Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Muntinlupa

University Road, Poblacion, Muntinlupa City

College of Arts and Science
Department of Political Science

A CASE STUDY ON

LEGITIMIZING POLICY CHOICES: WITH FOCUS ON

PHILIPPINE PUBLIC POLICY

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for

Public Policy and Program Administration (PS 117)

Submitted to:

REYNALDO ORCINE SAMSON, Ph.D.

(Professor V)

Submitted by:

Mejorada, Filbert Anthony B.

Mongoc, Richelle P.

AB Political Science 4-A

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses the factors public administration should incorporate into

the curriculum in order to engage in the policy legitimization process. Legitimizing

Policy Choices which focus on Philippine Public Policy, identify different types and

methods of legitimization of a certain public policy and its basic definitions with

concrete examples. This study discusses some of the pros and cons of legitimization

methods in the context of public policy and programs administration. It also analyzes

these methods in the current context of Philippine political setting. Policy is a definite

course or method of action selected by government, institution, group or individual

from among alternatives and in the light of given conditions to guide and usually to

determine present and future decisions. This paper also goes deeply into the realm

on public policies legitimize within the plethora of public administration and

governance, and what are the dynamics of the different methods of legitimizing

policy choices in a particular state or country.

Legitimization means the process wherein people highly recognized and

respects the authoritativeness and legality of the current government to do

something for the welfare of everyone and is a belief on the part of citizens that the

current government represents a proper form of government and a willingness on the

part of those citizens to accept the decrees of the government as legal and

authoritative. Most accept actions of government as authoritative as long as they are

carried out in accordance with Constitutional processes or the procedures derived

from them. It is bounded on the principles that a government must be recognized to

be able for it to do proper actions and remedies to the problems of the community.

2
 In legitimizing public choices, there are four types: Through legislation and its

oversight functions: through Courts and its regulatory functions; through popular

forms of democracy such as initiative and referendum and in rare case, the

revolutionary forms. Moreover, this paper also emphasize on how the Philippine

government legitimize its policy choices and what the perspectives behind the

government’s decision are why these particular legitimization they chose. In most

common cases, most accept actions of government as authoritative as long as they

are carried out in accordance with Constitutional processes or the procedures

derived from them, for the Constitution serves as a boundary on the kinds of policies

that may be chosen, as well as the primary basis of legitimization of policies.

Legitimacy remains a truly democratic political system has certain

characteristics which prove its legitimacy with their existence. One essential

characteristic of a legitimate democracy is that it allows people to freely make

choices without government intervention. Another necessary characteristic which

legitimates government is that every vote must count equally and one vote for every

person. For this equality to occur all people must be subject to the same laws, have

equal civil rights and be allowed to freely express their ideas. Minority rights are also

crucial in a legitimate democracy.

To be able for a chosen policy to become formally effective and implemented

in its due course, policy makers need to legitimize themselves, and as well as the

policy they chose in order for them to implement further programs which are

beneficial on the part of the citizens. Legitimization must have its distinguishing

characteristics, and these are: Largely psychological wherein it involves rational

decision making and getting the head of the majority of citizens to agree on your

policy. Acceptance of the majority is essential for this became the very basis on

legitimizing policy choices, may involve substantive as well as procedural elements,

3
the content of the policy must be viewed as acceptable, otherwise the policy will fail;

Variable and constant; Differs among individuals and across time; the public appears

to see state and local governmental actions more acceptable than federal actions

and as well as governments must who must legitimate each individual policy choice.

Schools of Thought on Legitimization

On this policy issue, there were three schools of thought: the first advocated

executive action, the second espouses legislative power, and the third favours

popular control.

The executive school of thought asserts that the creation of political entities

should be the responsibility of the President, because he can perform this duty better

than any other since he can avail himself of the services of experts in the National

Planning Commission in determining whether or not a municipality should be

elevated to a city from the point of view of systematic planning. Moreover, he can

direct the public works and health authorities to find out whether a municipality

desiring to become a city meets standard requirements of modern urban life such as

a satisfactory source of, and facilities for, a water supply not only for human

consumption but also for fire protection. Furthermore, in cases involving the creation

of a new municipality through executive order, presidential action would focus

national attention on the needs of rural folks in the area' and extend the benefits of

national government assistance to them.

The advocates of legislative control contended that the policy for creating new

municipalities or converting municipalities into cities should be set by Congress.

They held the view that Congress, not the President, should define the standard

requirements which the 'experts' of the executive branch should investigate, namely,

that the location of the presidencias (town halls), plazas (town squares), markets,
4
cemeteries, and schools be situated on certain specified areas; that 'the layout of the

streets and the subdivision of open spaces' observe the regulations promulgated by

the N.P.C. in its zoning and subdivision rules; and that the Directors of the

Department of Public Works and the Department of Health certify that a good water

supply is available to meet the needs of modern community life. If the President is

given this power, the chances are that executive power will be abused to split a

municipality which has voted against the President in the election and, if that is so, it

will be tantamount to 'vicious gerrymandering' and 'political butchery.'

The supporters of local control criticized the executive and legislative

approaches as not likely to encourage local self-reliance, since not only the

President but also the Congress can abuse governmental power. They cited two

cases to prove their point. In Polo, Bulacan, the President was accused of 'dictatorial

methods to achieve political ends' by dividing the municipality into two because the

'town has consistently been a Liberal stronghold.' In Iligan City, Congress separated

'choice portions of [the city from its] jurisdiction and converted [them] into

municipalities' so as 'to afford losers a chance to get back at people who defeated

them in elections.'5 The late Senator Jose P. Laurel, Sr, in one of his public

utterances, proposed that the responsibility for creating local units should rest with

'the people themselves' who live 'in the so-called heart of local self-government.'6 He

said that it should not be given to the 'so-called experts in the national government

who do not know the customs and habits and even idiosyncrasies of townspeople.'

Identifying in the legitimation of power as a relevant causal-driver in public

policy and in explaining policy change would not have been possible without all

theoretical advancements that occurred in the past two decades. Despite the fact

legitimacy has historically been considered as a top subject of study in political

science, in public policy studies and research, legitimacy (viewed as product based
5
on “the belief” in the existence of a legitimate power relation) and the legitimation of

power (viewed as a process of achieving and maintaining legitimacy) have not been

assumed as relevant topics of study. It is well known that in traditional political

science are regimes, political actors and institutions all relevant subjects in the study

of legitimacy. Public policies are viewed simply as products (or as an instruments for

regime’s legitimation) that are part of a larger political system, whose legitimacy is

dependent on a broader regime's or political system’s legitimacy. Inside the

traditional policy-process approach, the legitimation of power has been played a

small or peripheral role. As institutional and instrumental requirement, policy

legitimation was identified simply as a phase of the policy process (cycle) and was

confined to the institutional approval of policy made by the legislative or judicial

instances in order to consolidate policy adoption, then considering ‘policy

legitimation’ and ‘policy approval’ as equal analytical terms (C. O. Jones, 1984;

Palumbo, 1987).

Centered in decision making literature, further contributions correct this

limiting view and redirect the attention to the legitimation of policy decisions.

Legitimation as a process was conceived as a substantive part of the decision-

making process, and this recognition improves our understanding of legitimation as

an activity potentially present in all stages in the policy process. According to B.G.

Peters, more than a policy as an instrument, what is necessary to legitimate are

policy decisions (Peters, 1986).

In recent decades, legitimacy and legitimation have increased its presence in

political science research agendas. Progressively, it has been considered that an

important part of all democratic regime’s legitimacy is achieved through what it does

(that includes the way it does it and through the outputs and outcomes achieved).

Thus reorienting the subject of analysis through government activity, its public sector
6
and public policy performance (Bañón & Carrillo Barroso, 1997), In fact, there are

important case-studies whose aims is to link several public policies as a source of (or

as a result of the imperative in achieving) a political regime’s legitimacy. As we well

know, legitimacy is not a static attribute, and (institutionally constrained) political

actors need not only to produce it and maintain it, but also favor it. The search for

legitimacy is a political priority, because only if there is legitimacy it is possible to

encourage compliance and cooperation, the consolidation of any power position and

the stability of any regime. In Beetham’s perspective, "legitimacy is not only

significant for the maintenance of order, but also to achieve a degree of cooperation

and quality of performance" (Beetham, 1991). Beyond its advantages, and

understand it as a process of obtaining, maintaining and increase legitimacy,

legitimation is thus "a tool of policy makers useful in controlling social behavior and in

justifying actor’s implication (and the actions they perform) during the policy process"

(Ibáñez, 2010).

This essential case study paper reviews some of the legitimization

frameworks that had been using all over the years in the emerging significance of

public administration, as well as cite relevant examples that could best explain these

methods of legitimization. In addition, for the brevity of the case study framework,

this paper will cite a particular case of legitimization, particularly in the Philippine

context, which was generally considered as one of the countries with high

percentage of effective public administration and good governance amidst dangers

and perils of corruption and sustainability.

7
 CHAPTER II
FOCUS ON THE PHILIPPINE BUREAUCRACY

Executive Legitimization

The executive comprises the president, and the administrators. The main

responsibility of the executive is to implement public policies and to supervise,

coordinate and manage ministries, departments and agencies that are involved in

the implementation of policies. But the executive in democratic dispensation for

example, in Philippines the president plays a crucial a pivotal role in the policy-

making process. The effectiveness of government depends substantially upon

executive leadership both in policy formation and in policy execution. Legislators are

members of parliaments and the legislators appear to have practically and largely

abdicated their constitutional responsibility of policy making to the executive.

According to Ikelegbe (2006) declared that legislators no longer exert considerable

influence on the initiation and formulation of policies. They just mainly formalise and

legitimize polices already formulated by executive.

Legislative Branch Legitimization

In the Philippines, the most common form of legitimization was coming from

the Philippine Congress. The procedures for introducing legislation and seeing it

through committees are similar in both the House of Representatives and the

Senate. Legislative proposals originate in a number of different ways. Members of

the Senate, of course, develop ideas for legislation. Technical assistance in research

and drafting legislative language is available at the Senate Legislative Technical

Affairs Bureau. Special interest groups-business, religious, labor, urban and rural

8
poor, consumers, trade association and the like are other fertile sources of

legislation. Constituents, either as individuals or groups, also may propose

legislation. Frequently, a member of the Senate will introduce such a bill by request,

whether or not he supports its purposes.

It must be noted also that much of the needed legislation of the country today

considered by Congress originates from the executive branch. Each year after the

President of the Philippines outlines his legislative program in his State of the Nation

Address, executive departments and agencies transmit to the House and the Senate

drafts of proposed legislations to carry out the Presidents program. Judicial decisions

which apply or interpret the constitution and the laws are part of the legal system in

the Philippines but they are not laws. However, although judicial decisions are not

laws, they are evidence of the meaning and interpretations of the laws.

We also adhere to the doctrine of STARE DECISIS which means that once a

case has been decided one way, then another case involving exactly the same

question or point of law should be decided in the same manner. This principle,

however, does not necessarily mean that erroneous decisions, or those founded to

be contrary to law must be perpetuated. In forming majorities and its methods the

partisan analysis involves convincing members of Congress that the piece of

legislation the policy maker wants is something that other members want as well.

Legislation is designed to create winning coalitions. When is it easier to build

coalitions the decisions are narrow policy choices rather than large like the

affordable care act. Logrolling which the trading votes comes to one vote for your bill

today and vote for mine tomorrow. The pork barrel spending adding little things to

bills like for example money for project as a way to build a coalition. The committees

that initially approved legislation monitor the way in which it is implemented. It

ensures that individuals charged with policy implementation follow the intent of the
9
legislation. The police patrol oversight routine monitoring of legislation, centralized,

active and direct. The Congress through its own initiative examines selected

executive agency activities with the aim of detecting activity that is inconsistent with

legislative intent. Fire alarm oversight to decentralize and involves less active and

direct intervention than police patrol. Congress becomes involved when there is a

problem and crisis intervention.

Popular Legitimization

However, no matter how unpopular their views all people should enjoy the

freedoms of speech, press and assembly. Public policy should be made publicly not

secretly and regularly scheduled elections should be held. Since legitimacy may be

defined as the feeling or opinion the people have that government is based upon

morally defensible principles and that they should therefore e obey it, then there

must. In political science legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority

usually a governing law or a regime. Whereas authority denotes a specific position in

an established government, the term legitimacy denotes a system of government

wherein government denotes sphere of influence.

It is in these roles that public administrators move into the political arena.

Policy analysis activities provide the discipline with the opportunity to move beyond

an emphasis on a narrow concern with simply managing government and into the

realm of policy choice, policy advocacy, political power and the exercise of

leadership. Public administration as a discipline and teaching faculty in particular,

face the challenge of increasing the relevance of the masters’ degree to policy

leadership training quite eloquently in1991.

However, our examples would give emphasize on the said policy choices

which focus on Philippines. The “Pantawid Pamilya Program”, when it comes to

10
policy formulation the translation of policy objectives into specific implementing

guidelines covering various sectors likes education and health the levels of

implementation in the national and local governments and as well as communities

and the multi-sector participants and stakeholders like the NGO conduits and

development agencies. The policy adoption clarify mandate its role deliverables of

concerned public institutions and private non public actors participants. They also

monitor and evaluate framework and mechanics. The accountability mechanisms

include the systems, processes, institutions. The political and community

considerations relative to selection, verification, transparency and accountability

need it in implementing policy. The public communications need to this to implement

it and as well as the local constraints and realities database and documentation. It

also needs a creativity and innovation in handling or managing challenges because

you cannot please everybody.

The Public-Private Partnerships Policy, first it emanated from constitutional

provision on the role of private sector in development. Private sector finance

regarded as a resource under the development assistance program. And that was in

accordance to the Republic Act 7718 (Amended BOT Law, 1994) which enacted to

provide solid legal basis to engage private sector, financing and technology in critical

infrastructure and development sectors. In the Executive Order #8 of 2010,

formalized Public-Private-Partnership established a Public-Private-Partnership

Center as a main coordinating agency which mandated implement agencies.

In forming majorities and its methods the partisan analysis involves convincing

members of Congress that the piece of legislation the policy maker wants is

something that other members want as well. Legislation is designed to create

winning coalitions. When is it easier to build coalitions the decisions are narrow

policy choices rather than large like the affordable care act. Logrolling which the
11
trading votes comes to one vote for your bill today and vote for mine tomorrow. The

pork barrel spending adding little things to bills like for example money for project as

a way to build a coalition. The committees that initially approved legislation monitor

the way in which it is implemented. It ensures that individuals charged with policy

implementation follow the intent of the legislation. The police patrol oversight routine

monitoring of legislation, centralized, active and direct. The Congress through its

own initiative examines selected executive agency activities with the aim of detecting

activity that is inconsistent with legislative intent. Fire alarm oversight to decentralize

and involves less active and direct intervention than police patrol. Congress

becomes involved when there is a problem and crisis intervention.

Popular Legitimization takes place through direct democracy in the states.

Referendum and Initiative are the most common types of popular form Vote of the

people on an issue put to them by the legislature or other government body. The

approval by popular vote is required for the policy to become law. May be used when

legislature deems issue either sufficiently important for direct vote or is too politically

charged. Initiative involves citizens can place issues on the ballot themselves and

then vote on it and real power to voters. Concerns with popular legitimization

complex issues simplified to yes or no questions. It turnout may be low, the voting

population may be uninformed that works better with small populations than on a

national level.

Judiciary’s Legitimization

The judiciary comprises judges and the courts. Their constitutional

responsibilities are the interpretation of the constitution and the laws, as well as

adjudication in conflicts between individuals, group’s governmental institutions and

the arms/levels of government. It is instructive to note that the judiciary is not

12
constitutionally empowered to initiate, formulate or implement policies. However,

though the interpretation of the constitution and laws, it contributes significantly to

the policy making process. According to Egomwan (1991) identified four important

instruments that the judiciary employs to react to policies. These instruments are:

Judicial review refers to the power of courts to determine the constitutionality

of the actions of the legislative and executive branches and declare them

unconstitutional, null and void, and of no effect if such actions violate any section of

the constitution. Statutory interpretation of cases brought before the judges. This

instrument refers to the power of courts used in interpreting and deciding the

meaning of constitutional provisions which are prone to conflicting interpretations.

Judges in their courts clarity constitutional provisions and whatever interpretation

they five become binding on all parties involved. Formulation of economic policies

has to do with the decisions of courts on matters like contracts, ownership of

property and employer- employee relationship. When matters relating to these are

brought before the court or judges, their decisions can translate to policymaking or

policy fine-turning or replacing altogether.

Judicial activism: this instrument refers to the regulation of social and political

activities in line with changing times. In this process, the courts specify what

government cannot do and what it has to do in order to satisfy legal and

constitutional obligations. Consequently, the courts can venture into, and adjudicate

on areas like the rights of individuals to social welfare services. It can also adjudicate

in the operation of public institutions like schools, colleges and universities. Through

these instruments the judiciary brings about judicial intervention which can not only

modify policies but also redirect policy and action as well as moderate

implementation activities. In a nutshell, the judiciary is that actor that ensures

propriety, fairness, constitutionality, justice and moderation in the policy process.

13
 The Courts and Regulations involved the process of what we called

administrative rule making. There are two major forms of rule making, first formal

which is the (1) Formal- Court proceeding and second (2)- informal which publish a

note of intent that people give advice draft issued. The role of courts have assumed

in legitimization, it consider legitimacy of actions with respect to the constitution

considering the nature of societal conditions and then offering solutions like for

example prison overcrowding and school desegregation. Legitimization of the courts

had the following features: first, proximity to constitutional authority and the absence

of a ready avenue of appeal following the final appeal, second, less compromise and

vote trading, third, lack a clearly defined constituency, fourth, decisions that apply

only to specific issues or cases and fifth, tend to legitimate certain actions but leave

future questions.

How do courts decisions differ from those of other administrative or legislative

bodies. First, is had the proximity to constitutional authority and the absence of a

ready avenue of appeal following the final appeal. Less compromise, vote trading,

lack a clearly defined constituency. The decisions that apply only to specific issues

or cases tend to legitimate certain actions but leave future questions.

The Reproductive Health Policy in policy formulation draws historical basis on

1967’s Declaration on Population by twelve countries including the Phil whereby

population be considered a principal element for long term economic development.

While there was general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child care,

there remains a huge debate about its mandate that the state and private sector will

fund and undertake widespread distribution of family planning devices, birth control

pill and IUDs and government continues to disseminate information on their use in

health center. The policy implementation which Implementing Rules and Regulations

(IRR) has yet to be developed Funding allocation has yet to be mobilized through
14
DOH and other agencies with specific roles- FDA, LGU’s, etc. Family planning is

responsible for parenthood component to be integrated in anti poverty program. A

petition questioning the constitutionality of the RH law was raised to the Supreme

Court which voted in March 2013 to issue a status quo order halting its

implementation.

15
 CHAPTER III
STATE OF GOVERNANCE

Public Participation

Across the globe and from one country to the other, societies are bedevilled

by myriads of problems. Indeed, such problems span all areas of human endeavours

political, socio-economic, cultural, environmental, religious, and security to mention a

few. Over the years, human beings, through their various governments, engage one

major and potent instrument called policy to address and solve problems of societies

and issues that are of public concern. Policy process is an intricate process involving

certain actors in government as well as those outside government who find

relevance in the existence of government. These actors or participants are crucial

and influential in the sub-processes of policy initiations, choices, formulation,

implementation and evaluation. It is against this backdrop that this paper examines

the crucial actors participants involved in decision making and policy process.

Rational policy is one that achieves maximum social gain that is governments

should choose policies resulting in gains to the society that exceeds cost by the

greatest amount and governments should refrain from policies if costs are not

exceeded by gain. There are lot assumptions, requirements a without which the

rational decision model is a failure. Therefore, they all have to be considered. The

model assumes that we have or should or can obtain adequate information both in

terms of quality, quantity and accuracy. It further assumes that you have or should or

can obtain substantive knowledge of the cause and effect relationships relevant to

the evaluation of the alternatives. In other words, it assumes that you a thorough

knowledge of all the alternatives and the consequences of the alternatives chosen..

Since it is the different department who are actually tasked to implement the various
16
programs stipulated other policy declarations. This set-up ensures cohesion and

coordination in the implementation phase of the program.

There are general guidelines for changing policies and choosing tactics; first,

preparation, prepare well for changing policies. Conduct the necessary research to

get to know as much as possible about the issue. Second is the planning, plan

carefully for policy change. To ensure that your overall strategy makes sense, and

that changing policies is a necessary and appropriate part of it, strategic planning is

essential. Third, personal contact, establish or maintain contact with those who

influence or make policy. Personal relationships, even with opponents are the key to

successful advocacy of all kinds and changing policy is no exception. Fourth, pulse

of the community; take the pulse of the community of interest to understand what

citizens will support, what they will resist and how they can be persuaded. You will

have a far greater chance of success if you set out to change policies in ways the

community will support or at least tolerate that if you challenge people’s basic

beliefs. Fifth, positivism, where you can, choose tactics that emphasizes the positive.

There is also participation which involves as many people as possible in

strategic planning and action. Try to engage key people, particularly opinion leaders

and trusted community figures, but concentrate on making your effort participatory.

That will give it credibility. Publicity uses the media, the internet, your connections,

and your imagination to keep people informed of the effort and the issues, and to

keep a high profile. Persistence may also be included which the policy change can

take a long time. Monitor and evaluate your actions to make sure they are having the

desired effect, and change them if they are not.

According to Fagence (1977) the importance of public participation in public

decision making in general and in the community planning in particular has long

been a central issue. Public participation today is often referred to as deliberative

17
democracy or discursive democracy. This refers to a certain kind o public decision

making that brings into focus the importance of public discussion of community

issues. To be legitimate, political decisions musts be the outcome of a deliberation

about ends among free, equal and rational agents (Elster 1998:5).

In this public discourse active citizens are invited to participate in a

conversation between people with different social or cultural backgrounds, interests

etc. Deliberation is believed to lead to more informed, innovative and legitimate

decisions. Deliberation theorists claim that this kind of deliberative practices can

have a number of benefits. In general terms, these benefits are the best described

as producing better decisions or better citizens. AS for better decisions, example

argues that deliberation produces superior individual level preferences. Alternatively,

effective public deliberation as an internal part of the agenda setting, aggregation

and policy formulating stages of path policy process will generate public decisions

with significantly greater legitimacy than decisions reached without such public

involvement. In addition to this, decisions that clearly embody informed public input

of this kind should reduce the levels of public opposition which may allow for

significantly improved implementation. In terms of better citizens, effective public

deliberations are thought to create civic and social learning opportunities for

participants and observers that presumably add to the health of a democratic polity.

The public participation is also a key component of environmental assessment of

course; both of environmental impact assessment of project and strategic

environmental assessment of plans programmes and policies. There are several

standards of good productive of public participation most of these standards have

been developed while their guidance regarding the appropriate forms of public

participation is more limited.

18
The Philippine State of Governance: Democratic and Participative

The Philippine democracy that is contemplated in the comparative framework

of the researchers appears to be the democracy since 1987, for which reason it is

described as “young.” The specific lesson that can be derived from Philippine

democracy, however, is that a democracy can log in decades of procedural practice

of democracy, but be far from being democratic in substance. The Philippines is, in

other words, a model of an “old” but “unconsolidated” democracy, or an “old” but

“poor performing” or “poor quality” democracy. How a polity can persist in its outward

democratic form without graduating to higher levels of performance is the question

posed by the Philippine case. The Philippine case also demonstrates three

successful modes of transition from political order to political order. The Marcos

constitutional authoritarianism is one such mode. The “People Power” Revolt is a

second mode that has been resorted to, successfully, twice (1986 and 2001). The

regular succession mode through election has also been demonstrated. As the

Arroyo Administration progressed from its start in 2004 and nears its constitutional

termination in 2010, it is remarkable that all three modes of transition have been

attempted. Several attempts to trigger a People Power event have been attempted

but have so far failed. Efforts by political allies of President Arroyo to effect a

constitutional change to extend her term of office have also been attempted.

Meanwhile, the Presidential Elections in May 2010 is the default, but by no means

the guaranteed mode of transition or succession of the polity or administration.

19
Socio-Economic Profile

There are a lot of indicators that can be used to reflect how the international

community of scholars and international development experts assess the quality of

governance, development, and democracy in various countries of the world.

One of the standard measures is GDP per capita, which reflects the capacity

of the nation to produce economic goods and services, taking into consideration the

size of the population. On this measure, the Philippines’ GDP per capita of $5160

ranks nine out of 13 countries/territories, almost one-seventh of top ranking Hong

Kong’s $35396 and less than one-half of Malaysia’s $11915. Philippine GDP is twice

the GDP of Cambodia.

In terms of Gini coefficient, which indicates how equitably distributed the GDP

is, the Philippines – 45 is the third least egalitarian economy, after Malaysia and

China. This is almost twice the coefficient of top-ranking Japan – 25. Two popular

indices of civil and political rights are Freedom House’s Civil Liberty and Political

Right Scores. In 2006, the Philippines scored 3 on both indices, putting it in the

league of Cambodia and Thailand in the middle of the 13 East Asian countries and

territories covered by the Asian Barometer. Taiwan tops these measures at 1 for

both civil liberty and political rights, while China comes in last, scoring 6 and 7

respectively. Another set of indicators that portray the state of “control of corruption”,

“voice and accountability”, “government effectiveness”, and “rule of law” prevailing in

a country or territory is provided by the World Bank. In 2006, the Philippines obtained

a negative score on “control of corruption” (-0.69), “rule of law” (-.48), and “voice and

accountability” (-0.18). It scored close to zero (-0.01) in “government effectiveness”.

This puts it in the league of Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and China as far as

having no positive score on each of these measures.

20
 CHAPTER IV
TOWARDS GOOD GOVERNANCE IN PHILIPPINE BUREAUCRACY

The political office holders continuously depend on administrators that have

quality time and adequate information necessary in the policy process. In the

circumstances, administrators will continue to wield considerable influence in the

policy process. This is because they engage in facilitating and restricting and

restricting policy choices and implementing only policies that their abilities permit.

The corollary is that hey implement policies that they are favourably disposed to. The

technocracy, professionalism, skill and experience of administrators will continue to

put them in good stead to wield enormous influence and apply their discretions in the

policy process.

Policy making process in the agenda setting formulation formalized in

institutions with policy making mandate in the legislative branch. The Executive

Branch translates legislation into executive policies which are Executive and Admin

Orders at the sector and department levels the Implementing Rules and Regulations

and down to local government or the Local Council Provisions. The critical role of

institutions in the Philippines with specific legal mandates policymaking, regulatory,

oversight, and implementing in translating policies to programs, projects and

activities. It has provisions for participation by non-state governance actors.

The Public Policy Process in the Philippines involve the agenda setting, policy

formulation, policy adoption, policy formalization, policy implementation and policy

evaluation. In the agenda setting it includes the public sectors development

requirement, the amendments to current policies and sect oral advocacies. The

institution involves the state actors legislators and executive offices

21
 The policy adoption and formalization which the formal enactment of the

official and legal policy instrument will be formalized and legitimized after a series of

dialogues and consultations with state and non-state sectors and presentation of

options. The policy implementation comes to the translation of the policy into

programs and projects at the executive branch from the president to the line

agencies and concerned institutions at the national and local levels to which the

mobilization of resources like funds and personnel. The Executive Branch includes

the Departments, Agencies, LGU’s, Budget Department Office, Civil Service and the

Regulatory and Oversight Agencies. The policy evaluation comes to policy

implantation review and evaluation towards the agenda setting.

The Role of Administrators in policymaking process indicated that the

administrators are classified as supplementary policy makers. They gain their

authority form primary policy makers before they act. They are potentially dependent

on the primary policy makers. Administrators work directly under the executive arm

of government as they are implementers of public policy. AS political systems differ

around the world so also are administrative systems. TEH kind of political system in

place in any nation determines the kind of administrative system in terms of size,

complexity, structure and space of autonomy. Whatever the situation, it has been

clearly established that administrators in their implementation assignment can make

or mar any policy. During implementation they can engage in foot-dragging or non-

enforcement altogether.

The role of administrators in the policy process has become so crucial, and

this has transcended mere implementation of policies. Through the executive, they

now generate initiate and formulate policy proposals and push for them. Certain

factors are responsible for this as enunciated by Anderson (1979). In complex

industrial societies especially, the technicality and complexity of many policy matters,
22
the need for continuing control, and the legislator’s lack of time and information have

led to the delegation of much discretionary authority, often formally recognised as

rule-making power to administrative agencies. Consequently, administrators make

many decisions that have far-reaching political and policy consequences.

Political office holders continuously depend on administrators that have

quality time and adequate information necessary in the policy process. In the

circumstances, administrators will continue to wield considerable influence in the

policy process. This is because they engage in facilitating and restricting policy

choices and implementing only policies that their abilities permit. The corollary is that

they implement policies that they are favourably disposed to the technocracy,

professionalism, skill and experience of administrators will continue to put them in

good stead to wield enormous influence and apply their discretions in the policy

process. This is underscored by the submission of Rourke (1967).

Good and beneficial public policies and decision making remain a sine qua

non to good governance in any nation whose government is serious and focused to

address and solve the present and emerging problems of societies. All actors in the

policy process need to be alive to their responsibilities of formulating good and

beneficial policies. Formulated policies should be faithfully implemented for the good

of the generality of the people in a country. Corruption, which is a cankerworm in the

implantation stage, must be confronted headlong It is generally believed in some

states that most of their current policies are good, but implementation is woefully

poor because of the hydra-headed periodically, so as to ensure that they remain

relevant and useful in solving the problems for which they were formulated, as well

as emerging challenges. The interest groups are associations of individuals who

share common interests, beliefs and aspirations regarding their demands. They are

23
civil society organizations that advance and advocate their interests and demands

with a view to influencing the policy process.

These groups, according to Anderson (1979), perform an interest articulation

function that is they express demands and present alternatives for policy actions.

They may also supply public officials with much information, often of a technical sort-

concerning the nature and possible consequences of policy proposals. In doing so,

they contribute to the rationality of policymaking. Interest groups submit memoranda

and draft policy proposals to the legislature. They also mobilize the public to support

their advocacy on particular policy proposals.

Legitimizing Good Governance in the Philippines

The economic performance of the Philippines has been considered a major

development puzzle (Balisacan and Hill 2003). While it had the requisites of a

“modern democratic state” after the American occupation, its economic performance

over the next half century (1950–2000) was poor compared to many of its neighbors.

Various explanations have been proffered including its archipelagic geography,

harsh climate, inability to attract investments, and its economic policies. However,

much of its economic performance has yet to be explained. Beyond short-term

factors, the Philippines is distinct from the rest of Asia in two aspects: it was the only

Spanish Catholic colony in Asia and was later occupied by America (Nelson 2007).

During the Spanish period, the Philippines saw only limited scientific progress and

economic development. On the other hand, the American started an age of

modernization and economic growth by introducing land reform, establishing

democracy, and improving public health care. By 1938, the Philippines surpassed all

Asian countries except Japan, in terms of per capita income, health, and education

indicators. Through much of the early 20th century, income per capita in the
24
Philippines was over two-thirds that of Japan, and the two were poised to converge

in the second half of the century. Instead, there has been a wide divergence in the

incomes of the two countries. It was other Asian countries caught up with the

Philippines, even surpassing it, as did Taiwan (in 1962), South Korea (1967),

Thailand (1977), Indonesia (1985), and China (1992). Current trends suggest that

Vietnam and India will soon catch up with, and surpass the Philippines.

There is no common explanation for the poor performance of the Philippines

since the 1950s. The Philippines had greater physical and human capital than many

Asian economies. Its geographic characteristic and natural endowment were not

necessarily disadvantaged as similar characteristics did not hinder Japan’s economic

growth. Among the most important factors cited are poor institutions and

governance. In particular, Fabella (2000 quoted in Nelson 2007) notes that the rule-

of-law is tenuous and enforcement is uncertain. However, other Asian countries

experienced similar problems and yet have performed economically well. Several

Asian countries present a paradox of being among the most corrupt and yet are able

to draw investment. Apparently, certain types of corruption have a market-like effect

where businesses vie for privileges from government, greasing the wheels of

commerce and reducing transaction costs. Some view corruption as additional

compensation for poorly remunerated public servants, and a means of redistributing

income. As such, they are not much different from legal fees except that the latter

are “socially approved” (Nelson 2007).

The problem of the Philippines is that corruption is unpredictable and diffuse,

undermining the commitment and credibility of the government (de Dios and

Esfahani 2007 quoted in Nelson 2007). For this reason, the Philippines experienced

difficulty in attracting investment. Nelson points to the importance of culture and

25
religion in the economic performance of the Philippines, noting that although the

United States has improved the physical infrastructure of the country, it did not

succeed in developing its “cultural infrastructure.” The cultural influence of the

Spanish seems stronger than that of the Americans. As a result, in contrast to

America’s Protestant ethic, Catholicism dominates Philippine culture. The

fundamental difference lies in origins of American and Spanish influence, to wit: “in

England the Reformation triumphed, whereas Spain was the champion of the

Counter Reformation” (Paz 1979 quoted in Nelson 2007). For the Spanish colony

Mexico, for instance, work is considered of no value, even oppressive, whereas in

the United States, with the Puritan influence, work is considered liberating. Spanish

Catholicism taught a tradition that prohibited evaluation and critique. With the

Counter-Reformation, Spain and her colonies “closed themselves to the modern

world.” Counter-reformation was a grand scheme to seize change to maintain the

status quo. Consequently, Spain and her colonies were unsympathetic to industrial

capitalism and curtailed the market. The same unfavourable attitude to free market

as well as democracy was implanted in the Philippines with the Spanish Catholic

heritage.

The Philippines also shares similar characteristics with Latin American

countries, such as corruption and political violence. Nelson (2007) argues that

culture plays a critical role in the political system and that understanding both is

critical to explaining economic outcomes. Also characteristic of the Catholic heritage

is the dependence of individual decision-making on the church authority in contrast

to the Protestant emphasis on freedom and responsibility. In Latin America, there is

a propensity to swing from submission to rebellion. Moreover, Catholicism equates

disagreement with conflict, whereas Protestantism views disagreement as normal.

26
Furthermore, the “Spanish Catholic personality” avoids responsibility while displacing

guilt by assigning all responsibility to the state. In the face of regulations, there is a

tendency for rebellion. The work ethic is linked to the view of salvation. With the

Catholic view that “salvation is external and infallible,” to take responsibility and exert

effort is seen as unnecessary, even useless.

Local Government and Legitimization

Development, in its various aspects, is not automatic or inevitable. Instead of

economic growth, a country may experience recession due to reductions either in

consumption, investment, or net exports. Income may also decrease due to a

reduction in the supply of labor or the deterioration in the quality of labor/human

capital. A general decline in incomes and employment would lead to greater poverty.

Even if incomes do not decline, poverty may rise due to more uneven distribution of

income. The pressure of population on natural resources and the environment may

also threaten sustainability. Social capital may decline; people may lose their

networks, value systems can break down. Criminality, lawlessness, and corruption

may threaten the integrity of social institutions. On its own, the economy may not

perform or function as efficiently as desired. In many cases, this is due to market

failure, which exists when a good or service is either underprovided (or not at all) or

overprovided. This happens when market power resides in a single seller (monopoly)

or a few sellers (oligopoly), or when no markets operate due to information

asymmetry, externalities, or when the product is a public good. When markets are

not competitive, as in monopolies and oligopolies, producers enjoy profits even if

goods and services are produced at lower amounts than can be produced in

competitive markets. Consumers lose both from this lower output and from the

higher price paid to producers. In addition, the economy loses what consumers

27
would have been willing to pay more for additional amounts of goods and services

(Nicholson 2005).

What should be the role of local governments? Apart from overcoming market

failure, the rationale for decentralized decision-making and the role of local

governments are based on principles of efficiency, accountability, manageability, and

autonomy (Shah and Shah 2006). Two principles that relate to efficiency are:

governments closer to the people work well, and people should be able to choose

the public services they like. Decision-making at the lowest level is most efficient.

Responsibility depends on cost effectiveness and extent of benefits and costs of the

public service. The principle of fiscal equivalency states that the correspondence

between political authority and the benefit of public service ensures efficiency as

costs match the benefits. Similarly, the correspondence principle states that

responsibility over public service should depend on who the consumers are. There

may be overlapping spheres of influence and people can choose among these.

states (Shah and Shah 2006), the delineation of functions between the national (and

regional) and local governments should be as follows: formulation of policy and

development of standards is done at the national level; supervision of

implementation is undertaken at the regional or provincial level; and provision of

public service is done by local governments, metropolitan governments, or regional

governments, depending on “economies of scale, economies of scope… and cost-

benefit spillovers, proximity to beneficiaries, consumer preferences, and budgetary

choices.” Production and distribution of public services can be public or private.

Private sector participation can take different forms such as contracting, franchise

operations, grants, vouchers, volunteers, community self-help activities, and private

non-profit organizations.

28
 The fostering democratic governance (governance) practice area is the

smallest in terms of budget despite its centrality to the UNDP mandate. The CCF2

reflected the recommendation of the mid-term review of the CCF1 “that poverty

alleviation be the core business of UNDP and that governance interventions be the

major means of achieving this focus.” Good, inclusive governance at all levels is

recognized as essential for poverty reduction. This is reflected in the UNDAF

outcome objective: “by 2009, good governance reforms and practices are

institutionalized by government, LGUs, CSOs and the private sector at all levels

towards poverty reduction, protection of rights and sustainable human development.”

To this end, the CPAP developed three expected outcomes for the 2005-2009

programme: „ Justice and human rights—more accountable rule-based institutions

to enhance access of the poor to justice and human security „ Public administration

—more responsive national, sub national and local institutions providing efficient

social services delivery „ Political development—political, electoral and legislative

reforms instituted to democratize and increase participation, especially of the poor

With some modifications, there was continuity from the preceding CCF2 governance

programme, which had as the outcome objectives: sound, transparent, responsive,

effective and efficient management of economic and financial resources,

administration of public personnel, and the enforcement and adjudication of laws;

active, organized and responsible civil society and private sector engagement with

the government and exercising of the citizenship role to promote good governance;

and strengthened capacity of institutions to promote and protect the right to

development.

The programme took a significantly different direction with the decision in

early 2007 to focus on human rights and to change the implementing partner to the

29
CHRP. The CPAP results framework has yet to be rewritten to reflect the new

expected outcomes: strengthened capacities of the CHRP to effectively oversee

progress and support national institutions and local governments to meet their treaty

obligations; strengthened capacity of the Presidential Human Rights Committee, civil

servants and selected agencies of government to respect, protect and fulfill human

rights through implementation of the National Action Plan on Human Rights and a

human RBA in development planning processes; and disadvantaged women

empowered to demand, exercise and enjoy their human rights.

30
 CHAPTER V
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

Human development is central to any reform agenda in the elections. Now,

this refers to the improvement of the life quality of the nation’s citizens which time

and again proved dismal in the Philippines. With the persistence of poverty and of

poor living conditions in the country, the Philippines needs a more effective policy

agenda that would accelerate the development of Filipino people. To contribute to a

truly developed population: Employment, Health and Housing. All of these four issue

areas are intertwined and should be addressed in relation to each other in order to

effectively improve human development. The Development of a self-reliant economy

through small to medium enterprises, with emphasis on strengthened labor rights is

a must. Installation of quality and accessible education through efforts to de-politicize

must be also given great emphasis.

The Increased public access to health care services through effective

devolution and through de-politicization of health service had an emphasis on

reproductive health and the improvement of the local medical industry. The

improvement of housing service structure and program implementation both

administratively and financially and also emphasis on respect for human rights was

clearly stated. Now, to develop a nation, one must ultimately develop its people, for

what is a nation but most intrinsically its citizens. A reform agenda thus, at its heart,

requires a human development reform agenda that ensures that basic human needs

are amply addressed by the government.

At present however, we see our people still below good living standard; one

out of three Filipinos, and 32.9 million people, are poor while a third of the population

31
around 34 percent is part of the urban poor. The state of poverty allows us to see the

big picture of human living condition in the country; however it is characterized by a

variety of interconnected aspects of a people’s existence. Poverty alleviation can

therefore only be achieved with a multi-faceted approach that at best can be

summed up in addressing four key sectors which comprise the basic aspects of

human development employment, education, health and housing. Thus, assessing

all of these four would give us an in-depth picture of human development in the

country. Simultaneously, targeting strategic actions in these key areas would lead to

genuine development of the Filipino people.

Employment, education, health, and housing needs are all intertwined to

reveal a person’s life quality. Does one have a good job with sufficient wages to

finance in all his or her daily needs? The agenda for Human Development

reformulate strengthen and integrate key policies like for example the Employment or

Labor Reforms. Labor sector reform should aim for the development of a self-reliant

economy that respects labor rights. Specific strategies and agenda should also be

formulated to allow the government to effectively respond to the financial crisis,

particularly strategies that discourage mass layoffs and labor rights violations during

such economic crises.

The installation of quality and accessible education is central to a holistic

human development reform agenda. This can be achieved by addressing key issues

that hound the education sector of the country: the low budget allotted for education,

the poorly regularly tuition fee increases that commercialize access to quality

education, the politicization of the educational system, the persistence of a

curriculum that further training-job mismatch, the unresolved issue on out of school

youths and the short education cycle. Specific agenda on improving quality of and

access to education include the increase in the budget allotted for education to cater
32
to the pressing needs of the different academic institutions. The lack in school

facilities equipment and quality instructional materials and the low salary allotted for

public school teachers should amply be addressed.

To ensure accessible education the financial accessibility is a major factor. A

moratorium in tuition fee increase is an imperative given the current crisis in order to

prevent private to public school migration and to discourage increase in school

dropout rates. Programs to minimize the number of out of school youth must also be

implemented. Installing a de-politicized education sector that upholds democratic

rights in the schools also guarantees fair and equal treatment in academic

institutions. Educational systems should also be reformed to enhance the

performance of educational institutions. A new curriculum that is both nationalistic

and relevant to the times should be formulated to address the mismatch between the

skills schools inculcate the students and the jobs that are available in the country.

With the incessant fight for power and scarce resources, the highly functional

institutional model had been effectively relegated to the background. Now, the elite

and interest group moles have come to the fore thus, transforming the policy process

itself into nothing but a crisis management cycle focused on the Gloria Macapagal

Arroyo Administration’s political survival. Regimes maintain diffuse support by

inculcation the education system in any society builds support for its political

processes. Legitimacy can be managed through manipulation of symbols (the

playing of the national anthem at every event). Through this process people learn to

support government.

The agreement on means discontinuities can exist but if the discontinuities

are persistent, they can shake the underlying legitimacy. Ultimately, it should

recognize that the legitimacy of the regime and the legitimacy of the government are

two different things. It is possible to question the current authorities without losing
33
support for the U.S governmental system. The approval majority building in policy

legitimating principle process of Philippines democracy is majority building. Whereas,

the decisions by majority rule are grated more legitimacy than decisions by the

plurality. Legitimating by majority rule most closely identified with the legislature. But

bureaucrats, legislative liaison, lobbyists, state and local officials, the president also

involved in this making policy. The presidential veto or the threat of the veto may

also be in the approval.

Innovation can be institutionalized into the policy process. Diligence in the

development and processing of policy inputs is crucial. Inclusive and innovative

development need not always require new legislation. It can take the form of

amendments to existing legislation or translation of policies into more focused policy

instrument further broken down into specific programs and projects. Institutions play

a central role in advocacies for human development agenda. Their strength or

weakness: authority, structure, systems, fiscal/human resources spell the difference

in making innovation evolve and thrive in an inclusive manner throughout the policy

process, especially at implementation. The existing end evolving policy institutional

and socio-political realities are as important as the content of the policy.

Innovations at inclusiveness can be replicated, customized and expanded.

There is a need to document and make available information and knowledge.

Capacity building for all policy actors’ state and non-state stakeholders- should be

continuous and accessible. Credible institutions or network of institutions should lead

the advocacy and action to build up a policy research agenda in the region in a

collaborative manner. Forge partnerships with organizations or partners pursuing

similar advocacies. Document learning, develop knowledge, disseminate and

communicate. Facilitate a thriving venue/platform for continued discourse, learning,

sharing and capacity building of institutions, organizations, personal and others.

34
MDG’s as Legitimizing Factor for Human Development in the Philippines

The Philippines has already met the 2015MDG target for improved sanitation

and is likely to meet the target for safe water supply. For these indicators, the

MTPDP 2004-2010 has set higher targets than the 2015 MDG targets. There also

has been improvement in some natural resource indicators including: a small recent

increase in forested area after a long and substantial decline; an increase in the

number of proclaimed protected areas; a substantial decline in ozone-depleting

chlorofluorocarbons; and a reduction in households using solid fuels. There has also

been an active legislative programme—with acts on clean air, clean water and

ecological solid waste management—and environmental policies or action plans on

climate change, integrated coastal management and biodiversity, amongst others.

These achievements have been made at the same time as the Philippines has acted

to meet its obligations under several multilateral environment agreements, which

have global as well as national impacts. Despite these achievements, environmental

challenges persist and require urgent attention. They include: watershed

withdrawals; a decline in fishery resources and coral reefs, on which many of the

poor rely; threats to biodiversity, where conservation and development can impose a

significant cost; persistent pollutant threats to humans and ecosystems; the effects of

natural disasters, which can be prepared for if not prevented; and the threats of

climate change. Recently, there has been a substantial increase in applications for

mining licenses in many parts of the country, backed by national legislation. Mining

can cause pollution, compete with biodiversity areas and undermine the rights of

local populations. A further challenge is the capacity of the government and other

stakeholders to develop and implement appropriate policies and institutional

arrangements.

35
 The Government of the Philippines has adopted the MDGs as a key

component of its development strategy. UNDP has a special interest in progress

toward the MDGs and a mandate for monitoring progress globally. MDG

achievement requires several interventions, at the subnational, national, and global

level, including some that are targeted toward MDG achievement and others that

create the context within which achievement will take place. During the evaluation

period, the MDG practice area supported several types of intervention for

incorporating the MDGs in planning and budget systems, and for enhancing access

to markets by the poor, particularly for land tenure and finance. Given the uneven

attainment across MDGs, the MDG practice area should provide information and

approaches for all practice areas. There were approximately 20 projects in the

practice area during the evaluation period, some with multiple objectives and

outputs. Financial resources for the practice area have been limited, thus a

considerable focus has been placed on advocacy activities.

Sustainability

Sustainability has been assessed from mechanism built into project design,

interview responses and desk reviews. It is more assured for activities related to

planning and budgeting systems than for those for enterprise development and

stakeholder capacities. A key element is budgetary resources at both national and

local levels. Most of the changes in statistical systems relating to MDG monitoring

and achievement, including at the local level, have been accepted and will continue

to be demanded in the future. UNDP assistance to advocacy around the MDGs and

the Philippine HDR has led to changes that are likely to be sustained, including

attention from Congress to the MDGs and budget allocations. Some activities, such

as microfinance support, are sustainable through non-project means. Definitions of

36
social protection and the informal sector have been formally accepted. Other

completed activities, for asset reform and tenure systems, had a short life. HIV/AIDS

prevention may require continued UNDP assistance in a low key manner

37
 CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The present Philippine public policy process is institutional in character, the

primary policymaking body with regard to the development scene. But the

phenomenon has changed that landscape of policymaking. The role of the civil

society groups in influencing agenda-setting has never been more evident than now.

Likewise, the Catholic Church and the mass media, realizing their power to make

and unmake government are intruding in the process to the detriment of the majority

of the people, who are being deprived of right, sound and viable policies because of

political indebtedness, concessions, and sheer lack of political will.

The integration of policy analysis into the public administration affords the

discipline with the opportunity to focus on policy leadership and escape the limitation

associated with an emphasis on program management. The study of politics and the

exercise of political power should not be divorced because politics involves the

struggle over the allocation of resources and public policy is a manifestation of the

outcome of that political struggle. The public policy choices reflect to some degree,

the political power of the winners and the relative lack of power by losers. Now the

Public Policy involves the study of conflict and the exercise of power.

Legitimizing policy choice is one of the salient parts of public policy and

programs administration process. It is important for it extends how the government is

authoritative in its action and it determines how government and citizens had

coordination with each other. All forms of legitimization had its positive sides and

negative side, but what is important is that the welfare of the majority was taken

upon and policy must be implemented in terms of how it will help the citizens ease its

woes and the government fulfil its duties.

38
 Structures of local government in the Philippines are matters of congressional

determination. Unfortunately, decisions made by Congress are not always the result

of impartial, objective, and independent study. They are political in purpose, modest

in approach, and piece-meal in nature. Popular elections in Filipino city governments

are, by and large, widely held as important steps in the direction towards local

autonomy. There is no question in the minds of reformers that they are active

stimulants to citizen interests in local affairs, check-points to national meddling, and

basic ingredients of strong and self-governing urban community. But in view of the

fact that the cities have been the strongholds of political machines and bosses, the

testing grounds for progressive ideas of local government, and the home of the

upper classes prominent in all phases of life, the transformation of their governing

bodies into effective and elective policy machineries has been approached with

extreme caution.

Recommendations

In order to produce leaders, public administration programs should emphasize

the nature of the political system an understanding of the legitimacy of sub

governments, the importance of coalition building and the psychological factors

associated with policy choices. Integration of policy analysis into the public

administration curriculum requires that students be equipped with an in-depth

understanding of both the political environment and the political process. This is true

because public administrators are deeply involved in the stages of policy

development, adoption and implementation activities which reach beyond the narrow

confines of program management and into the realm of politics. Consequently, public

administrators serve in a variety of capacities as policy advocates, program

champions, or as defenders of client interests.

39
References

 Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). "Agenda Dynamics and Policy

Subsystems." The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044-1074.

 Balisacan, A., Hill, H., & Piza, S. F. 2007. The Philippines and Regional

Development. In A. Balisacan, & H. Hill, The Dynamics of Regional

Development: The Philippines in East Asia (pp. 1-50). Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar.

 Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. Houndmills, Basingstoke:

Macmillan.

 Ibáñez, A. D. (2010). "Desarrollo teórico sobre el proceso de las políticas

públicas: hacia un enfoque de legitimación." Política Pública Hoy. Boletín

DNP-Colombia(3), 2-4. (with English Translation)

 Nicholson, W. 2005. Microeconomic theory: basic principles and extensions.

Ohio:Thomson South-Western.

 Shah, A. and S. Shah. 2006. The new vision of local governance and the

evolving roles of local governments. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

 https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/flashback/189506-look-back-philippines-

history-revolutionary-government

 http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dinagat-Islands-creation-plebiscite,2006

 http://ww.lawphil.net/judjuris/juris2014/feb2014/gr203335-2014.html

 http://www.senate.gove.ph/press-release/2018/0108-legarda1.asp

 https://quizlet.com/191484818/public-policy-chapter-5-legitimizing-policy-

flash-cards/

40