Engaging The Youth For Development: Differences Among SK-leaders and Their Constituents

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/263756067
Engaging the Youth for Development: Differences among SK-leaders and their
constituents
Conference Paper · June 2012
CITATIONS READS
0 3,333
2 authors, including:
Erwin A. Alampay
University of the Philippines
43 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
El Nino impact in the Philippines View project
Global Impact Study View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Erwin A. Alampay on 09 July 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Active Citizenship among the Youth: differences among Sangguniang Kabataan leaders and their
constituents
Erwin A. Alampay and Lydia E. Angeles
Center for Leadership Citizenship and Democracy (CLCD)
Abstract
This paper is based on results of a pilot baseline survey among Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) leaders and
youth in Quezon City. The research builds on previous research done by the Center for Leadership
Citizensip and Democracy (CLCD) on mobilizing for active citizenship, on assessing the performance of
the Sangguniang Kabataan, and on citizenship. The survey instrument was developed based on the
citizenship questionnaire that was administered by and combined with the work done on civic
engagement at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) and
research by Flanagan and Torney-‐Purta. Fifty-‐one respondents participated in the pilot (SK leaders =21,
non-‐SK youth = 30), with ages ranging between 15 and 19. The mean age of the SK leaders (SK= 17.3) are
higher than the non-‐SK respondents (15.5). Mean tests show that SK leaders are significantly more
engaged in the community (e.g. doing community service, contacting a public official, signing a petition,
voted, volunteered with environmental organizations), and rated themselves significantly higher as a
citizen as a result. However, much of this engagement may be a factor of the opportunities afforded to
them because of their position. The results suggest that SK leaders still need to be taught alternative
ways for engagement, beyond their roles as SK leaders. The bigger challenge remains on how SK leaders
can encourage the ordinary youth to volunteer, participate and be more active in the community.
Keywords: Citizenship, Active Citizenship, civic-‐engagement, Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)

INTRODUCTION
“The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-‐building and
shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social
well-‐being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism; and
encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.”
-‐1987 Philippine Constitution
The proposal that created the Katipunan ng Kabataan (KK) and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) was
incorporated into the 1991 Local Government Code (Republic Act 7160). The Local Government Code
formally abolished the Kabataang Barangay of the Marcos era and provided the youth with the
opportunity to involve themselves in government affairs through the KK and SK instead.
The provision on the KK and SK was later amended in 2002, with RA 9164. In this law Sec. 6
amended the definition of Katipunan ng Kabataan in Sec. 424 to be “composed of Filipino citizens
actually residing in the barangay for at least six (6) months, who are fifteen (15) but less than eighteen
(18) years of age on the day of the election, and who are duly registered in the list of the Sangguniang
Kabataan or in the official barangay list in the custody of the barangay secretary.” It goes further to add
that “an elective official of the Sangguniang Kabataan must be a Filipino citizen, a qualified voter of the
Katipunan ng Kabataan, a resident of the barangay for at least one (1) year immediately prior to
election, at least fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years of age on the day of the election,
able to read and write Filipino, English, or the local dialect, and must not have been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude." The SK is the governing body of the KK, a set of youth leaders elected
by the KK members to represent them and deliver youth-‐focused services in the barangay.
Over the years, there have been calls to reform if not totally abolish the SK, with some people
saying it has “outlived its usefulness” (Tan, 2010). Even the father of the local government code, Sen.
Aquilino Pimental, filed Senate Bill 2155 that formally sought its abolition.1 In his bill, he mentions that
the SK has not lived up to expectations, and in its stead, he proposed that there should still be a youth

1
SB 2155 was introdcued in 2008 and the proposed bill is accessible in the Senate website:
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-‐2155

representative in the local councils. Youth Party-‐list representatives on the other hand, disagree that the
solution is abolition, and propose to reform and strengthen the SK instead. 2
While there are disagreements on what to do with the SK, what remains absent are empirical
studies that measure its contributions, or evaluative assessments of SK’s leadership and ability to make
the youth more active citizens in the community.
Getting more people to participate and be active is an area of growing interest in public
administration and governance. According to Cariño (2005, pp.2-‐3) citizen participation is the
involvement of persons not holding government office in the planning, management and evaluation of
public affairs. It manifests that active citizenship (AC) is not primarily the right but rather the obligation
of a member of the body politic.
As such, given that the rationale behind the SK’s creation is the Philippine Constitution’s
recognition of the important role played by the youth in nation-‐building, it is the objective of this
research to look into how Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) leaders and the youth in general view their roles
as citizens, whether they are able to actively participate in their community, and in turn, able to mobilize
other youth to be more active. In particular, this study looks at:
1. the concept of citizenship from the perspective of the youth and their leaders;
2. differences in the practice of citizenship through their engagement in the community
between the youth and their youth leaders.

In order to compare SK leaders with ordinary youth regarding their perceptions about
citizenship and their actual engagement in the community, surveys were administered to them from
April -‐ May 2012. The survey instrument used was based on the citizenship questionnaire that was
administered by Bautista (2003) to freshmen UP students and combined with the work done at the
Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) and research by
Flanagan (2007) and Amadeo, Torney-‐Purta & Barber (2004) pertaining to civic engagement.
What follows is a brief review of the literature on citizenship and youth engagement, and a
description of the framework and methodology used for the study. Thereafter, presentation of the
results of the survey conducted and its implications on proposed SK reforms are discussed.

2
See Kabataan Party List position: http://kabataanpartylist.com/blog/abolition-‐of-‐sk-‐an-‐insult-‐to-‐young-‐pinoys/

Review of Related Literature
This brief review of the literature first discusses the concept of citizenship and the need to
develop more active citizens. It then looks at why developing the youth is important in the context of
developing citizenship values and why they are encouraged to participate. Finally, it discusses the
governments’ effort to harness the youth by developing formal institutions, such as the SK, in order to
integrate them in local governance.
Citizenship
In general, citizenship can be viewed along two perspectives: the republican and the liberal.
The republican view of citizenship (Carino, 2005, pp. 2-‐3) differentiates a good citizen from a good
person by saying that a good person lives an honorable and virtuous private life, while a good citizen is
also a good person but is at the same time committed to participation in civic and public life. In this
sense, Carino argues that “citizen participation” is redundant, given that a citizen, by this definition, is
already involved in public affairs. The liberal view of citizenship, on the other hand, considers citizenship
primarily as a legal status, where political liberty is important as a means of protecting individual
freedoms from interference by others including the state. However, citizens exercise these freedoms
primarily in the world of private associations and attachments, rather than in the political domain
(Leydet, 2011).
Given these two broad definitions for citizenship, there are also nuanced definitions about
citizenship. Some definitions view the concept of citizenship as having legal, political and identity
dimensions. As a legal status, the concept is defined by civil, political and social rights. Second, its
political dimension considers citizens specifically as political agents who participate in a society's
political institutions. Lastly, citizenship involves membership in a political community that furnishes a
person a distinct source of identity (Leydet, 2011).
For others, citizenship simply represents a relationship between the state and the individual. It
is about citizen’s rights, duties and obligations (Heywood, 1994). It is connected to democracy and is
seen as an expression of an individual’s freedom and rights through participation in different activities in
the country and involves the making and shaping of the system’s structures and rules. Marshall (1950),
for instance, relates citizenship rights into three components: civil, political and social rights. Civil rights

are the freedom; liberty of the person; freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property,
and the right to justice. Political rights are the rights of the individual to exercise political power, the
right to participate in a democratic activity. Social rights are about rights on the economic welfare and
security. For Marshall, formal rights are meaningless if people are unable to exercise their rights. Other
views on citizenship are based on state-‐citizen relationships and the degree of the state’s owning of its
obligations towards its citizens. For Kolberg and Esping-‐Andersen (1992), these views on citizenship are
formed when the government is perceived to be committed to the development of a minimum standard
of living that is socially acceptable to its community.
Active Citizenship
It is from the liberal definition of what a citizen is that the concept of an “active citizen”
originates. It serves as a counterpoint to the idea of a ‘private citizen’ and the passivity associated with
it. As Carino (2005) contends, the reality is, many people merely sit in the side lines. As such, “the
passive enjoyment of citizenship requires, at least intermittently, the activist politics of citizens” (Walzer,
1989, p. 217).
Kearns (1991, pp. 22-‐23) refers to active citizenship (AC) as the moral responsibilities of
individual citizens to care and provide for their needy neighbors, and to meet their obligations to give of
their talents and skills in the management of public and welfare services. Examples of active citizenship
based on this include Bantay Dagat (Sea Patrol) in coastal resources, parent-‐teacher associations,
charitable work, and social housing projects like Gawad Kalinga, among others. For Hoskins (2006), AC is
the participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterized by mutual respect and
non-‐violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy. The definition is inclusive towards
newer forms of AC, such as one-‐off political issues (e.g. Reproductive Health Bill) and responsible
consumption (e.g. use of recyclable bags), as well as the more traditional forms of membership in
political parties and non-‐governmental organizations.

Enabling Active Citizens
But why is it, that as Carino (2005) observed, many people are involved and why others merely
stay in the sidelines?

According to Zamudio (as cited in De La Paz, n.d., p.2) citizenship has three dimensions: status,
exercise, and conscience. Status refers to the set of rights and obligations between individuals and the
state. Exercise refers to the condition necessary for the realization of citizenship rights and the
incorporation of new rights. Lastly, conscience refers to the conviction of being a citizen with recognition
of the state expressed in concrete practices. Zamudio suggests that a person’s status, condition, and
convictions are possible factors that influence his or her ability to participate and be engaged.
In the Philippines, there have been previous studies that looked at the dimension of status:
social class (Contado, 1997; Karaos, n.d.), regional affiliation and religion (Karaos, n.d.) and how citizens
engage in society. A study made by Karaos in the Philippines, studied citizenship along social class,
regional affiliation, and religion. Karaos looked at the importance of people’s active participation in
elections, in community activities and in the barangay meetings. Contado (1997), on the other hand,
looked at how in a ‘lower class’ neighborhood, family practices supported the enforcement of discipline,
and active participation in community affairs. Religion was also considered among the influences in
people’s views about being a Filipino citizen. The connection of religion to active citizenship can be
viewed in terms of how it connects with conscience and conviction. For Abueva (2002) the concept of
citizenship is attached to the values and norms of the people. Values are consistent with citizenship
because the former can as act catalyst as to how citizens will carry out responsibilities and duties as
citizen. For Abueva (2002), Filipino citizenship and national identity, discloses that good citizens are
those who are “God-‐centered,” “industrious,” “faithful to service, work or country,” “has convictions,”
and “responsible.”
Youth and Civic Engagement
CIVICUS (as cited in CODE-‐NGO & CIVICUS, 2011) considers civic engagement as “the extent to
which individuals engage in active citizenship through various social and policy related interactions" (p.
25). In turn, developing more active citizens or civic-‐engaged individuals involves various systems,
starting with the family, school and religious organizations. This is consistent with the Bronfenbrenner &
Morris’ (1998) bioecological model that requires looking at the process, person, context and time. It
argues that levels of development “vary systematically as a joint function of the characteristics of the
developing person; of the environment—both immediate and more remote—in which the processes are
taking place; the nature of the developmental outcomes under consideration; and the social continuities

and changes occurring over time through the life course and the historical period during which the
person has lived” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996). This means a person is shaped by many
factors in his environment (family, friends, peers, school, church, community) and by the events in the
period in which he lives in. As an extension of this, the exposure and context matter with respect to how
active a citizen people are, and their concepts of citizenship.

For the youth, for instance, their views and perceptions regarding citizenship vary and some
have categorized them according to the following: (1) a national identity – this idea of national identity
derives from the country of birth or place of residence; (2) a formal legal status – anything that did not
fit within the legal definition of citizenship and was classified as something else such as human rights;
(3) participation – the actual acts of participation, or the level of involvement that were considered to be
part of citizenship; (4) rights and duties – the rights that were included were political and civil rights as
well as social rights and duties; and (5) belonging to a group – associated with the idea of “community”
(Manning & Ryan, 2004). Again, these variations may be a function of the social system in which the
individual operates. Their exposure and experience, in turn, are variables in the citizenship dimensions
(status, exercise and conscience) that Zamudio (as cited in De La Paz, n.d, p. 2) touched on.
In many instances, the development of values that encourage more active participation are
targeted on the youth. Such was the case for some prominent volunteer programs in the Philippines
that were targeted for the youth. Examples of these are the Jesuit Volunteers of the Philippines in
Ateneo (Fernan, 2007) and the Ugnayan ng Pahinungod in the University of the Philippines (Javier 1995).
Both are based in university settings. According to Kezar (as cited in Einfeld & Collins, 2008),this is
understandable given that the mission of every institution of higher learning is to educate its students
morally and for good citizenship. Related to this, Emil Q. Javier, then President of the University of the
Philippines, opined that “voluntarism flows from the functions of a university and should be an integral
part of its mission…voluntarism is a great way to channel the excess energies of the youth and adults
alike to socially desirable pursuits…” (Javier, 1995, pp. 1-‐2).

Institutionalizing Youth Participation in Philippine Governance
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as well as the Local
Government Code of 1991 recognize the rights of the children and the youth to participate in
governance. Youth participation in governance started in 1970s through PD 684, and then through the
creation of the Kabataang Barangay composed of all youth 15-‐18 years of age. During the Marcos

regime the age bracket was expanded to include people between 15-‐21 years old. This provided the
youth with the opportunity to be more involved in the life of the community while also providing the
government a medium for informing the youth of its plans.

However, because the KB was associated with the Marcos era, it was later abolished and in its
stead the Katipunan ng Kabataan (KK) and the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) were created through the
enactment of Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991. Section 424 of RA 7160 states:
"The Katipunan ng Kabataan shall be composed of Filipino citizens actually residing in the barangay for
at least six (6) months, who are fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age on the day of the
election, and who are duly registered in the list of the Sangguniang Kabataan or in the official barangay
list in the custody of the barangay secretary."
Furthermore, the Sangguniang Kabataan serves as the governing body of the youth in every
barangay. It is tasked with spearheading youth development and promoting youth participation, hearing
the youth’s voice, and protecting their rights. It also provides an avenue for the youth to participate
actively in government policy-‐making and addressing public issues (Automatic Release of Financial
Resources for the Youth (SK) Act, 2008). Its creation was meant to empower the country’s youth by
giving them a more direct hand in governance and decision-‐making at the barangay level (House Bill No.
1963). In particular, the main functions of SK are to: (1) promulgate resolutions necessary to carry out
objectives of the youth in the barangays; (2) initiate programs designed to enhance the social, political,
economic, cultural, moral, spiritual and physical development of the members; (3) conduct fundraising
activities; (4) consult and coordinate with all youth organizations in the barangay for policy formulation
and program implementation; and (5) coordinate with the appropriate agency for the implementation
of youth development projects and programs at the national level (United Nations Children’s Fund
[UNICEF], 2007).

The 2001 Katipunan ng Kabataan and Sangguniang Kabataan Constitutions and By-‐Laws state
that they will assume a role in national development and governance and as an active supportive and
participating partner of the government in formulating programs. That SK will initiate and ultimately
lead the youth to achieve a truly free, just, democratic, effective, self-‐reliant, progressive and most of all
God-‐abiding and morally upright sector in Philippine society (Katipunan ng mga Kabataan & Sangguniang
Kabataan Federations, 2001).

In 1995, the National Youth Commission was created to serve as a secretariat of the
Sangguniang Kabataan National Federation through the enactment of Republic Act 8044, or the Youth
in Nation-Building Act of 1995. Its primary objective is to provide opportunities and venues for the
youth to be active partners in nation building. In this capacity, the agency is tasked to provide the youth
with programs and projects that will develop and harness their potential and enable them to be of
service to their community and country.

Issues and Challenges
Today, there are questions about the SK’s relevance and effectiveness. Some of the issues and
challenges raised include: (1) the SK being a breeding ground of corrupt leaders; they are just too young,
and easily corrupted and irresponsible (2) SK officials are not performing their duties and responsibilities
and have an insignificant contribution to the community; (3) SK officials cannot perform their functions
because they have to attend schools (Cornelio, n.d.)
Given the various arguments and issues regarding the SK, it is not surprising that calls for its
abolition persist. Even President Noynoy Aquino’s reform agenda included a proposal to abolish the old
and inefficient system of the Sangguniang Kabataan (Kabiling & Aquino, 2010). Likewise Sen. Aquilino
Pimentel Jr., the author of the Local Government Code is in favor of the abolition of the Sanguniang
Kabataan, for the reason that it is no longer serving its purpose as a training ground for youth leaders
and means of getting the youth involved in community development (Mendez, 2008). However, there
are also those like DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo, who believed that reforming the SK is the more prudent
alternative, as youth representation is still important, and propose increasing the age-‐range for
membership (Calonzo, 2010).
These are the issues that this study investigates. In particular, is there any difference between
youth leaders as exemplified by SK officials from the other youth with respect to their views about
citizenship, and their involvement in the community? Are they effective in getting other youth more
involved in the community’s development?
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

This study looks at the relationship between leadership, citizenship and civic engagement (see
Figure 1). At this point, the research does not assume any causal relationships among the variables, but
sees relationships that may arise among them.
Although leadership can be viewed as a function, such as how Covey describes servant-‐
leadership as “an enabling art to accomplishing any worthy objective” (Covey, 2002, p. 27), it is crudely
defined here as a noun, and simply as a matter of one’s having a higher position by which to lead a
group. Hence, in this case, youth leadership is operationalized in terms of whether one is an elected
officer of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) or not.
The concept of citizenship, on the other hand, whether liberal or republican (as earlier
discussed) is left open to the interpretation of the participants. This is an implied objective of the study,
since there may be differences among SK leaders and ordinary youth in their personal conceptualization
of citizenship.
Finally, civic engagement follows the earlier definition given by CIVICUS (as cited in Caucus of
Development NGO Networks [CODE-‐NGO] & CIVICUS, 2011) that describes it to be “the extent to which
individuals engage in active citizenship through various social and policy related interactions.”
The model assumes that there is a bi-‐directionality among the variables. For instance,
differences in some of the youth’s appreciation of what citizenship entails can also be the reason why
some of them aspire to become leaders. Similarly, being in leadership positions can allow for more

opportunities to become an active citizen and engage in the development in the community, just as
being engaged and active can develop the leadership potential in people.
Measurement of their citizenship was based on self-‐ratings (1-‐6, with 6 being the highest) on a
list of specific situations that demonstrate good citizenship. On the other hand, measurement of civic
engagement was inversely scored, with 1 referring to an activity performed the past year, 2 referring to
an activity they had done in the past, but not in the past year, and 3 referring to something they had not
yet done at all.
Methodology
The survey instrument used was developed based on the citizenship questionnaire that was
previously administered by Bautista (2003) and combined with the work done on civic engagement at
the CIRCLE and research by Flanagan (2007) and Amadeo,Torney-‐Purta & Barber (2004). The items
asking for definitions, opinions and knowledge about citizenship and rights, as well as their sources of
inspiration and models of good citizens were taken from Bautista (2003). Some selected items that
demonstrate good citizenship and self-‐rating were also adapted from Bautista (2003) with
complementary questions added from Flanagan (2007). The rating scale, however, was changed to a
scale of 6, instead of a scale of 5, to avoid central tendency bias in responses by eliminating a middle
rating. Additional items on media exposure were based on the study of Amadeo, Torney-‐Purta and
Barber (2004) that looks at media exposure’s influence on citizenship. The effect of media exposure,
however, are not part of the results that are discussed in this paper.
The sampling frames of SK leaders were taken from a group of SK leaders undergoing training in
Quezon City Hall. SK officers were randomly selected to make sure they were from different barangays,
and thereafter equal numbers of male and female respondents were taken by design. The survey was
administered before the start of their training. On the other hand, youth from Quezon City was
conveniently selected from a sample of students undergoing UPCAT reviews in the University of the
Philippines together with additional respondents from barangays around UP campus. All in all, the SK
sample would be more representative of their cohort, than the non-‐SK youth sample used for this pilot.
The respondents were asked for their definitions of citizenship and answered questions
pertaining to items that they defined as a good practice of their citizenship, and their actual involvement

in the community. The respondents were also asked about the extent to which various people
influenced them or the source of their inspiration in learning about good citizenship. Several institutions
were included namely: home, school, church, community, and provincial and national government
officials. In each of these institutions there are several persons to be identified as the source of
inspiration in learning good citizenship.
The respondents were asked about a number of items to gauge whether they considered these
as good practice of their citizenship. They were also asked to give a self-‐rating on their performance with
regard to this practice. They were also asked a series of questions regarding civic engagement, and
whether they had done this over the past year, had done this in general, or had never done it. This was
rated in a three-‐point scale and inversely score with one being better than three.
Means testing was then applied to determine whether there were significant differences
between SK leaders and the Youth in general. The data pertaining to their self-‐rating on citizenship
actions, and civic engagement was analysed through means tests to compare their citizenship self-‐
rating, and determine whether SK leaders were more engaged in the community (e.g. doing community
service, contacting a public official, signing a petition, voted, volunteered with environmental
organizations) than ordinary youth in Quezon City.
Fifty-‐one respondents participated in the pilot survey that was administered in April-‐May
2012.They were composed of SK Leaders and non-‐SK youth (SK =21, non-‐SK youth = 30), all of whom
reside in Quezon City with ages ranging between 15 and 19. The mean age of the SK leaders (SK= 17.3)
were higher than the non-‐SK respondents (15.5).

All of the respondents finished or are currently enrolled in secondary education. Majority of
them study in public school (75 percent) and are Catholic (78.3 percent). By design, the genders of the
respondents for both groups were equalized. Furthermore, most of the respondents (41%) had a
monthly income of less than Php 10,000. The questionnaire was available in either English or Filipino,
and respondents had the option to answer the survey in the language they were more comfortable with.

Results

The first part of the results discusses how the respondents defined citizenship, and they are
disaggregated among leaders and non-‐leaders. Their influences in the community that shape their
perceptions about good citizenship are also presented.
Thereafter, three quantifiable aspects of the survey is presented. They pertain to 1) the
respondents’ views of certain activities, and whether they can be considered good practice of one’s
citizenship; 2) how they rate themselves with respect to these activities, and lastly 3) their level of
engagement in the communities.
The data is disaggregated in order to compare SK leaders with ordinary youth. One assumes
that differences in views regarding citizenship would translate to differences in self-‐rating and
differences in self-‐rating would yield differences in their civic engagement.
Citizenship Locally Defined
As mentioned in the methodology, the respondents were given options to answer the survey
either in Filipino or in English. Citizenship was translated as pagkamamamayan, and this appears to illicit
more nuanced answers than the English equivalent. Moreover, more SK respondents preferred to
answer the Filipino version of the survey. The table below presents a sampling of the answers in essay
form. Significant answers are presented in bold letters.
Table 1: SK and Non-‐SK definitions of Citizenship
SK NON-‐SK
1. Makabayan (nationalistic) 1. Kailangan ng citizenship upang malaman kung
(Female, 18 years old) saan ka nakatira at kung ilang taon ka ng
nakatira sa ating bansa. (Citizenship is needed in
order to know where people live and how long
they have been staying in the country)

(Female, 15 years old, Brgy. U.P. Campus, District
IV)

2. Ang isang mamamayan ay dapat sumusunod sa 2. It is when a person gives her/his effort for the
sariling batas ng bansang ipinapatupad. betterment of his/her country.
(Female, 15 years old, Brgy. Bahay Toro)
(A citizen should follow their own country’s laws)
(Male, 16 years old, SK Brgy. U.P. Campus, District

IV)

3. Ang pagkamamamayan ay ang pagiging ganap 3. A member in a community that is entitled to its
na indibidwal na may natatamong maayos at rights and previledges.
sapat na pangangailangan upang mabuhay. (Male, 16 years old,Brgy. Bahay Toro)
Kaakibat nito ay ang kalayaan ng bawat isa at
ang kani-‐kanilang karapatan.

(Citizenship is about being an individual who is
able to attain a good life, with freedoms
governed by their individual rights)
(Male, 17 years old, SK Brgy. Pasong Tamo,
District II)

4. Bilang isang mamamayan ng Pilipinas may 4. Ang pagkamamamayan ay tumutukoy sa mga
karapatan tayo sa ating sariling bansa. Bukod taong naninirahan sa lupang sakop ng isang
ditto, may tungkulin din tayo na payamanin at estado. (Citizenship refers to people who live in
paunlarin ang ating bansa dahil iyon ang tunay the property governed by a state.)
na pagkamamamayan. (Female, 15 years old)

(Being a citizen of the Philippines, all of us have
rights in our own country. As a sign of true
citizenship, we have responsibilities to make the
country richer and progress.)
(Female, 17 years old, SK Brgy. Pasong Tamo,
District II)

5. Ang isang pagkamamamayan ay pakikihalubilo 5. Being a part/important part of a country.
sa iyong kapwa mamamayan. (Female, 15 years old, Bahay Toro)

(Citizenship is immersing with your fellow
citizens).
(Male, 18 years old, SK Ramon Magsaysay,
District I)

6. Ang pagkamamamayan ay pakikisalamuha sa 6. Citizenship is the state of being a citizen of a
ating lipunan, at pagtulong sa ating barangay. particular social, political, national community.
(Citizenship is about being one with society ((Female, 15 years old, Brgy. Culiat)
and helping in the barangay)
(Female, 17 years old, SK Ramon Magsaysay,
District I)

7. Ang pagkamamamayan ay ang aktibong 7. Tumutukoy ito sa pagkabilang ng isang tao sa
nakikilahok sa alinmang aktibidades ng lipunan isang lugar kung saan siya naninirahan o
o barangay man na makakatulong sa naaangkop. (This refers to a person belonging
pamayanan o sarili. (Citizenship is the active to a place where they live.)
participation in whatever activity of society or (Female, 15 years old)

barangay that will benefit the society or the

individual.)
(Male, 16 years old, SK Escopa II, District III)

8. Ang pakahulugan ko po sa konsepto ng 8. Being an individual living in a country entitles
pagkamamamayan ay ang pagtutulungan sa the individual rights to be recognized as part of
lahat sa pagbibigay ng serbisyo para that country. To be a citizen of a country, one
makatulong sa mga nangangailangan. (The should actively participate for the improvement
meaning of citizenship as a concept is of that country. It also means that one should
cooperation with everyone to provide services abide the rules implemented in the country.
that will benefit those who are in need.) (Male, 15 years old)
(Female, 17 years old, SKEscopa II, District III)
9. It is the state’s legal recognition of a person 9. Pagiging parte ng isang community. (Being part
living within the state’s territory. of a community)
(Female, 17 years old, SK Brgy. San Isidro Galas, (Female, 15 years old)
District IV)

10. Pagkakaisa ng bawat tao. (Everyone in 10. Citizenship is being a member of a state.
solidarity.) (Female, 15 years old, Brgy. Kaligayahan)
(Male, 17 years old, SK Brgy. San Isidro Galas,
District IV)

11. Ang pagkamamamayan ay ang pagiging taas 11. Paninirahan ng isang tao sa kanyang bansa. (A
noo para sa ating bansa at pagsuporta sa mga person living in their own country.)
programa na ipinapatupad sa ating bansa. (Male, 15 years old Brgy. Culiat)
(Citizenship is about holding your head high
because of your country, and supporting
programs that are espoused in the country).
(Female, 16 years old, SK, District IV)

12. Paggalang at pagsunod sa karapatan at batas 12. Para sa akin ang pagkamamamayan ay ang
ng bayan. (Respect and obedience to rights pakikisalamuha sa kapwa para sa ikabubuti ng
and laws) bansa at bayan. (For me, citizenship is about
(Female, 16 years old, SK, Brgy. Talayan, District I) being one with others for the benefit of the
country and nation.)
(Male, 15 years old)

13. Pagkakaisa ng bawat tao at pagtutulungan.
(Solidarity among people and helping each other.)
(Male, 18 years old)

The answers of the non-‐SK respondents tend to touch on the broad and generic formal
definition of citizenship. One girl defined it as: “being a member of a state,” whereas one boy said it was

”paninirahan ng isang tao sa kanyang bansa” (a person residing in their own country). A few also
touched on the rights and responsibilities that came along with it, as one boy said, citizenship refers to:
“Being an individual living in a country entitles the individual rights to be recognized as
part of that country. To be a citizen of a country, one should actively participate for the
improvement of that country. It also means that one should abide the rules implemented
in the country.”
Some of the SK respondents, on the other hand, went beyond the basic definition and
elaborated on the roles expected of citizens. They said:
“Ang isang pagkamamamayan ay pakikihalubilo sa iyong kapwa mamamayan. (It is being
immersed and one with your co-‐citizen/countrymen)”
“Ang pagkamamamayan ay pakikisalamuha sa ating lipunan, at pagtulong sa ating barangay.”
(Citizenship is about being one with society, helping out in the barangay)
“Ang pagkamamamayan ay ang aktibong nakikilahok sa alin mang aktibidades ng lipunan o
barangay man na makakatulong sa pamayanan o sarili.” (Citizenship involves the active
participation in any activity in the community or barangay that will help society or the self)
“Ang pakahulugan ko po sa konseptong pagkamamamayan ay ang pagtutulungan sa lahat ng
serbisyo para makatulong sa mga nangangailangan.” (My definition for the concept of
citizenship is the cooperation among everyone in services that will help those in need).
Hence, they touched on the idea that one has to be actively engaged and be part in the process
of delivering services to people in the community who need help.
This brings us to the youth’s models for good citizenship. According to the respondents, the
most influential source of inspiration in learning good citizenship is the home, with the mother serving
as the most influential source of inspiration (74.5 percent). This was followed by the father (54.5
percent). Other family members/relatives like brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather also contributes
towards developing good citizenship.
This indicates that from the youth’s perspective, the most influential person in developing good
citizenship values are parents. This might have a big impact on how the SK and non-‐SK rate themselves

on certain situation showing or involving good citizenship. In school, the teacher and schoolmate were
cited as among their strong influences with the 72.2 percent and 45.5 percent of the respondents citing
them respectively. Also, given that most of the respondents were Catholic, many mentioned their parish
priest (61.8 percent) as an influential source for learning about good citizenship.
In the community, respondents said they also looked to their friend or someone from their peer
group (52.7 percent). A smaller number chose their SK leaders as an influence (25.5 percent), which
may also indicate how poorly exposed the youth are, in general, to the workings of the SK in their
community. Also, only a small proportion indicated the provincial and national government officials as
their model for shaping their views on citizenship.
These “influences” that the respondents gave are important considerations in any intervention
for the youth and is based on an ecological perspective of human development that Bronfenbrenner &
Morris (1998) and the UNICEF espouse. Alampay and Librojo (2003) argue that “the various levels of the
child’s environment represent the duty bearers who are accountable for fulfilling these children’s rights,
from the proximal (i.e., family), to the more distal (i.e., national, barangay, and partner agencies). With
respect to the ecological perspective of human development, the child at the center denotes that his or
her development is shaped and influenced by the various contexts surrounding him or her. Yet the child
is an active participant in his or her own development, who can similarly engage and influence the
environment” (p. 101).

How are differences in their views of citizenship reflected in their views about good citizenship?
How do they act on it in their lives and their engagement in their community’s life? These are discussed
next.
Table 2: Youth views on activities that demonstrate good citizenship:
SK NON-‐SK X2

Conserving resources, like water and electricity 1 1
Disposing litter/garbage properly 1 .86 3.004
Ensuring that facilities in school/community are taken care of 0.9 0.94 .212
(i.e., I avoid vandalism, writing graffiti on the walls/desks in my
school or community)
Taking steps to learn about issues of the community and those of 0.95 0.9 .408
national significance

Taking active part in school organizations to be able to assist in 0.95 0.90 .368
forging community welfare
Studying conscientiously 1 1
Patronizing Philippine products to help the economy 0.95 0.93 .059
Following basic rules like crossing the street on pedestrian lanes 1 1
Participating in the SK elections 1 0.6 10.526**
Participating in rallies to demonstrate commitments 0.3 0.53 2.652
Raising complaints of a fellow students or other members of the 0.77 0.7 .345
community to proper authorities
Being involved in volunteer work 0.64 0.83 .149
Being honest 1 0.90 1.956
Respecting the rights of others 1 1
Abiding the laws and rules of the government of the Philippines 1 0.97 .658
Becoming productive in his/her field (school, work, etc) 1 0.96 .680
Respecting the privacy and views of others 1 0.94 1.277
* P <.05; ** P <. 01

Table 2 shows that SK leaders and the youth in general agree that most of the items listed
generally constitute good practice of one’s citizenship. The only areas where there appears to be
significant difference is with respect to participation in SK elections, where SK officers are, as expected,
unanimous and score much higher. Also worth noting is that, while not statistically significant, a higher
proportion of non-‐SK leaders responded that participation in rallies, taking care of school property and
involvement in volunteer work, were important practices of one’s citizenship.
Table 3: Citizenship Self Rating (scale of 1-‐6)
CITIZENSHIP SK NON-‐SK T-‐Test

Conserving of resources, like water and electricity 4.67 4.57 .260
Disposing litter/garbage properly 5.11 4.62 1.272
Ensuring that facilities in school/community are taken care 4.61 4.83 -‐.538
of (i.e., I avoid vandalism, writing graffiti on the walls/desks
in my school or community)
Taking steps to learn about issues of the community and 3.95 3.79 .409
those of national significance
Taking active part in school organizations to be able to assist 4.53 4.61 -‐.187
in forging community welfare
Studying conscientiously 5.17 5.14 .082
Patronizing Philippine products to help the economy 4.53 4.27 .660
Following basic rules like crossing the street on pedestrian 4.68 4.78 -‐.258
lanes
Participating in the SK elections 5.42 2.81 5.447**
Participating in rallies to demonstrate commitments 3.08 2.72 .529

Raising complaints of a fellow students or other members of 4.05 3.32 1.641
the community to proper authorities
Being involved in volunteer work 4.18 4.33 -‐.362
Being honest 5.11 4.69 1.081
Respecting the rights of others 5.21 4.93 .802
Abiding the laws and rules of the government of the 5.05 5.17 -‐.347
Philippines
Becoming productive in his/her field (school, work, etc) 4.84 4.96 -‐.317
Respecting the privacy and views of others 5.11 4.59 1.417
* P <.05; ** P <. 01

In the self-‐rating of how they practiced various activities, the only significant difference was in
participation in elections (Refer to Table 3). Volunteer work and participation in rallies were not
significantly different, which implies that even though these may be important, for non-‐SK leaders, they
have not had the opportunity to practice or get involved in such activities. The implication of this then is
that such activities (organizing rallies, volunteer activities) is something that SK leaders should be doing
more of.
Table 4: Comparison of Means on Civic Engagement Between SK and Non-‐SK Youth (Inversely
Rated , 1 (More Engaged)-‐ 3 (Not engaged))
Citizen Engagement SK Non-‐SK T

Volunteered or done voluntary community service** 1.25 2.14 -‐3.88**
Boycotted from buying from certain company 2.80 2.61 0.96
Signed an email petition* 2.42 2.80 -‐2.01*
Contacted radio or TV talk show 2.85 2.84 0.08
Contacted a newspaper or magazine 2.60 2.83 -‐1.36
Contacted or visited a public official** 1.90 2.68 -‐3.68**
Voted in a local election 1.72 2.73 -‐4.39**
Took part in a protest 2.21 2.65 -‐1.82
Volunteered with an organization working with the youth, 1.45 1.93 -‐1.96
children
Volunteered with civic or community organizations involved 1.70 2.48 -‐3.91**
in health or social issues**
Worked with someone or some group to solve a problem in 1.15 2.16 -‐4.60**
the community **
Volunteered with religious group 1.6 1.97 1.59
Volunteered with environmental organizations** 1.42 2.20 3.24**
Self-‐rating as a citizen* 4.61 4.16 2.1*
* P <.05; ** P <. 01

Finally, as far as they are able to be more engaged in the community is concerned, the results
indicate that even as conceptions of citizenship are not very different, there’s significant differences in
their ability to participate and engage the community (see Table 4). SK leaders are more involved in
health and social issues, participate in elections, interact with community leaders, etc. This seems to
suggest that getting involved and taking leadership positions enables them to be more engaged,
notwithstanding also the possibility that the youth who are already more engaged in the community are
the ones who want to seek positions in the SK. Perhaps, SK leaders put greater value in participating in
the political life of the community, also as an opportunity for participating and making a change.
However, their engagement does not seem to filter to the rest of the youth. The survey shows
that the ordinary youth are either strongly involved in youth groups and religious groups in the
community. However, even in areas the non-‐SK respondents considered as good citizenship practice
(more than SK leaders), they also scored much lower in actual practice.

Discussion
The Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) offers a promise for the active and meaningful participation of
the youth in governance and nation building. However, the SK that replaced the Kabataang Barangay in
1991 has not been successful in elevating youth concerns in local policy and programs. The lofty
expectations have not been met even with a dedicated budget and creation of the National Youth
Commission. In 2007, UNICEF even described the overall performance of the SKs as weak. It is no
wonder that there have been calls from different members of the society to completely abolish the SK
as an institution.

This situation should not be left in such a state. The society would be wasting the youth’s energy
if they would not play a role in local development, especially since our future leaders would come from
them. In fact, the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquencyor the Riyadh Guidelines (as
cited in Alampay & Librojo, 2003, p. 99) states in Article 4 that: “a child-‐centered orientation should be
pursued. Young persons should have an active role and partnership within society and should not be
considered as mere objects of socialization or control.” The SK is unique in the world since it is only in
the Philippines that the youth have been given a formal platform to directly participate in governance,
which is most important when addressing youth concerns such as delinquency.

In the last couple of years, there have been calls to reform the Sangguniang Kabataan. At
present, SK Reform Coalition and Akbayan Youth proposed to DILG the following reforms:
(1)the need to increase the age bracket of the youth who can vote and be elected
from 15-‐18 to 15-‐25; (2) the creation of a youth development council which is
composed of youth organizations in the barangay to serve as civil society partner and
substitute for the SK Kagawads; (3) incorporation of an anti-‐dynastic provision to limit
politicization of the youth representatives; (4) fiscal autonomy and accountability on
the youth fund and incorporation of accountability mechanisms and ground for
removal from office.(Barawid, 2010)

However, one underlying question is whether the SK is an effective mechanism for bringing the
youth together, and making them more involved in the community.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that SK leaders, being the youth, are representative
already of what the youth, in general, want. The results of this pilot study suggests that there are not
enough venues and opportunity for ordinary youth to participate in the things that matter most to
them. What requires further investigation is whether there are channels for the youth to communicate
these views to their SK leaders and how effectively this is done. Apparently, there are subtle differences
that exist, and better participation within and among the youth themselves must be developed.
As a whole the results of the pilot survey indicate that elected youth (SK) leaders are more
involved in voluntary or community activities than other youth in the community. Means tests show that
SK leaders are significantly more engaged in the community (e.g. doing community service, contacting a
public official, signing a petition, voting, volunteering with environmental organizations), and rate
themselves significantly higher as a citizen as a result. However, much of this engagement may be a
factor of their opportunity to do so, because of their position. Their position allows them the
opportunity to directly participate and represent the youth in their local community. But their
involvement is still limited. Alternative ways for engagement, beyond their roles as SK leaders can still
be improved.

The real challenge remains on how SK leaders can encourage other youth to volunteer,
participate and be engaged in the community’s affairs. It seems like the SK leaders themselves, have not
been able to reach the youth groups in general, as they are not commonly cited as the youth’s own
inspiration of good citizenship. Reaching the youth, beyond their family influence, remains to be

through peer groups, school and the church. The government structure, whether national, local or
through the SK, has not been successful in this regard, and is an indication of the need to rethink our
concept of SK as it is currently configured, and rethink its role in the community.

As far as future research is concerned, the number of respondents for both SK and non-‐SK can
be expanded further. This initial data can serve as a benchmark with respect to determining the impact
of citizenship and leadership trainings3 SK leaders undergo. The sampling of non-‐SK respondents also has
to be randomized, as the difference in age in this pilot group may have significantly affected the results.
This can also be further expanded to cover a wider geographical group, with samples from Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao, as the quality of SK governance may also vary among regions, and rural-‐urban
contexts. This was exemplified in the differences that were seen in a previous survey on giving and
volunteering conducted in six areas in the Philippines, which illustrated some cultural and regional
differences (Fernan 2004). Replicating a similar design for this study can provide a more generalizable
evaluation on the true efficacy and impact of the SK.

Recapitulation
In summary, while SK leaders seem to have a deeper understanding of citizenship, and are more
engaged the development of the community, what is apparent is that the youth (outside of the SK
leaders themselves) involved in the SK and community remain limited. Hence, even as the elected SK
leaders become involved with the affairs of the government, they can remain detached from the
broader youth community they are meant to represent. This is an area the SK reform agenda has
missed. Alternative ways of engagement, not only with government and policy makers, but also the
young people in the community (i.e. in schools, in church) has to be engendered if the SK becomes a real
vehicle for engaging more youth to participate in local development.

References

Abueva, J. V. (2002). A survey of Filipino citizenship. Quezon City: Kalayaan College and Social Weather
Station.

3
Such as the ones given by the National Youth Commission, and the one proposed by the CLCD to Quezon City
which was the reason this baseline survey was conducted.Currently, SK leaders attend ISKOLAR-‐BOS training,
which stands for Integrate Sangguniang Kabataan Organizational Leadership-‐Basic Orientation Seminar.

Alampay, L.P. , & Librojo, L. (2005). A rights based framework for the prevention of juvenile delinquency
Philippine communities. UNICEF.

Amadeo, J., Torney-‐Purta, J., & Barber, C.H. (2004). Attention to Media and Trust in Media Sources:
Analysis of Data from the IEA Civic Education Study (Fact Sheet.). College Park, MD: CIRCLE.

Automatic Release of Financial Resources for the Youth (SK) Act of 2008, S. B. 2127. 14th Congress.
(2008).

Barawid, R. (2010, August 25). The Great SK Debate. Manila Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/274075/the-‐great-‐sk-‐debate

Bautista, V. A. (2003). A Survey of U.P. Diliman Freshman Students’ Perception on Citizenship, Research
paper, CLCD-‐NCPAG, University of the Philippines.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R.
M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human
development (5th ed., pp. 993-‐1023). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Calonzo, A. (2010, October 27). DILG chief Robredo wants SK retained, but with reforms. GMA News
Online. Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/204508/news/nation/dilg-‐
chief-‐robredo-‐wants-‐sk-‐retained-‐but-‐with-‐reforms

Carino, L. (2005). Mobilizing for Active Citizenship: Lessons from Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines.
Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, National College of Public
Admnistration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Caucus of Development NGO Networks [CODE-‐NGO] & CIVICUS. (2011). Civil Society Index: Philippines.
Retrieved from
http://www.civicus.org/images/stories/csi/csi_phase2/philippines%20csi%20analytical%20coun
try%20report.pdf
Co, E. E. A., & Reforma, M.A. (2003) The Sangguniang Kabataan in Metro Manila: As Assessment of its
Performance and some Prospects and Ways Forward. Unpublished research, Center for
Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, National College of Public Admnistration and
Governance, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.
Contado, M. (1997). Perception and practice of democracy and citizenship in rural, lower class families. .
In M. S. Diokno (Ed.), Democracy and citizenship in Filipino political culture (p.292)Quezon City:
Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines.

Cornelio, M. (n.d). Amidst mounting calls for abolition, SK should start working good: A position paper
on SK abolition. Retrieved from http://akbayanyouth.wordpress.com/campaigns-‐and-‐
activities/campaigns/sk-‐reform-‐position-‐paper/

Covey, S. R. (2002). Servant-‐leadership and community leadership in the twenty-‐first century. In L. C.
Spears and M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant-‐leadersihp for the 21st century.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationship between service-‐learning, social justice, multicultural
competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (2), 95-‐109.

Enrile, J. P. (1973, November 9). Nationalism and citizenship. Speech delivered at the Closing and Aaward
Ceremonies of the Girl Scout of the Philippines, 11thVisayas Triennial Conference, Bacolod City..

Fernan, R. L. III. (2004). Beyond the household: Giving and volunteering in six areas in the Philippines.
Quezon City: Center for Leadership Citizenship and Democracy (CLCD), National College of Public
Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Fernan, R. L. III. (2007). Ruined for life: the case of the JVP Foundation, Inc. In L. V. Carino & D. D. Gaffud
(Eds. ), What they contribute: Case studies on the impact of nonprofit organizations (pp. 167-‐
206). Quezon City: Center for Leadership Citizenship and Democracy (CLCD), National College of
Public Admininstration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Fernando, E. Q. (1984). Philippine constitutional law. Quezon City: Central Lawbook.

Flanagan, C. A., Syvertsen, A.K., & Stout, M.D. (2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents’
civic engagement (CIRCLE Working Paper 55). PA: Penn State University.

Heywood, A. (1994). Political Ideas and Concepts. An Introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Hoskins, B. (2006) Draft Framework on Indicators for Active Citizenship. Ispra: CRELL.

Javier, E. Q. (1995). Voluntarism in the University: The case of the Ugnayan ng Pahinungod/Oblation
Corps of the University of the Philippines. In Pahinungod Annual (pp. 1-‐6). Quezon City:
University of the Philippines.

Kabiling, G., & Aquino, L. A. G. (2010, August 15). NoyNoy wants SK abolished. Manila Bulletin.
Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/272516/aquino-‐stands-‐pat-‐sk-‐abolition

Karaos, A. M. A. (1997). Perception and practices of democracy and citizenship among middle class
families. In M. S. Diokno (Ed.), Democracy and citizenship in Filipino political culture (pp. 113-‐
132). Quezon City: Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines.

Katipunan ng mga Kabataan & Sangguniang Kabataan Federations. (2001). The 2001 Katipunan ng
Kabataan and Sanguniang Kabataan Constitution and By-‐Laws. Retrieved from
http://www.laguna.gov.ph/sites/default/files/office_files/admin/images/SK%20ByLaws.pdf

Kearns, A. J. (1991). Active citizenship and urban governance. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 17, 20-‐34.

Khane, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on
students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738-‐
766.

Kolberg, J. E., & Esping-‐Andersen, G. (1992). Welfare states and employment regimes. In J. E. Kolberg
(Ed.), Between work and social citizenship (pp. 3-‐35). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Leydet, D. (2011). Citizenship. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011
Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/citizenship/

Mabunga, R. G. (1997). Church witnessing: Values reflected in and the laity’s response to the pastoral
letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. In M. S. Diokno (Ed.), Democracy
and citizenship in Filipino political culture (pp. 175-‐190). Quezon City: Third World Studies
Center, University of the Philippines.

Manning, B. & Ryan, R. (2004). Youth and Citizenship (Report for National Youth Affairs Research
Scheme [NYARS]). Retrieved from
http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/youth_and_citizenship20100209.pdf
Mendez, C. (2008, April 14) Pimentel wants SK abolished. PhilStar.com. Retrieved from
http://www.philstar.com/metro/55887/pimentel-‐wants-‐sk-‐abolished
Presidential Decree No. 603, The Child and Youth Welfare Code. (1974). Retrieved from
http://www.gov.ph/1974/12/10/presidential-‐decree-‐no-‐603-‐s-‐1974/

Republic of the Philippines (10 October 1991). The Local Government Code. Republic Act 7160.

Republic of the Philippines (11 February 1987). The Philippine Constitution.

Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of 2010, H. B. 1963, 15th Congress. (2010).

Tan, K. (2010, October 26). Angara wants SK abolished. . GMA News Online. Retrieved from
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/204369/news/nation/angara-‐wants-‐sk-‐abolished

United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF] (2007). The impact of youth participation in the local
government process: The Sangguniang Kabataan experience. Retrieved from
http://www.pstcrrc.org/docs/The_Impact_of_Youth_Participation.pdf

Walzer, M. (1989). Citizenship. In T. Ball, J. Farr, & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Political Innovation and
Conceptual Change (pp. 211-‐220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marshal, T.M.
1950 “Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays.” Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Press. Cited in “Citizenship Identity and Social Inequality.” By Gabriel de la Paz.
www.civiced.org/pdfs/delaPazGabriel.pdf

Zamudio, Patricia.
2004 Lasparadojas de la ciudadania: unamiradadesde la migracion international, Mexico:
CIESAS-‐Golfo. Cited in Citizenship Identity and Social Inequality, by Gabriel de la Paz
(n.d.). http://www.civnet.org/UserFiles/File/Articles/delaPazGabriel.pdf (accessed
28 February 2014)

View publication stats

Engaging The Youth For Development: Differences Among SK-leaders and Their Constituents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Engaging The Youth For Development: Differences Among SK-leaders and Their Constituents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engaging The Youth For Development: Differences Among SK-leaders and Their Constituents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Conference Paper · June 2012

El Nino impact in the Philippines View project

Global Impact Study View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Erwin A. Alampay and Lydia E. Angeles

Center for Leadership Citizenship and Democracy (CLCD)

Keywords: Citizenship, Active Citizenship, civic-­‐engagement, Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)

-­‐1987 Philippine Constitution

Review of Related Literature

Enabling Active Citizens

Youth and Civic Engagement

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Citizenship Locally Defined

Table 1: SK and Non-­‐SK definitions of Citizenship

barangay that will benefit the society or the

Table 3: Citizenship Self Rating (scale of 1-­‐6)

CITIZENSHIP SK NON-­‐SK T-­‐Test

Citizen Engagement SK Non-­‐SK T

View publication stats

You might also like

Keywords: Citizenship, Active Citizenship, civic-‐engagement, Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)

-‐1987 Philippine Constitution

Table 1: SK and Non-‐SK definitions of Citizenship

Table 3: Citizenship Self Rating (scale of 1-‐6)

CITIZENSHIP SK NON-‐SK T-‐Test

Citizen Engagement SK Non-‐SK T