government to its

people and state, thus it is a response that supports the people in reaching out their needs and somehow to

conceptualize the power of the people as a democratic state. NGOs may be small time organizations but the

impact of their mission to serve and change the perspective of society into a much better form of state is the

greatest achievement they could ever have, and it is proven alongside the history of Philippine government

over the transition of power and time that they lead the society into the action of a mature and flexible

political culture. They inculcate into the minds of the people to work as a one body in times of disaster and

for those less fortunate people to have the opportunity to gain access in an equal rights. In a broad sense of

analyzing the roles and objectives of NGOs in the Philippine context maybe difficult to define what is the

real point outside the reality, many argued that their objectives maybe seen as an instrument of penetrating a

new wave of the ruling elite or the power of bureaucracy but to look at the viewpoint, it offers a lot

opportunities to the people to develop within themselves the sense of responsibility and urgency in times of

lobbying and change within the system.

Aquino, Belinda A. (1999).Politics and Governance: Theory and Practice in Philippine Context.

Ateneo De Manila University: Department of Political Science.

Brillantes, Alex Jr. B. (1994). Redemocratization and Decentralization in the Philippines: The

Increasing Leadership Role of NGOs.

De Guzman, Raul P. (1988). Government and Politics of the Philippines. College of Public

Administration, University of the Philippines: Oxford University Press.


14/14

Green, A. and Matthias, A. (1997).Non-Governmental Organizations and Health in Developing

Countries. New York: St. Martin's Press.

G. Sidney Silliman and Lela Garner Noble. (1998). Citizen Movements and Philippine Democracy.

Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press.

G.Sidney Silliman and Lela Garner Noble, citizen Movements and Philippine Democracy, in

organizing for Democracy, eds. G. Sidney Silliman and Lela Garner Noble ( Quezon City: Ateneo

De Manila University Press, 1998), p. 290.

Gerald Clarke, Participation and Protest: Non-Governmental Organizations and Philippine

Politics. (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1995), p. 13.

Arthur Bentley, The process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1967), p. 263.

Isagani Serrano, Civil Society in the Asia Pacific Region (Washington, D.C.: CIVICUS, 1994), p.4.

James Putzel, NGOs and Rural Poverty. In Silliman and Noble, p. 78.

Alex B. Brillantes, Jr., Redemocratization and Decentralization in the Philippines:The IncreasingLeadership Role of NGOs, International Review of Administrative Science. Vol. 60, no. 4,

December 1994, p. 577.

Temario C. Rivera, The New World Order: Problems and Prospects for the Peoples Movements

in the Philippines, in Beyond the Cold War: Philippine Perspectives on the Emerging World

Order, eds. Carmencita Karagdag and Augusto Miclat, Jr. (Manila: Peoples Diplomacy TrainingProgram for Philippine NGOs et.al., 1992), p. 194.

ngo and phil democracy

Documents