ngos and pos participation in local governance

PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE: THE PARTICIPATION OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND

PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

____________________

A Research Paper Submitted to

Mrs. Reynilda Palma-Cosare, MPA Graduate School

Surigao del Sur State University Tandag, Surigao del Sur

____________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in

Public Administrative System (PA 203)

By

ERNIE Y. GULTIANO October 7, 2010



2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

I THE PROBLEM 3

Introduction 3

Objectives 4

Significance 4

II METHODOLOGY 5

III PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 6

The Emergence and Role of NGOs 6

and POs in the Philippines

The Impact and Contributions of NGOs and POs 10

in Local Governance

The Problems and Issues 14

IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 17

Summary 17

Conclusion 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY 21



3

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

INTRODUCTION

Afternoon of July 26, 2010, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III (P-Noy as he is

popularly known) delivered his first State of the Nation Address (SONA) that shocked the entire

country and drew various reactions from both his supporters and critics. It is worth to note,

however, that other than the awful and astonishing information that the President disclosed as

regards the erstwhile administration, one of the remarkable points that he accentuated was the

call for partnerships with the private sector to pursue government‟s development efforts. Such

bold pronouncement then inspired and crystallized the theme of this paper.

Participatory governance, which in recent years has been increasingly

associated with decentralization, has now become not only a trend but an imperative for local

governments to pursue development. (www.urbangov.wordpress.com, July 2010) In the

Philippines, particularly, three provisions (Article II, Section 23; Article XIII, Section 15; and Article

XIII, Section 16) of the 1987 Constitution institutionalize the role of Non-Government

Organizations (NGOs) and People‟s Organizations (POs) in the development of the country.

Moreover, Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991,

furthers the Constitution‟s aims by establishing a role for “people power” at the local level.

Sections 34 and 35 of such Code specifically mandate the participation of NGOs and POs in the

decision-making processes, delivery of certain basic services, capability-building and livelihood

projects, and the like in the provincial, city, municipal, and barangay levels. This practically allows

the stakeholders, particularly the marginalized sectors, to play vital roles in processes that may

include local development planning and implementation, setting up conflict resolution strategies,

and resource management.

http://www.urbangov.wordpress.com/



4

OBJECTIVES

Nonetheless, in more than a decade since this participatory governance was

implemented through the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991, had there

been significant contributions made by NGOs and POs in governance? This paper therefore aims

to explore the extent of NGOs and POs‟ participation in governance, particularly in local

government units. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions: (1) what brought about

the emergence and the role of NGOs and POs in Philippine history; (2) what particular impact and

contributions did NGOs and POs make in local governance; (3) what problems came into view

insofar as the participation of NGOs and POs in local governance is concerned?

SIGNIFICANCE

It is within this context that the researcher embarks resolutely on this research

enterprise with the utmost optimism that this study can add to the depository of materials and

information relevant and useful in the study of Philippine Administrative System. The findings of

this study may hopefully precipitate other students and enthusiasts in the field of research to dig

into some similar potential areas that would not only boost intellectual vitality, but also become

meaningful and beneficial to the lives of the people in this present day circumstance.



5

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in this study consists of plain documentary analysis. The

researcher searched for articles, commentaries, books, and other resources from the Local

Governance Resource Center (LGRC), the Graduate School Library of Surigao del Sur State

University, and the rich reliable sites of the World Wide Web. After reading, analyzing and

interpreting critically the resources, he then synthesized all the data and information of what now

comprise the findings and conclusions of this study.



6

CHAPTER III

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The participation of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and People‟s

Organizations (POs) in local governance includes an array of multi-faceted experiences in the

extensive and superabundant strata of history and of public administration.

The following subtopics are central and indispensable in this attempt to unearth

the participation of such organizations in local governance. They provide well-founded facts and

information from dependable personalities and institutions that would hopefully shed light on the

aforementioned questions vis-à-vis the theme of this paper.

THE EMERGENCE AND ROLE OF NGOs AND POs IN THE PHILIPPINES

The origin of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and People‟s

Organizations (POs) in the Philippines can be traced back to the era of Spanish Rule in the

country. The Roman Catholic Church and other religious orders established the first welfare

organizations in the Philippines. They established parochial schools, orphanages, asylums, and

hospitals. However, these schools and hospitals were reserved for the local elite. The church also

established Cofradías (brotherhoods), which encouraged neighborly behavior, such as visiting the

sick and helping with town fiesta preparations, and foundations. In 1781, Jose de Basco y Vargas

established the Economic Society of Friends, one of the few secular welfare organizations then.

During the late 19th century, several cofradías were established to resist Spanish rule. Some

organizations, such as the Cofradia de San Jose, were peasant groups established to fight for

Filipino independence. The Propaganda Movement, led by the native intelligentsia, sought

reforms and equal rights for Filipinos. The movement used Masonic lodges to spread propaganda

ideals and education in collective action. By contrast, Katipunan was a secular, anti-religious

group that advocated independence through popular revolution. Katipunan later inspired student

activist groups during the 1960s and 1970s. All of these were termed asociaciones ilicitas (illegal



7

associations) by the colonial government. (Asian Development Bank‟s NGO and Civil Society

Center, December 2007)

Several months later, after Spain ceded the Philippines to the Americans in the

Treaty of Paris, the American colonial government took over. Such government was generally

supportive of civil society. The Philippine corporation law of 1906 explicitly recognized NGOs, and

the government subsidized their operation. American NGOs, such as the American Red Cross

and the Anti-Tuberculosis Society set up branches in the new colony. The American Methodist

and Protestant churches and the Church of England established schools and hospitals. Domestic

organizations, such as Asociacion de Damas Filipinas (Organization of Filipino Women) and the

Catholic Women‟s Federation also provided welfare services. In 1917, the Associated Charities of

Manila was established to channel public fund-raising to charitable institutions and hospitals in

the city. With the support of the government, hundreds of farmer credit cooperatives were born in

the 1920s and 1930s, soon claiming more than 100,000 farmers as members. At the same time,

dissatisfaction among peasants about rural life fueled growth in membership of the communist

movement‟s labor federation, the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO). (ibid.)

After the World War II, the emergence of welfare and civic organizations were

geared towards post-war relief and rehabilitation work. They were set up to provide packages of

health, education, and socio-economic services. Several private organizations entered the scene

to promote the community development approach. A vital element involved was harnessing the

labor capacity of the masses to support government objectives. The government used this

strategy as a comprehensive counter-insurgency measure and private organization projects

became complementary efforts in the government's counter-insurgency campaign during this

time. (www.um.dk, July 2010)

Ferdinand Marcos, who became President in 1965, envisioned a “new society” in

which there was little space for civil society and no tolerance for advocacy NGOs. His

administration became increasingly associated with the suppression of civil, human, and political

rights. As a result, such organizations either fled underground by joining the armed struggle of the

National Democratic Front or sought shelter from Marcos‟ security forces by affiliating with a

http://www.um.dk/



8

university or religious institution such as the Catholic Church‟s National Secretariat for Social

Action (NASSA), the Share and Care Apostolate for Poor Settlers, the Association of Major

Religious Superior of the Philippines, etc. Other anti-Marcos organizations operated under

innocuous names, such as the Agency for Community Education Services and the Organization

for Training. The activism of these and other Civil Society Organizations eventually contributed to

the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the “people power” revolution of 1986, which marked the

beginning of resurgence in civil society. (Asian Development Bank‟s NGO and Civil Society

Center, December 2007)

Furthermore, the period starting from mid 1960s to 1972 marked the

intensification of socio-economic and political crisis that spurred the surge of revolutionary and

anti-imperialist movements. Church-based organizing gained prominence during this period and

church initiated cooperatives flourished. In the latter half of the sixties, church social involvement

leaned decisively more and more towards addressing "structural roots of problems". Social

transformation became the agenda and in this context, rural organizing spread nationwide as it

became apparent that the country was in a state of emergency. (www.um.dk, July 2010)

The imposition of Martial Law in 1972 banned all forms of progressive social

organizations, but NGO initiatives sharpened all the more. From 1973, there was a resurgence of

popular organizing despite repression, building up to open mass actions in mid-1970s.

Development workers of NGOs came from the ranks of students, service professionals,

intellectuals and religious volunteers - deriving their inspiration from the Catholic Church

teachings (Vatican II) and from experience of street militancy. Propelled by the intensity of events

during Martial Law, NGOs and POs actively engaged in "conscientization" and community

organizing activities. The development work of NGOs to build socio-economic infrastructure (e.g.

cooperatives, communal farms, etc.) to ensure sustained development efforts were constantly

obstructed nevertheless by government counter-development actions as many development

workers were killed and PO structures destroyed due to military operations.(ibid.)

Following the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986, the Aquino

administration adopted the Policy Agenda for People-Powered Development, which included

http://www.um.dk/



9

decentralization of government structures, minimum government intervention and greater

involvement of people in the decision-making, planning and implementation of programs through

NGOs and POs. (www.fao.org, July 2010)

Hence, the number of NGOs mushroomed during the administration of President

Corazon Aquino. In addition to those with noble pursuits and good intentions were NGOs of

dubious integrity and engaging in questionable practices. Some of these were established by

politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats to advance personal, rather than public welfare. In

response, ten of the largest NGO networks formed the Caucus of Development NGO Networks

(CODE-NGO) in 1991 to promote professionalism, expand reach, and increase the effectiveness

of NGOs. (Asian Development Bank‟s NGO and Civil Society Center, December 2007)

President Fidel Ramos, who served from 1992 to 1998, sought the cooperation

of civil society by promoting their involvement in multi-stakeholder mechanisms to promote peace

in Mindanao. He also advanced the Social Reform Agenda to engage organized poor groups into

national policy development. During the Ramos administration, NGOs stimulated vibrant public

discourse and helped to redefine the content of politics. Topics that once would have been

deemed inappropriate for legislation such as violence against women and the rights of indigenous

people became common subjects of debate and successful parliamentary legislation. Civil society

also became progressively institutionalized and professional. College graduates began to see a

career in the nonprofit sector as a viable option. (ibid.)

Eventually, many NGO leaders campaigned for Joseph Estrada, Ramos‟

successor, and some were repaid with cabinet appointments. However, civil society quickly

became disenchanted with Estrada over myriad issues – foreign investment regulations, charter

change, cronyism, inept governance, poor economic performance, corruption, and limitations on

press freedom. More generally, NGOs claimed the Estrada administration did not fulfill its stated

agenda to help those in poverty. They were unsatisfied with the National Anti-Poverty

Commission‟s report on the 100 poorest families in every province and city, and annoyed by

Estrada‟s limited attention to NGO–PO–Government partnerships. (ibid.)

http://www.fao.org/



10

Then, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power in 2001 with strong support from

civil society. Although NGO–Government relations soured somewhat after she was accused of

fraud in her victory of the Presidential Election held in May 2004, her administration has generally

continued to support the freedom of NGOs. The country‟s Medium-Term Philippine Development

Plan, 2004–2010, includes NGO participation as one strategy for implementing government

programs. However, the President‟s declaration of state of emergency in February 2006 raised

concerns of a threat to civil liberties. These concerns have been reinforced by hundreds of

extrajudicial killings of militant activists, community workers, and persons associated with left-

leaning organizations and party-list groups over the last six years. President Arroyo has

condemned the killings and has called for legislation to address them. (ibid.)

Finally, notwithstanding all the derisory setbacks and the diverse experiences of

NGOs and POs in the various circumstances brought about by different events in the course of

history and public administration, reforms at the NGO-PO level, with a broader understanding and

a deeper sense of citizenship, became more evident. This change in mindset saw NGO-PO

changing their mode of engagement with government, from confrontational to collaborative, from

the streets to the boardrooms. This period was characterized by a heightened participation in

local special bodies and active involvement in local planning and budgeting processes.

(www.home.earthlink.net, July 2010)

THE IMPACT AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF NGOs AND POs IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE

The presence of NGOs and POs in the country is relatively as old as the history

of Philippine bureaucracy. It is more than a century ago when such organizations played a vital

role in the society, no less in governance, albeit they encountered a handful of challenges in

various manners and degrees on account of the different political scenarios of the country. It is

noteworthy, nonetheless, that after the fall of Marcos‟ administration and with the implementation

of the decentralization law in 1991, which laid the legislative framework of NGO and PO activities,

the participation of such organizations has been conspicuously felt in the mainstream.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/



11

According to LogoLink research on Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation

Southeast Asia Regional Report, the Philippines has the strongest, most dynamic, and most

organizationally elaborate civil society in Southeast Asia. It has strong social movements, and

NGOs to service social movement needs. NGOs are invariably connected to social movement

groups (Peoples‟ Organizations [POs]) such that NGOs are almost always referred to as NGO-

PO. Elaborate sectoral and issue-based networks are in place. There are strong national

advocacy coalitions on constitutional reform, electoral and other political reform, and economic

policy issues. At key political junctures, NGOs and social movements have united with business

and church groups. There are armed Left parties with underground and aboveground

organizations. Some of which are connected to unarmed underground organizations, several

'sectoral' parties, and one open „social movement‟ political party. (Rocamora, March 2003)

As mentioned, with the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991

which provided legal grounds for NGOs and POs to actively participate in governance, such

organizations are represented in Local Special Bodies (LSB), primarily but not limited to the Local

Development Council (LDC), the Local School Board (LSB), the Local Health Board (LHB), the

Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), and the Local Peace and Order Council

(LPOC). Meanwhile, they are represented also in non-mandated but Code-inspired LSBs which

include Agrarian Reform Councils, and Fisheries and Aquatic Reform Councils. (Local

Government Code of the Philippines, October 1991)

Moreover, by virtue of the same Code, NGOs and POs participate in mandatory

consultations and public hearings where they help apprise National Government Agencies (NGA)

and Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCC) of local sentiments to consider

before implementing projects that could significantly affect local host communities. NGOs and

POs participate as well in a system of recall where registered voters are against local officials

whose performance is unsatisfactory. The same holds true in local initiatives and referenda where

registered voters of an LGU may directly propose, enact, repeal or amend ordinances, a process

that NGOs and POs can likewise facilitate or participate in. In addition, NGOs and POs are

expected to participate in selecting and handling sectoral representatives to local Sanggunians



12

from labor (industrial or agricultural), women, and one representative from either the urban poor,

indigenous peoples, or the differently-abled. With all these, NGOs and POs therefore can

participate directly in governance through local government units, national policy and planning

agencies, government line agencies, and sectoral representation in Congress.

Yet beyond the threshold of written provisions of the Local Government Code of

1991, NGOs and POs also perform a broad range of functions from local service delivery to

program development and management, and even policy formulation according to the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). They look after actual delivery of services

such as providing medical services under the primary health care program (immunization,

medical consultations) and "institution-building" services such as serving as conduits for loans

under a credit program or organizing agrarian reform beneficiaries for land tenure improvement

and for support services. They also undertake actual project management, capacity building such

as conducting team-building and skills training for LGUs, and special consultancy engagements

such as project evaluations. And lastly, they as well participate in policy work within or outside

formally constituted bodies as either policy advocate or as formal policy consultant. (www.fao.org,

July 2010)

Several case studies, made by the aforesaid organization, attest to the myriad

contributions that NGOs and POs have made in local governance. These involve collaborative

efforts that are all geared to improve the local communities' stake in their future by making them

players in political processes. Such activities range from economic improvement to policy review

and planning down to project implementation, where the community members are empowered

with their proactive involvement.

First is the enterprise development in Makilala, North Cotabato. An advisory body

called the People's Agricultural and Enterprise Development Advisory Board (PAEDAB) was

formed, composed of NGOs and POs. Consequently, a comprehensive development plan

promoting agricultural enterprises was made through initiatives of the Makilala Municipal

Government. This model mechanism has not only encouraged people's participation in local

governance; it has also de-bureaucratized the LGU by transferring to PAEDAB some LGU

http://www.fao.org/



13

functions, particularly the extension of agricultural and enterprise development services to the

community. (ibid)

Second is the effective management and utilization of Eastern Samar's aquatic

resources through the setting up of the multi-sectoral Advisory Committee on Marine Resource

Development and Conservation, an advisory body consisting of fisher folk, NGOs and local

government officials. Through the involvement of the fisher folk sector, the government was able

to conduct an extensive survey of marine resources and protect marine sanctuaries by lobbying

and helping prepare fishery ordinances. The fisher folk have stood as witnesses against violators

of fishery laws. (ibid)

Taking Care of People and the Environment, a capacity development counter-

insurgency program in Negros Oriental, is also another example of how development and

improving the quality of life of the people and meeting their basic needs becomes the best

approach to counter insurgency. This involved the construction of a Community Primary Hospital

in the hinterlands of Negros Oriental that provided basic health services to the people coupled

with the Community Based Resource Management approach that empowered local fisher folk in

the province to take the lead in environmental protection. (ibid)

Another finding based on LogoLink research on Legal Frameworks for Citizen

Participation Southeast Asia Regional Report shows that one concrete contribution of NGOs and

POs in local governance is the Official Development Assistance (ODA) that funded local

governance projects, most importantly the two successive projects of USAID in the 1990s, which

generated many participatory initiatives. Unfortunately, these initiatives have not been sustained.

The only network specifically formed for civil society local governance work that sustained was

the Barangay-Bayan Consortium, more popularly known as BATMAN. (Rocamora, March 2003)

Founded in 1998, BATMAN anchored its work on training elected barangay

government officials and bringing them together with POs to prepare barangay development

plans. These planning sessions included poverty mapping, analysis of the barangay economy,

planning proper, and technical preparation of project proposals. In about a quarter of the 1200

barangays covered, especially where a substantial number of barangays in one municipality had

http://www.fao.org/



14

finished development plans, BATMAN assisted in organizing “pledging sessions” where potential

sources of funds – the mayor, district congressman, governor, line agency officials, private

funding agencies, and in a few cases foreign embassies, participated. (ibid)

These collaborative undertakings, among many others which are not mentioned

in this study, by LGUs and NGO-POs therefore manifest the dramatic impact and contributions

that the latter made in the sphere of local governance and, needless to say, in the lives of the

Filipino people.

THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

Notwithstanding the aforementioned contributions of NGOs and POs in the realm

of governance in the country, a number of problems and issues came into view in their stride to

work hand in hand with the government.

One of the problems rests on the institutionalization of the participation of NGOs

and POs particularly in the local special bodies. In the case of Local Development Councils, for

instance, only few LDCs meet regularly and even fewer reflect the LGU-NGO-PO partnership

envisioned by the Code. As a result, for many (if not most) LGUs, the development plans and

programs that LDCs were supposed to generate have not gone beyond the documents.

(www.fao.org, July 2010)

A study conducted by the Department of the Interior and Local Government

(DILG) in collaboration with the Urban Resources and the Evelio B. Javier Foundation, Inc.

(EBJFI) reveals that most members of the local special bodies are political personalities who do

not have technical capacity to carry out the responsibilities of the councils. Accordingly, this

situation is another major concern that affects the efficiency of NGO-PO-LGU partnership in local

governance. (DILG-EBJFI, 2001)

Slow accreditation of NGOs and POs, which is a prerequisite for their

membership in the special bodies as specified in the Local Government Code, is also noted.

Local decision-makers have shown reluctance to open the doors wider for people's participation

by preventing the implementation of the provision on sectoral representation. (www.fao.org, July

http://www.fao.org/

http://www.fao.org/



15

2010) Even worse, the accreditation of NGOs and POs are politically interfered. In 1997, the

Rapid Field Appraisal on Decentralization reported the “gradual easing of interference by local

chief executives in the choice of NGO representatives,” implying extensive interference before the

report period. (Associates in Rural Development, Inc. /USAID, 1992) Such predicament has been

observed that in many LGUs, the mayor explicitly decided what NGOs should be represented and

who their representatives should be, including for example, the mayor‟s wife. Moreover, it has

also been observed that the accreditation process only permits larger or nationally based NGOs

to sit in local special bodies, when in fact representatives of local concerns have the most to

contribute. As a result, the issues brought up at the councils are not local issues at all but may

relate largely to various national priorities and the sectoral interests of large NGOs. (ibid.)

Another issue is the costs of convening NGO networks and ensuring that at least

some of the expenses that NGOs incur when they attend conventions may be met. Some LGUs,

often with the assistance of the DILG, shoulder a major part of the cost of such events. Most

LGUs, however, are not as enthusiastic to part with their budget. (ibid.)

Another related concern is the tendency of NGO representatives either to

represent themselves as individuals rather than their sectors or their organizations. This particular

issue is even aggravated when representatives find rather frustrating the tendency of LGU

representatives to disregard concerns of sectors that NGOs believe should be articulated in the

planning process. NGOs‟ frustration over “lack of transparency on the part of the LGU” warrants

their heightened absences during conventions, while others consider their attending simply a

“waste of time.” Other reasons for non-participation included lack of commitment to genuine

participation by LGUs, lack of funds for traveling and other incidental expenses, and lack of

relevance to NGO operations. (ibid.)

The classic issue of politics does not cease across the scene. It prevails not only

in the government, but also among NGOs and POs. Favoritism and partisanship result in “NGOs

not talking with each other” and not having a “common voice”. This brings about rivalry and loss

of participation which breeds sporadic and intermittent approaches towards development. (ibid.)



16

These problems and issues, among many others, wreck the supposedly

collaborative undertakings of NGOs and POs, and of the government. They impede the

realization of the country‟s development for the past decades – a sad reality that may stir dismay

or better say challenge to the said major players in participatory governance.



17

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

SUMMARY

The presence of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and People‟s

Organizations (POs) in the Philippines started during the era of Spanish Rule in the country. Their

organizations were founded by the Roman Catholic Church and other religious orders. However,

since these organizations were reserved for the local elite, a number of secular welfare

organizations were organized to resist Spanish rule and fight for Filipino independence. When

Spain ceded the Philippines to the Americans, the American colonial government, which was

generally supportive of civil society, recognized the NGOs and POs and subsidized their

operations. American NGOs set up branches in the new colony, which provided welfare services

and established charitable institutions. After the World War II, welfare and civic organizations

looked after post-war relief and rehabilitation work. They provided packages of health, education,

and socio-economic services – a strategy used by the government as a comprehensive counter-

insurgency measure during the time. When Ferdinand Marcos became President, civil, human,

and political rights were suppressed. As a result, NGOs and POs either fled underground or

sought shelter from Marcos‟ security forces. Activism and insurgency arose which eventually

contributed to the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the “people power” revolution of 1986.

Following the fall of Marcos‟ dictatorship, the Aquino administration adopted the decentralization

of government structures, minimum government intervention, and greater involvement of people

in the decision-making, planning and implementation of programs. Hence, the number of NGOs

and POs mushroomed during the Aquino administration, including those with dubious integrity

and engaging in questionable practices. In response, the Caucus of Development NGO Networks

(CODE-NGO) was formed in 1991 to promote professionalism, expand reach, and increase the

effectiveness of NGOs. When President Fidel Ramos assumed the presidency from 1992 to

1998, he sought the cooperation of civil society by promoting their involvement in multi-



18

stakeholder mechanisms. NGOs and POs stimulated vibrant public discourse and helped to

redefine the content of politics. Eventually, many NGO leaders campaigned for Joseph Estrada,

the successor of Ramos. However, civil society quickly became disenchanted with Estrada over

myriad issues. NGOs claimed that the Estrada administration did not fulfill its stated agenda to

help those in poverty, and were unsatisfied with Estrada‟s limited attention to NGO–PO–

Government partnerships. Then, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power in 2001 with strong

support from civil society. Despite soured NGO-Government relationship after the alleged fraud in

her victory on the Presidential Election on May 2004, Arroyo administration has generally

continued to support the freedom of NGOs. Reforms continued to thrive in the mode of NGO-PO

engagement with government – from confrontational to collaborative, from the streets to the

boardrooms.

With the enactment of the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of

1991, NGOs and POs‟ participation in local governance had been conspicuously felt in the

mainstream. They were well represented in the local special bodies. They also participated in

mandatory consultations and public hearings as well as in a system of recall, local initiatives, and

referenda. And expectedly, they were to participate in selecting and handling sectoral

representatives to local Sanggunians. Beyond the written provisions of the Code, NGOs and POs

also performed a broad range of functions from local service delivery to program development

and management, and even policy formulation. They looked after actual delivery of services such

as providing medical attention, institution-building, and the like. They also undertook actual

project management, capacity building, and special consultancy engagements. Several case

studies attested to some among these myriad contributions of NGOs and POs in local

governance, (e.g. the enterprise development in Makilala, North Cotabato; the effective

management and utilization of Eastern Samar's aquatic resources; and Taking Care of People

and the Environment in Negros Oriental). Another concrete contribution of NGOs and POs in

local governance was the Official Development Assistance (ODA) that funded local governance

projects, most importantly the two successive projects of USAID in the 1990s.



19

Alongside the dramatic impact and contributions of NGOs and POs in local

governance were the problems and issues they encountered. One of the problems was on the

institutionalization of the participation of NGOs and POs particularly in the local special bodies.

Only few LSBs met regularly and even fewer reflected the LGU-NGO-PO partnership envisioned

by the Code. Slow accreditation of NGOs and POs, which is a prerequisite for their membership

in the special bodies as specified in the Local Government Code, became an issue. It was

aggravated by extensive political interference by local chief executives in choosing what NGOs

should be represented and who their representatives should be. Another issue concerned the

unrepresentative NGOs where only larger or nationally based NGOs were permitted to sit in local

special bodies, when in fact representatives of local concerns have the most to contribute.

Related to it, there was also the tendency of NGO representatives to represent themselves as

individuals rather than their sectors or their organizations. Another problem rested on the NGOs

frustration over the lack of transparency on the part of the LGU and the tendency of its

representatives to disregard concerns of sectors that NGOs believed should be articulated in the

planning process. These problems together with lack of commitment to genuine participation by

LGUs, lack of funds for traveling and other incidental expenses, lack of relevance to NGO

operations, and lack of unified voice among NGOs and POs hampered the realization of the

country‟s development.

CONCLUSION

P-Noy‟s call for partnerships with the private sector to pursue government‟s

development efforts is no longer a fresh charm in public administration. For centuries, the

participation of NGOs and POs in Philippine bureaucracy has already gone a long way. It has left

indelible imprints of lights and shadows in the lives of Filipinos across the different chapters of

history. NGOs and POs have provided consequential impact and contributions in governance.

They have delivered welfare services, infrastructure projects, environmental protection, capacity

building, people empowerment, and the like which are essential components of development.

And more importantly, they have fastened the gap – despite the many setbacks – that fed the



20

dichotomy of government and private relationship in development. The problems and issues that

have impinged the NGO-Government relationship could either mean disappointment or

challenge. Whatever they may be, they need to be treated seriously and be acted upon by both

entities if participatory governance must be sustained and true development must be pursued.

Else, the courage and wisdom of those who have gone ahead of every Filipino today and

tomorrow will be vain.



21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books

Local Government Code of the Philippines, October 1991.

B. Manuals/Handbooks

A Study on People‟s participation in the Local Development Councils, A Project of the

Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) in Collaboration with

Uran Resources and the Evelio B. Javier Foundation, Inc. (EBJFI), November

2001.

Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation Southeast Asia Regional Report by Joel

Rocamora IPD, Legal and Policy Frameworks for 'Participation' in Southeast

Asia, LogoLink Research, March 2003.

Overview of NGOs and Civil Society Philippines, Asian Development Bank‟s NGO and

Civil Society Center, December 2007.

Synopsis of Findings of the Rapid Field Appraisal of the Status of Decentralization: The

Local Perspective, Local Development Assistance Program, Associates in Rural

Development, Inc./USAID, August 1992.

C. Online References

www.fao.org. Decentralized Rural Development and the Role of Self Help Organizations.

www.home.earthlink.net. Reforms Initiated Towards Sustainable Urbanization

www.um.dk. Country Study The Philippines LO/FTF Council, February 2000.

www.urbangov.wordpress.com. Bayanihan sa Pamayanan Awards: Search for

Exemplary Practices in Participatory Governance.

http://www.fao.org/

http://www.home.earthlink.net/

http://www.um.dk/

http://www.urbangov.wordpress.com/

ngos and pos participation in local governance

Documents