Chapter from: Ogawa, A. 2017.ed. Routledge Handbook of Civil Society in Asia.

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

7
THE PHILIPPINES
Jorge V. Tigno

Organized people power

Civil society has had a remarkable impact on democracies everywhere in the last half century, but
its repercussions are most striking in the developing world, where democratic institutions are still
taking root. In many parts of the world today, civil society has become the sine qua non of the
democratization process itself (Diamond 1994; Mercer 2002). While its organized elements have
claimed a stake in a multitude of development issues and concerns globally over the last three to four
decades, from protecting the environment to promoting rural development, civil society’s more
significant contributions have been observed to lie in the domain of politics (Bratton 1989). Cer-
tainly, the number of civil society organizations (CSOs) has not only grown exponentially in many
countries, but has also provided a vital platform for citizen engagement, as well as becoming a moti-
vating force for political development (Alagappa 2004; Clarke 1998; Mercer 2002; Thapa 2012).
The 1980s ushered in a new era for civil society in the Philippines (Domingo 2013). It was
during this period that more open and popular civil society movements emerged against the
authoritarian rule by Ferdinand Marcos. The strong clamor for the removal of Marcos came to
be known as people power and “EDSA” has come to symbolize that type of power of the
people against dictatorial rule. The acronym stands for the main thoroughfare (Epifanio de los
Santos Avenue) in Metropolitan Manila which was occupied by a large number of Filipinos in
late February 1986 calling for the ouster of Marcos. Within days of people taking over EDSA,
Marcos fled the country and sought exile in Hawaii, courtesy of the United States. While some
analysts celebrate the courage of the Filipinos in the face of tyranny, other, more religious
groups have hailed the “EDSA” event as a kind of miracle and an act of divine intervention. The
Philippine Left would see “EDSA” as largely symbolic of the actions of a liberal segment of the
bourgeoisie and one that effectively glossed over and marginalized the protracted armed struggle
against Marcos. Whatever the interpretation, civil society groups saw an opening in the post-
EDSA political space that they could now access, that had not been there before. The open,
participatory, and progressive character of Philippine civil society today traces its roots to EDSA
and the subsequent restoration of formal liberal democratic structures and mechanisms in the
1980s. In the aftermath of the uprising against authoritarian rule in 1986, CSOs in the country
have increasingly and openly played a significant role in popular empowerment strategies for
good governance, political accountability, and sustainable development.

110
 The Philippines

But more than thirty years down the road, the Philippines is still a long way from effectively
consolidating and institutionalizing its democratic mechanisms and processes. The post-1986
democratic political system has been described as “unconsolidated” (Schmitter 1992), “shallow
and flawed” (Putzel 1999: 214), and “patrimonial” (Hutchcroft 1998), dominated by oligarchs
and extended families (Hutchcroft 1991), as well as entrenched local bosses (Sidel 1999). Despite
the claimed appreciation (albeit romanticized view) attached to Philippine civil society, that is,
as a force for good and for everything that democracy stands for, it remains a question where it
has taken the country in the last four decades. The Philippine case appears to defy the conven-
tional logic that, in the words of two prominent civil society scholars, a “robust civil society”
can “help consolidate and deepen democracy” (Stephan and Linz 1996: 18). Despite having a
pervasive, strong, and empowering civil society, the Philippine political system continues to be
weak, clientelistic, ineffective, and prone to elite capture.
Although civil society in the country has evolved into a generally dispersed and diverse
community, its historically close association with “the power of the people” is perhaps undeni-
ably its most common and strongest feature. Indeed, scholars on the Philippines acknowledge
the critical role played by civil society in establishing and shaping the bedrock of democracy
in the country (Clarke 1998, 2013; Hedman 2006; Silliman and Noble 1998; Thapa 2012;
Wurfel 2004).
While they may be essential to the democratization process, it remains to be seen whether
CSOs are also sufficient to bring about genuine and lasting democratic consolidation and insti-
tutionalization in the country (Thapa 2012; Wurfel 2004). Although they are able to mediate
social relations to some extent and have the potential to undermine traditional hierarchical and
patronage-based political structures, the voluntary groups found in the Philippines have yet to
have such an effective and lasting impact on the country’s socio-political landscape in terms of
bringing about the genuine and sustained empowerment of the people. Much of this is due,
ironically, to their diversity and pervasiveness, which in some ways are their “strengths” as a
community. Their diversity has also led to their lack of coherence and cohesiveness. Their
expansion and proliferation may be a good thing, but it can also be a source of their weakness.
Internal contestations and conflicts persisting within and between these organized elements of
people power specific to the manner and objectives of their struggles can lead to doubts as to
their assumed coherence and homogeneity as a group. Likewise, it also mitigates the extent of
their contribution to the institutionalization of democratic governance altogether, notwith-
standing their strong potential to foster a more accountable and effective government in pro-
moting public welfare (Clarke 1998; Mercer 2002; Wurfel 2004).
Organized elements of civil society in the Philippines are either non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs) and/or people’s organizations (POs). During the late 1980s up to the 1990s, they
were also called “cause-oriented groups”; their leaders are sometimes called “street parliamen-
tarians” for their propensity to voice social issues and take their struggles out to the streets
(Domingo 2013; Nelson 1988: 20; see Geronimo 2016). At times, they are also referred to as
“the third sector” or “the non-profit sector” by some scholars (Cariño 2002; Domingo 2013).
Broadly, NGOs refer to “private, non-profit, professional organisations with a distinctive legal
character, concerned with public welfare goals,” while POs are “local, non-profit membership-
based associations that organise and mobilise their constituents in support of collective welfare
goals” (Clarke 1998: 2–3). Claire Mercer (2002) further adds that NGOs are associations run by
an employed staff (often composed of urban professionals) and are able to generate funds for
their operations from (local and foreign) donors. Such NGOs are to be differentiated from grass-
roots organizations (GROs) that are smaller in size and are able to operate largely from voluntary
work but are still dependent on external or even NGO funding support (Mercer 2002). In the

111
 J. V. Tigno

Philippines, however, the term POs is used more than GROs, because the latter has been popu-
larly attached to a different line of work altogether—GROs is a colloquial term that stands for
“guest relations officers” or people who typically work in the entertainment services sector. It
is also used in the popular discourse as a euphemism for prostitutes.
Given the fact that the two possess numerous common elements, it is easy to conflate NGOs
with POs, since they are both entities involved in a wide range of (non-state) development and
pro-poor/pro-people initiatives. In many cases, “NGOs” have become the catch-all term for all
forms of collective or communitarian voluntary initiatives that are not part of government, the
private business sector, and the family. Interestingly, although NGOs and POs are often used
interchangeably in the Philippines, both continue to be seen as forces integral to civil society
and crucial to mobilizing resources and people toward a greater sense of democratic and account-
able governance (Domingo 2013). For the purposes of this chapter, CSOs is used interchange-
ably with NGOs, and POs are subsumed under both terms.
This chapter offers an overview of the nature and character of CSOs in the Philippines as
they are operationalized in the activities and pursuits of NGOs and POs. It attempts to answer
a number of basic questions about the emergence, persistence, and expansion of these organized
segments of civil society, as well as the directions they are taking and the challenges they are
likely facing today. What factors would explain their emergence in Philippine society and their
entry into politics? How can their proliferation be explained? What issues and challenges con-
front Philippine civil society and CSOs?
The chapter will provide a basic description of the historical roots of CSOs in the country by
situating their emergence and proliferation in: (a) the historical context of the emergence of
faith-based mutual aid societies; and (b) the contemporary context of the anti-dictatorship strug-
gle of the 1970s and the 1980s. As well, the chapter will describe the constitutional framework
for the existence and proliferation of CSOs in the country. Finally, the chapter will attempt to
point out some of the key challenges facing the sector today.
The chapter argues that while such organized elements of civil society have certainly been a
force to reckon with for the state and the market, it remains to be seen whether CSOs have
collectively fostered the strengthening and consolidation of the country’s democratic institu-
tions. The notion that civil society groups can be a progressive force is certainly a fascinating
one. However, in critically examining the state of civil society in the Philippines, the NGOs and
POs that now dominate the country’s socio-political landscape may actually pose a threat to
(rather than foster) the establishment of more effective democratic institutions.

Historical beginnings and critical conjunctures

The CSOs that dominate the Philippine social and political landscape today emerged and pro-
liferated due to certain junctures in the country’s history. The phenomenal wave of NGOs in
the Philippines that began in the 1980s emerged from a long line of community-based, self-
help, and voluntary organizations dating as far back as the late sixteenth century (Bankoff 2007;
Cariño 2002; Clarke 1998). Although they were not as common and pervasive as the NGOs of
today, civic and philanthropic associations were allowed by the Spanish colonial authorities to
be established at the local levels. Some were organized as lay religious confraternities (brother-
hoods) or sodalities (the cofradias as these were called), while others were established as local
self-help professional guilds or gremios that became the forerunners of the cooperatives and trade
unions of today (Sibal 1996). The more prominent of these cofradias included the Hermanidad de
la Misericordia organized in 1594, the Congregacion de la Santisima Virgen established in 1600, and
the Venerable Orden Tercera de San Francisco created in 1729 (Ikehata 1990: 111–112). All these

112
 The Philippines

faith-based associations undertook various charitable and economic activities and were sup-
ported by the religious and secular colonial authorities of the period (Bankoff 2007). As a long-
standing agrarian and subsistence farming area, poverty and economic uncertainties were
commonplace in the Philippines. The members of the cofradias performed certain acts of charity,
like visiting and caring for the sick and dying, things that the Spanish friars could not do in all
cases, given the fact that there were too few of them in the islands at the time. Under such con-
ditions, these formal and informal but largely voluntary and charitable associations were a
godsend for the poor in that these organizations allowed them “to withstand the magnitude and
frequency of [their] misfortunes” (Bankoff 2007: 330). Moreover, although they were primarily
religious lay people, the members of these cofradias also became dedicated adherents of tradi-
tional social values like bayanihan (collective mutual assistance), kapatiran (brotherhood), and
damayan (mutual aid in times of crisis).
The cofradias were, in many cases, informal but deeply embedded associations that had an
extensive presence throughout the archipelago during the Spanish colonial period. It was not
uncommon for towns and satellite settlements to have one or more active cofradias (Barrion
1961; Bankoff 2007). Although they were supposed to operate with formal authorization from
the colonial administration, especially the governor-general and the diocese, in practice, many
did not do so prior to the eighteenth century (Barrion 1961). Some of these cofradias though
were viewed with suspicion and seen as a threat by the colonial authorities, simply because they
involved the natives. However, Spanish Catholicism, combined with Filipino folk beliefs, has a
way of consolidating and strengthening grass-roots protest actions, allowing them to endure
over time (see Ileto 1979). A case in point is the Cofradia de San Jose, a confraternity founded by
Apolinario de la Cruz (popularly known as Hermano Pule) in 1832. When the official recogni-
tion he sought from the Spanish and Catholic authorities for his folk association was denied (for
racist reasons), Hermano Pule rallied thousands of his followers and revolted against the colonial
authorities. The Spanish authorities violently suppressed the association, leading to the arrest and
death of thousands of the cofradia’s followers, including Hermano Pule himself (see Lee 1971).
Despite the difficulties they experienced at the hands of the colonial authorities, many cofradias
thrived and endured due to the much-needed service and support system they were able to
deliver to the poor.

The evidence suggests, in fact, that these cofradias were more than simply a means of
expressing religious faith, and that they acted in the way of mutual support and as
benefit associations on behalf of their members in times of misfortune or travail, pro-
viding needed labour, material assistance and even money. Moreover, their member-
ship was extensive, sometimes exceeding several hundred persons, and was especially
strong among female members of the community.
(Bankoff 2007: 331)

By the early part of the twentieth century, larger and more formally organized associations
began to emerge in the Philippines. The American administration encouraged local rural and
agricultural credit cooperatives, as well as mutual benefit associations, the establishment of which
was seen as an integral part of America’s strategy to spread democratic values, counter the influ-
ence of the Church, encourage self-reliance, and promote overall political stability for the
country (Bankoff 2007; Clarke 1998). In 1906, the formal legal framework for civic associations
and other charities had been established through the Philippine Corporate Law. Mutual benefit
associations in the country persisted and proliferated throughout the first half of the twentieth
century under the Americans. Citing figures at the time, Greg Bankoff (2007) points out that

113
 J. V. Tigno

membership in agricultural credit cooperatives between 1918 and 1923 increased almost three-
fold from 29,259 to 77,479 persons, covering 547 associations in forty-two provinces through-
out the archipelago (Bankoff 2007: 334).
By the 1960s and the 1970s, civil society in the Philippines had evolved into a more vibrant
but more politically radicalized landscape of groups and movements of workers and students
against the ancien régime.

Membership of the progressive or development-oriented organizations that sub-

sequently emerged as a result of these political events was mainly confined to Roman
Catholic Church workers, the union movement and urban middle-class intellectuals,
but an increasing concern with education, community-based primary care, gender
issues, the promotion and protection of civil and political rights and the provision of
material support for the activities of grassroots organizations soon expanded both their
appeal and their involvement.
(Bankoff 2007: 344)

Under martial rule, Ferdinand Marcos severely restricted and prohibited the activities of non-
governmental groups (such as trade unions and student organizations) that advocated the anti-
dictatorship cause and encouraged those that were in support of the authoritarian system (Sibal
1996). Marcos embarked on a project to craft a strong state and a disciplined and orderly society.
The strongman ruled by decree, with little or no open opposition or real accountability. A crit-
ical civil society was seen as a threat to the nation and the dictatorship. Those organizations that
could not be co-opted were outlawed. In some cases, Marcos established his own alternative
civic organizations that operated in quasi-official fashion. For instance, in place of the radical
student organization in the pre-martial law period called the Kabataan Makabayan or KM (liter-
ally, the nationalist youth), Marcos established the Kabataang Barangay or KB (village youth) that
promoted the ideals of authoritarian discipline and respect for the leader. The KM had become
an underground organization. Not surprisingly, the first KB chairman was none other than
Maria Imelda Josefa Romualdez Marcos or Imee, the eldest daughter of the dictator and now
governor of the province of Ilocos Norte, a known Marcos bailiwick.
As Marcos tightened his grip on the economy and society, so did the agencies of government
become overconfident, inept, and corrupt. The rampant inefficiencies of and corruption in the
government created the need for an alternative system that allowed for independent NGOs and
POs to flourish and provide much-needed services to the people that government agencies
could not. Initially, these CSO initiatives were constrained to operate in a clandestine manner.
Their very existence challenged the mantle of benevolent autocracy that Marcos came to
represent. Predictably, many of these organizations were opposed to authoritarian rule and
everything that the Marcos regime stood for. A few were even accused of providing financial
and logistical support to the movement that advocated armed opposition to the regime, the
National Democratic Front (NDF ), as well as the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)
and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA). This prompted the regime to clamp down
on organized people’s initiatives. The main CSOs that were allowed to operate (albeit still
suspect) were those that were sanctioned by the Catholic and Christian Churches. These faith-
based organizations and networks were engaged in community-based anti-poverty and other
social development concerns, particularly in the rural areas. The Catholic Church in the Philip-
pines, like its counterpart in many countries in Latin America, had been revitalized by the
encyclicals of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s that emphasized that the Church concern
itself with the real injustices and miseries of the people. Indeed, in a Catholic-majority country

114
 The Philippines

like the Philippines, the Church has become a focal point not only for the people’s discontent,
but also of their radical struggle to overcome it and it is this social action feature of the Church
organization that had not become a major irritant for the Marcos regime (Youngblood 1978).

In the Philippine context, prominent Roman Catholic theologians have identified the
task of liberation as a struggle to overcome the “structural injustices operative in liberal
capitalism.” The social structures and institutions of capitalism, they argue, have
injustice built into them. While stopping short of advocating a revolutionary altern-
ative, the Church is presented as the champion of drastic reform.
(Shoesmith 1979: 247)

Another turning point for Philippine civil society was reached in the early 1980s. While there
has been a weakening worldwide of traditional mechanisms for popular participation and medi-
ation since the 1980s, such as political parties and trade unions, this global phenomenon does
not seem to explain the emergence and proliferation of NGOs and POs in the Philippines.
Mainstream electoral political parties and trade unions have historically been weak and ineffec-
tive in the country to begin with. The “associational revolution,” as Gerard Clarke (1998) puts
it, took place in the Philippines especially beginning in the 1980s as a result of various significant
socio-political events and forces.
Politically oriented NGOs began to proliferate in the country by the 1980s. Following the
assassination in 1983 of Benigno Aquino, a staunch leader of the anti-Marcos movement, and
the ouster of the dictator himself in 1986, there was an explosion in the number of motivated
NGOs and POs in the country “fuelled in part by the huge amounts of foreign aid that flowed
into the country to fund reconstruction and to stabilize democratic institutions” (Bankoff 2007:
344; Wurfel 2004). The period between 1989 and 1992 shows the highest growth rate in the
number of NGOs and POs in the country (Clarke 1998: 71). Between 1984 and 1995, the
number of registered NGOs grew nearly threefold, from 23,800 to over 70,000 (Clarke
1998: 71).
But even as civil society groups in the Philippines began to occupy a more prominent and
open space in the society and politics during and after the EDSA people power revolt, ironically,
they “had a remarkably small impact on policy and politics in the Aquino administration”
(Wurfel 2004: 216). Although NGOs were heavily involved in the crafting of the 1987 consti-
tution, essentially the post-Marcos period simply restored the traditional (pre-dictatorship)
political set-up that had been temporarily disturbed by Marcos. On the surface, the system had
the appearance of a thriving and vibrant democracy—regular elections, term limits on politi-
cians, and competing electoral political parties. Beneath it all, however, the clientelistic and
elitist system remained. It is even likely that NGOs were used by traditional politicians to gain
some degree of popular legitimacy and regain the power they had lost during the period of auto-
cratic rule under Marcos.
By the early 2000s, NGOs in the Philippines had become a diverse and heavily empowered
sector operating in an environment that openly supported and encouraged them. In 2001,
people power once again came to the fore in the movement to oust (and later defend) a discred-
ited president. Faced with corruption allegations, Joseph “Erap” Estrada, a populist president
elected in 1998, had been impeached, but the final outcome of the impeachment trial in the
Senate had been pre-empted by popular calls for his ouster. In the midst of mounting calls
(dubbed the second people power or EDSA Dos) for his removal, Estrada voluntarily left the
presidential palace in January 2001. Shortly after, however, the supporters of Estrada rallied to
his side and attempted an EDSA Tres, but this failed, as their political and financial resources

115
 J. V. Tigno

dwindled. A kind of “people power fatigue” had set in at this point, as some observers have
attempted to explain the fizzling support for EDSA Tres and other succeeding political events
(Poole 2009). Faced with growing allegations of corruption and bribery herself, Gloria Macapa-
gal Arroyo, Estrada’s vice-president and successor, became extremely unpopular. An opinion
poll in late 2007 considered Arroyo “the most corrupt” Philippine president in history, more
than Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada (Flores 2007). Yet even with such allegations against
her and her administration, Arroyo did not encounter the same kind of convulsive people
power that Estrada and Marcos faced.
The civil society that emerged in the Philippines beginning in the socio-political upheaval of
1986 is a diverse and active community nurtured by an open and tolerant society that it had
helped create. It is a community with a historically high level of overall popular legitimacy and
acceptability, which is able to engage in a wide range of advocacies locally as well as nationally.
The socio-economic need that these NGOs were able to fill (which the government could not
in many cases) at the local and rural levels was also undeniable. However, without a common
overarching structure, the majority of civil society organizations have gradually slipped toward
working within the established political system and entrenched patronage networks, weakening
their potential as a force for democratic consolidation (Thapa 2012: 14). The historically pro-
gressive and democratic role played by civil society has been stymied by the dominance of
patronage politics.
In historical terms, Philippine civil society has evolved into an open virtual space for self-
organization and voluntary action, occupied by diverse entities, groups, and organizations,
“some more enduring and autonomous than others” (Franco 2004: 97) and some more progres-
sive, revolutionary, and democratic than others. The growth of CSOs at certain historical junc-
tures can be explained in terms of the vacuum that these organizations needed to fill up,
combined with the officiating role of the state to either constrict or encourage their propagation
by way of policy action (Clarke 2013), as will be evident in the following section.

The present constitutional mandate

While civil society is a terrain for non-state initiatives, its character and operations are neverthe-
less affected by state policy. Historically, in the case of the Philippines, government policy
toward civil society has oscillated, “veering from liberal support … to outright hostility” (Clarke
2013: 60), although the important role of CSOs in society is now enshrined in the 1987
Constitution.
With the end of Marcos’ authoritarianism in 1986 came the period when civil society flour-
ished, leading to a vibrant terrain that endures up to now. Numerous CSO that took part in and
even led the struggle against the dictatorship also took part in the political reconstruction after-
wards. Not surprisingly, when Corazon Aquino created the Constitutional Commission in early
1986 to draft the country’s post-Marcos constitution, many of those appointed commissioners
came from civil society groups associated with the anti-Marcos and anti-martial law movement.
The process of crafting the 1987 Constitution effectively institutionalized people power, first,
by allowing for popular participation in the process of crafting the constitution (via public hear-
ings and consultations) and, second, by providing mechanisms for the representation of the
largely marginalized and poor segment of the population in virtually all political institutions.
Indeed, the pro-people and pro-poor tenor of the deliberations amongst the members of the
commission at the time was undeniable. The country’s constitutional foundations had been
established on the so-called principle of preferential treatment for the poor and the oppressed.
Commissioner Edmundo Garcia (himself coming from the NGO community) stated at the start

116
 The Philippines

of the deliberations within the Commission that the constitution which the body intended to
produce was to have a peculiar bias in favor of the marginalized and poor, as well as the organ-
ized segments of the people.

So I want to make this clear. I think we should lay our cards on the table. In this sense,
although this is a constitution for all the people, still it must be biased for the poor or the
majority in this land … (1) That the powers of government must be limited; (2) That the
freedom of all, especially of those who have less in life, must be guaranteed; … (3) That
economic equality must be encouraged and defended; (4) That popular participation
must be insured; and (5) That people’s organizations must be recognized.
(Garcia in Republic of the Philippines 1986a: 63)

Given the overwhelming role played by grass-roots organizations (especially the POs) to oust a
dictator, a great deal of confidence was expressed during the commission deliberations on the
capacity of people’s organizations to deliver a more progressive form of politics. Such was the
sentiment voiced by Commissioner Felicitas Aquino.

It is my firm resolve that the people’s organizations, the cause-oriented groups, are
now in a position politically and logistically to successfully launch organic leaders who
would transcend parochial interests and be able to capture popular imagination for
national leadership … [to] lead us to an era of new people’s politics.
(Aquino in Republic of the Philippines 1986b: 71)

As a result, a “party-list” system was also enshrined in the Constitution. This new political
arrangement allowed representatives from marginalized groups and sectors (such as “labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector”) to be elected as party-list representatives in the
House of Representatives (Republic of the Philippines 1987, Article 6, Section 5). In 1995,
Republic Act 7941 was passed that allowed for:

the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list

system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
… belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute
to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation
as a whole.
(Republic of the Philippines 1995, Section 2)

There were other attempts in the course of the deliberations of the Commission, particularly
on the part of former NGO leaders and street parliamentarians, to “institutionalize” or even
“constitutionalize” people power as a basic principle in the Constitution (Republic of the Phil-
ippines 1986a, 1986b).
One way that people power had been “institutionalized” is found in the popular initiative
provision of the 1987 Constitution that allows for the people to initiate national and local legis-
lation as later provided by Congress.

The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referen-
dum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and

117
 J. V. Tigno

enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress
or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten
per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.
(Republic of the Philippines 1987, Article 6, Section 32)

However, while such a people’s initiative law is already incorporated in the Local Government
Code of 1991, as will be discussed further, Congress has yet to pass a law to allow for a people’s
initiative mechanism for national legislation.
The same is the case for constitutional amendments. Although the 1987 Constitution does
provide for the people to initiate constitutional amendments, Congress still needs to enact the
necessary law to operationalize this.

Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people

through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
three per centum of the registered voters therein … The Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this right.
(Republic of the Philippines 1987, Article 17, Section 2)

As the backbone of Philippine civil society, the protection and promotion of NGOs and sectoral
associations is also enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organiza-

tions that promote the welfare of the nation.
(Republic of the Philippines 1987, Article 2, Section 23)

Early on, the members of the commission recognized and acknowledged the vibrancy and polit-
ical necessity of the country’s civil society community. Commissioner Florangel Rosario Braid
acknowledged that incorporating non-governmental entities in the constitution would follow a
growing trend, not only in the Philippines but also throughout the world, concerning organized
efforts to promote volunteerism and participatory governance.

This provision recognizes a philosophy that is prevalent now even in our country as
well as in many other countries of the world—that volunteerism and participation of
nongovernmental organizations should be encouraged … [G]overnment-led develop-
ment has failed to reduce disparities, has failed to trickle down resources to the major-
ity and that the next decade should be a decade where volunteerism, community-based
and nongovernment agencies, independent organizations will be given their due
support.
(Rosario Braid in Republic of the Philippines 1986c: 903)

However, Commissioner Rosario Braid also clarified that the term “nongovernmental” does
not just incorporate a sense of independence from government but also “acknowledges private
enterprise and privatization,” although she does also conflate these terms with “private initia-
tives” (Rosario Braid in Republic of the Philippines 1986c: 903).
At the same time, the Constitution not only defines but also empowers POs to undertake
initiatives to protect and enable the people in pursuit of their welfare, as well as in promoting

118
 The Philippines

the public interest. In doing so, the Constitution effectively limits the powers of the State in that
it is now required by law to undertake consultations with such people’s organizations.

The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to enable the
people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and
collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
People’s organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capa-
city to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and
structure.
The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable parti-
cipation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be
abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation
mechanisms.
(Republic of the Philippines 1987, Article 13, Sections 15 and 16)

Indeed, the people’s organizations were seen by many in the Constitutional Commission to play
an important role in bringing about “social justice” in partnership with government. As pointed
out by Commissioner Ponciano Bennagen, POs have a complementary role as well as an over-
sight function vis-à-vis the government.

[There are] two major actors in the realization of social justice: On the one hand, we
have the executive, legislative, and judicial structures of government, and on the other,
we have the people’s organizations. … [F]ormal structures … would allow the achieve-
ment of social justice. People’s organizations would complement these formal struc-
tures by providing certain informal structures within which they can exert pressure on
the various structures of government to be more responsive.
(Bennagen in Republic of the Philippines 1986b: 651)

Armed with their new constitutional mandate, civil society groups are seen to play a more active
and open role in policy advocacy, as well as in calls for greater transparency and accountability
in government. Since the 1990s, the operations of these CSOs have become increasingly been
incorporated in national laws. The 1991 Local Government Code (LGC) or Republic Act
Number 7160 makes it,

the policy of the State to require all national agencies and offices to conduct periodic
consultations with appropriate local government units, nongovernmental and people’s
organizations, and other concerned sectors of the community before any project or
program is implemented in their respective jurisdictions.
(Republic of the Philippines 1991, Book 1, Section 2)

It is not uncommon to find similar provisions in other national laws.

The Local Government Code likewise mandates local governments to “promote the estab-
lishment and operation of people’s and nongovernmental organizations to become active part-
ners in the pursuit of local autonomy” (Book 1, Section 34). Local NGO and PO representation
in numerous special boards is guaranteed in the LGC. NGOs and POs have achieved significant
headway in community-building, as well as providing much-needed basic services in many
localities throughout the country, although it still remains to be seen whether their inclusion in
the local governance process can be sustained over the long term (see Tigno 1997).

119
 J. V. Tigno

With their integration into the formal mechanisms of the Philippine political system, it now
became necessary for the NGOs themselves to be registered, monitored, and to some extent
have their activities regulated by the state. Since the state now mandated that NGOs be included
in the official governance mechanisms (at both the national and local levels), it now became
necessary to determine who could be accredited/registered as such non-governmental entities.
Historically, non-governmental activities have been the subject of monitoring, control, and
regulation by the state, which looked upon these CSOs with suspicion. However, the post-
Marcos period was different in that it now mandated the inclusion of such NGOs in the formal
mechanisms of governance. As such, the proliferation of these non-state and largely voluntary
organizations during the 1990s can also be explained in terms of the extent to which the state
allowed for the accreditation of such institutions during the period, as seen in Table 7.1. It was
during this decade that official policies became more “NGO-sensitive” and a slew of govern-
ment agencies sought their participation, assistance, and advice on matters of government devel-
opment policies.
The advent of a strong civil society movement in the Philippines during the anti-dictatorship
struggle provided the conditions that would eventually mandate the important role of NGOs
and POs in rebuilding the democratic system in the country. Armed with such a mandate (from
the Constitution, no less) a more inclusive and open environment in the post-1986 period had
now allowed NGOs to take part in the formal (official) mechanisms of governance. No longer
were they at the margins, even though they continued to claim to represent the marginalized.
However, their formal inclusion into the government establishment necessitated the creation of
certain systems through which they could be accredited or recognized as genuine representa-
tives of the marginalized sectors of society. The slew of government accreditation systems that
emerged, especially between the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, provided the avenue for
the propagation and proliferation of NGOs and POs in the country.

Locating and mapping civil society

In general, civil society is the “complex and dynamic ensemble of legally protected nongovern-
mental institutions that tend to be non-violent, self-organizing, self-reflexive, and permanently
in tension with each other and with state institutions that ‘frame,’ constrict, and enable their
activities” (Keane 1998: 6). Given the historical and institutional contexts of the country, con-
temporary civil society in the Philippines is seen in a more progressive (albeit, radical) light as an
arena where “oppression is challenged and emancipation is nurtured” (Clarke 2013: 16). It is a
space where its inhabitants (CSOs) attach a strong degree of preferential treatment for the poor,
marginalized, and oppressed. The proponents of this view look upon the state and the market
(the purveyors of oppression and enslavement) as anathema to civil society. The late Philippines
expert David Wurfel (2004) also contends that NGOs are but a segment of that larger space.

“Civil society” is here meant to include all social, cultural, religious, and non-profit
economic organizations outside government but operating within the framework of
law. NGOs, organized for social action, community development, livelihood improve-
ment and other purposes, are only a segment of that wider term.
(Wurfel 2004: 215)

As pointed out at the beginning, this chapter situates CSOs within the specific activities of
NGOs and POs. Philippine NGOs typically claim to speak on behalf of civil society and in
opposition to government policies and programs, and much of their collective impact is felt in

120
Table 7.1 Registration/accreditation of non-governmental entities in the Philippines
CSOs
Social Welfare Entities
Labor Organizations and Unions and Rural
Workers Organizations
Non-stock and Non-profit Corporations
Parent–Teacher Associations
Citizens’ Electoral Watchdogs
Agrarian Reform Communities
Cooperatives
NGOs in the Local Development Council
Higher Education Institutions
Trade and Guild Associations
Youth Organizations
Health Care Providers
Farmers Cooperatives and Extension Service Department of Agriculture (DA)
Providers
Indigenous Peoples Organizations
Donee Institutions
POs in Forest Management
NGOs and Voluntary Organizations
Homeowners’ Associations
Organizations of Basic Sectors
Mutual Benefit Associations
Source: based on Tables 1 and 2 in Domingo (2013: 6, 8–11).
Regulating agency
Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD)
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Department of Education (DEPED)
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
and LGUs
Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA)
National Youth Commission (NYC)
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC)
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR)
National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA)
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC)
Insurance Commission (IC)
Legal basis
Regulating the Practice of Social Work and Social Work
Agencies (RA 4373) 1965
Labor Code of the Philippines (PD 442) 1974
Corporation Code of the Philippines (BP 68) 1980
Education Act (BP 232) 1982
Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) 1985
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (RA 6657) 1988 and
DAR Order Number 11–89
Cooperative Development Authority Act (RA 6939) 1990
Local Government Code (RA 7160) 1991
Higher Education Act (RA 7722) 1994
TESDA Act (RA 7796) 1994
Youth in Nation Building Act (RA 8044) 1995
National Health Insurance Act (RA 7875) 1995
Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (RA 8435)
1997 and DA Order Number 12 (2012)
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA 8371) 1997
BIR Regulations 1998
DENR Administrative Order 99–36 and 99–53
Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilities (RA 9442) 2007
Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’
Associations (RA 9904) 2010
Presidential Administrative Order 21 (2011)
Insurance Code (RA 10607) 2013
 J. V. Tigno

the area of policy advocacy (Clarke 1998 and 2013). Their strong point is primarily “in provid-
ing alternative mechanisms and strategies in responding to the social, economic, and political
demands of the citizenry, especially the less fortunate, marginalized, and voiceless” (Domingo
2013: 2).
Also, in the Philippines, a distinction is made between non-governmental entities that are
profit oriented and those that are not. The Corporation Code of the Philippines sets a distinc-
tion between “stock” and “non-stock” corporations. As provided for in the Corporation Code,
a non-stock corporation is an organization that does not provide for the distribution of any divi-
dend income to its members or officers and any profit accrued is to be used only to further the
goals of the organization (Republic of the Philippines 1980, Section 87). A stock corporation is
an entity authorized “to distribute to the holders of such shares dividends or allotments of the
surplus profits on the basis of the shares held” (Republic of the Philippines 1980, Section 3).
This distinction sets out the parameters between “non-profit” NGOs and profit-oriented busi-
ness entities and organizations (Clarke 2013: 70). Civil society constitutes the realm of voluntary
and non-profit activities and initiatives.
Karina Constantino-David (1997) makes a distinction between profit and non-profit groups
that operate outside the state and for the welfare of those in the margins. However, Constantino-
David goes beyond this initial dichotomy of non-state entities by making a further distinction
across non-profit and non-government groups to the extent of illustrating the nuanced com-
plexity and organizational sophistication of civil society in the Philippines. Constantino-David
(1997) defined NGOs as “all organizations that intersect with the domain of the state but are not
part of the state apparatus [as] civil society entities” and that they are identified as such based on
“the fact that they contest state power, individually or in concert, by attempting to transform
unequal power relations” (Constantino-David 1997: 22). In other words, civil society becomes
the space to challenge the power and authority of the state and make it more accountable to the
people. She also makes a broad distinction between individuals (calling them non-government
individuals or NGIs), mass membership-based peoples’ organizations (POs), institutions (known
as NGOs), and ideological forces and movements.
NGIs are persons who operate outside an organizational structure and are given legitimacy
by the state, but play an important role in strengthening non-state interventions. POs are broadly
subdivided into professional, academic, and civic organizations (PACOs), government-run/-
initiated POs (GRIPOs), and genuine, autonomous people’s organizations (GUAPOs). NGOs
are also subdivided into development, justice, and advocacy NGOs (DJANGOs), traditional
NGOs (TANGOs), funding agency NGOs (FUNDANGOs), mutant NGOs (MUNGOs) such
as government-run/-initiated NGOs (GRINGOs), business-organized NGOs (BONGOs), and
NGO entrepreneurs (COME NGOs) that take advantage of the availability of funds from donor
development agencies. Ideological forces such as the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN)
and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF ), amongst others, articulate ideological posi-
tions and paradigms as an alternative response to the programs of the government. A number of
GUAPOs and DJANGOs are said to be influenced by these ideological forces. At the time that
this mapping was first articulated, it may have been a useful tool to identify how and why certain
NGOs and POs alliances are formed. However, the utility of such a mapping remains to be seen
in light of the fact that many of the terms used to name these organizations are highly normative.
Moreover, such a mapping conflates the organizations with the space that they occupy (civil
society).
No full and precise count of CSOs exists in the Philippines today. At best, one finds a wide
range of numbers from different scholars and coordinating agencies. According to Wurfel
(2004), the number of officially registered non-stock and non-profit organizations in the country

122
 The Philippines

could easily reach 60,000 in the early 2000s, although “this number includes private schools and
hospitals, professional associations, and other private, non-profit institutions, none of which are
usually regarded as NGOs” (Wurfel 2004: 215). Gerard Clarke (2013) lists no less than eighteen
organizational typologies of Philippine CSOs, from trade unions, to cooperatives, to religious
organizations and people’s organizations (See Clarke 2013: 214–215).
A compilation undertaken by Phillip Tuaño (2011) estimates the number of NGOs in the
country anywhere from a low of 15,000 (Brillantes 1995) and 20,000 (Aldaba 1993) to a high
of 497,000 (Cariño 2002). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is said to have
around 107,000 registered non-stock and non-profit corporations in 2009 (Tuaño 2011). The
estimates vary greatly due to differences in definitions. Ledivina Cariño (2002) counts all CSOs
(NGOs and POs), while Alex Brillantes (1995) and Tuaño (2011) only count NGOs, and the
SEC statistics include all non-stock and non-profit corporations.
However, what seems to be evident from these estimates is that the numbers of such organi-
zations have been growing over the years. The legalization of CSOs in the Philippines has
produced a burgeoning NGO “cottage industry,” where such entities can be easily established.
NGOs may have proliferated throughout the world, but the Philippines is said to have the
highest in Asia on a per capita basis (Wurfel 2004: 215). It may well be “the NGO capital of the
world” with a “dizzying alphabet soup of groups, organizations, alliances, coalitions that spring
up every few months or so, or when a public interest issue hits public consciousness” (Jimenez-
David 2011).
A more recent and less conceptual mapping survey than the one undertaken by Constantino-
David was done by the Local Government Academy (LGA) under the Department of Interior
and Local Government (DILG), in partnership with the Philippine Partnership for the Develop-
ment of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA), a rural development network, in
2011 (LGA 2011). Nearly 3,500 organizations were surveyed and profiled, operating in sixty-
nine provinces throughout the country and covering six types of CSOs: NGOs, POs, coopera-
tives, social movements, civic organizations, and professional/industry associations. Nearly half
of the CSOs profiled are cooperatives. Almost one-fourth are POs. Interestingly, the study dis-
tinguishes between POs and cooperatives that are also mass-membership-based organizations.
Most of the organizations surveyed were rural- and community-based, which can be attributed
perhaps to the fact that the partner NGO is heavily involved in rural development undertakings.
Almost half are small-scale operations with an annual budget of less than PhP150,000 (roughly
equivalent to US$3,000 at current rates), although other organizations have considerably higher
financial resources.
Philippine NGOs have recently landed in the headlines for quite different reasons, giving
them a bad reputation. In 2013, investigators from the Commission on Audit (COA) uncovered
efforts to defraud the government on the part of certain NGOs in collusion with corrupt politi-
cians. Using their so-called Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF, which is a euphe-
mism for pork barrel funds), some politicians were able to channel government funds into ghost
projects supposedly undertaken by NGOs in the countryside. Dozens of NGOs were able to
defraud the government of around PhP10 billion (around US$200 million at current rates) by
way of bogus public works, agricultural assistance, and other social development projects,
including scholarships to fictitious students. These NGOs “broke all rules” concerning the
allocation and disbursement of public funds (Bernal 2014), leading to popular resentment and
suspicion toward these kinds of organizations. The accused “mastermind” of this scheme, Janet
Lim-Napoles, a businesswoman prominent in social circles in the country, and two senators,
have been arrested and are still in prison.

123
 J. V. Tigno

Conclusions: the political importance of CSOs in the Philippines

Forming CSOs helps to challenge social apathy, to bolster group confidence, and to generate
community resolve. Civil society groups help “people make claims on government and to
secure their entitlements or rights” as well as “to ward off predatory elites such as loan sharks,
property developers, or rack landlords” (Clarke 2013: 2).
The formation and development of Philippine civil society can be seen as an ongoing process,
with significant consequences for and in the larger processes of democratization and democratic
consolidation (Clarke 2013; Coronel Ferrer 1997; Domingo 2013). One cannot underestimate
the important role played by CSOs in bringing about the transition out of authoritarianism
toward more popular forms of governance. Indeed, Philippine civil society groups have widened
the avenue for democratic (i.e., popular) participation in governance in the country. However,
it can also be argued that “there is no necessary connection between civil society and democratic
change” and that CSOs “have both expanded and contracted democratic space” (Alagappa
2004: 10). Although they have made significant strides in taking part in efforts to promote trans-
parent and accountable government, the capacity of civil society groups to participate in official
governance remains constrained (Eaton 2003). The absence of democratic consolidation is
caused by the competing logics of restoring the old-style democratic regime and the heightened
importance attached to civil society.

[T]he transition to democracy in 1986 represented both the restoration of traditional

political society and the transformation of civil society into a vibrant actor in the Phil-
ippines. The simultaneous processes of restoration and transformation set the stage for
deep conflicts between actors in political society and civil society, and this conflict has
had enormous consequences for the pace and extent of democratization.
(Eaton 2003: 470)

It can be stated as well that the democratic role of Philippine civil society has been largely stifled
or stymied and even co-opted by the restored (and now entrenched) traditional political system
(Eaton 2003). The kind of informal (i.e., voluntary) politics that CSOs are known for either has
not taken sustainable roots in the Philippines or has been institutionally hijacked by patronage
politics.
Civil society in the Philippines has been described as “robust and vibrant” (Arugay 2005: 80).
A civil society index developed by CIVICUS and applied to the Philippines gives the country
a “respectable” rating (CODE-NGO and CIVICUS 2011). The enthusiasm and energy of the
people that organize and maintain these organizations, especially in terms of how they attempt
to engage, critique, and collaborate with government, seems to know no boundaries.
The groups and initiatives that thrive in Philippine civil society have been said to differ in
many ways—the nature of their operations (e.g., service-oriented or motivated by policy advo-
cacy); their level and character of organization (e.g., mass-membership-based or professional
staff-based; Church-initiated/-based or based in academe or business); and their ideological
perspectives (Coronel Ferrer 1997: 2). The extent of underdevelopment and mismanagement in
government has certainly not discouraged many civil society groups from coming out and thriv-
ing in the last three to four decades.
Philippine CSOs are often perceived as a relatively homogenous set. This perception is aided
by two characteristics. They are composed largely of NGOs that are run by partly voluntary but
mainly paid staff, and nearly all of them can be found in urban areas like Metro Manila. It is
understandable that these staff-based CSOs are concentrated in urban centers like Metro Manila,

124
 The Philippines

since many of them are primarily engaged in policy advocacy on a wide array of issues, ranging
from human rights to environmental protection.
However, not all Philippine NGOs and POs are created equal. Some label themselves as
more progressive than others. As a result, conflicts, rivalries, and competition can persist between
them as well as with government. Yet NGOs and POs can be enablers of both the people and
the state. They can operate and do things in areas where states and markets cannot and are
unable. They can foster volunteerism, combat apathy, and strengthen citizenship confidence.
These NGOs and POs thrive in an environment that is open and inclusive.
Philippine civil society has also been described as “fractious,” characterized by “intra-civil
society political conflict and fragmentation,” porous to an “elite-dominated political society”
and “competing visions of democracy” (Franco 2004: 97; see Coronel Ferrer 1997). There is
still some uncertainty in the ways that Philippine civil society can potentially be a motive force
for transforming the country’s socio-political landscape, especially vis-à-vis the inability of the
state to impose its will upon the larger society. It still remains to be seen whether civil society in
the Philippines can actually be a force for democratic consolidation in the country (Thapa
2012). Indeed, as pointed out by Muthiah Alagappa—“civil society is a necessary but not suf-
ficient condition for democratic development” (Alagappa 2004: 11).
Civil society in the Philippines has had a rather checkered political accomplishment in histor-
ical terms. The organized elements of civil society were clearly instrumental in the overthrow
of the Marcos dictatorship and in bolstering support for Corazon Aquino throughout several
coup attempts, as well as in the removal of Estrada in the midst of corruption allegations.
However, they were not as successful in bringing an end to the Arroyo administration, despite
the clamor for its end amid widespread allegations of electoral impropriety.
As they become more and more prominent in the social and political landscape of the
country, NGOs and POs would need to slowly abandon their self-ascribed authority and allow
themselves to be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as those officials in government, if
they are to be considered true partners in development. Gerard Clarke (1998) points out that if
they intend to take part in the already open political sphere and demand accountability of gov-
ernment, they should also be able to subject themselves to the same degree of scrutiny to
remove any doubts that still linger, particularly in the wake of the Lim-Napoles scandal.
Civil society groups have been largely associated with serious efforts to counter the tradi-
tional politics of patronage. Indeed, their appearance in the Philippine landscape may have sig-
naled the beginning of the end of “trapo” politics. The term “trapo” is an abbreviated fusion of
traditional politician but also refers to a dish rag or floor rag in Filipino. However, observers
were also quick to point out that the political system that emerged post-EDSA 1986 was no
different from the old-style democratic system led by an oligarchic political class (Anderson
1988; Coronel et al. 2004; McCoy 2009; Wurfel 1988). Since 1986, a number of NGO leaders
and activists have sought and/or accepted positions in government. Many have been disillu-
sioned, while others thrive. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether new actors from within
the NGO community can effectively challenge traditional politicians in ways that can bring
about the institutionalization of more democratic, effective, and accountable governance norms,
mechanisms, and practices (Eaton 2003). In effect, NGOs may have inadvertently served to
restore (or even further entrench and legitimize) the pre-Martial Law political system, even as
many of its well-intentioned leaders attempted to distinguish themselves from the old-style
political elites.

125
 J. V. Tigno

Suggested readings
Cariño, Ledivinia, ed. 2002. Between the State and the Market: The Nonprofit Sector and Civil Society in the
Philippines. Manila: NJP Printmakers.
Clarke, Gerard. 2013. Civil Society in the Philippines; Theoretical, Methodological, and Policy Debates. Abingdon
and New York: Routledge.
Coronel Ferrer, Miriam, ed. 1997. Philippine Democracy Agenda: Civil Society Making Civil Society. Quezon
City: Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines.
Hedman, Eva-Lotta. 2006. In the Name of Civil Society; From Free Election Movements to People Power in the
Philippines. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Local Government Academy (LGA). 2011. Diversity and Discovery: Mapping Civil Society Organizations in the
Philippines. Pasig City: Department of Interior and Local Government.
Miranda, Felipe, ed. 1997. Democratization: Philippine Perspectives. Quezon City: University of the Philip-
pines Press.
Miranda, Felipe, and Temario Rivera, eds. 2016. Chasing the Wind; Assessing Philippine Democracy. Quezon
City: Commission on Human Rights and UNDP.
Silliman, Sidney G., and Lela Noble, eds. 1998. Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Society and the Phil-
ippine State. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

References
Alagappa, Muthiah, ed. 2004. Civil Society and Political Change in Asia; Expanding and Contracting Democratic
Space. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Aldaba, Fernando.1993. The Role of NGOs in Social Transformation. Philippine Politics and Society
1(2): 2–54.
Anderson, Benedict. 1988. Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams. New Left Review
169(1): 3–33.
Arugay, Aries. 2005. The Accountability Deficit in the Philippines: Implications and Prospects for Demo-
cratic Consolidation. Philippine Political Science Journal 26(49): 63–88.
Bankoff, Greg. 2007. Dangers to Going it Alone: Social Capital and the Origins of Community Resilience
in the Philippines. Continuity and Change 22(2): 327–355.
Barrion, Caridad. 1961. Religious Life of the Laity in Eighteenth-Century Philippines: As Reflected in the Decrees
of the Council of Manila of 1771 and the Synod of Calasiao of 1773. Manila: University of Santo Tomas
Press.
Bernal, Buena. 2014. COA Witness: Napoles Broke All Rules. Rappler News. Electronic document,
www.rappler.com/nation/65642-coa-witness-napoles-ngos, accessed August 10, 2016.
Bratton, Michael. 1989. The Politics of Government-NGO Relations in Africa. World Development 17(4):
569–587.
Brillantes, Alex Jr. 1995. NGOs as Alternative Delivery Systems: The Philippine Experience. In Alternative
Delivery Systems for Public Services: Health Care, NGOs, Credit, Cooperatives. Romeo Ocampo and Oscar
Alfonso, eds. Pp. 114–127. Quezon City: Association of Development Research and Training Insti-
tutes of Asia and the Pacific (ADIPA).
Cariño, Ledivina, ed. 2002. Between the State and the Market: The Nonprofit Sector and Civil Society in the
Philippines. Manila: NJP Printmakers.
Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE-NGO) and CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
(CIVICUS). 2011. Civil Society Index: Philippines; An Assessment of Philippine Civil Society. Quezon City:
CODE-NGO. Electronic document,www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2013/
03/CSI-Report_Bookv.pdf, accessed August 8, 2016.
Clarke, Gerard. 1998. The Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia; Participation and Protest in the Philippines.
London and New York: Routledge.
Clarke, Gerard. 2013. Civil Society in the Philippines; Theoretical, Methodological, and Policy Debates. Abingdon
and New York: Routledge.
Constantino-David, Karina. 1997. Intra-Civil Society Relations. In Philippine Democracy Agenda: Civil
Society Making Civil Society. Miriam Coronel Ferrer, ed. Pp. 21–50. Quezon City: Third World Studies
Center.
Coronel, Sheila, Yvonne Chua, Boomba Cruz, and Luz Rimban. 2004. The Rulemakers: How the Wealthy
and Well-Born Dominate Congress. Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ).

126
 The Philippines

Coronel Ferrer, Miriam, ed. 1997. Philippine Democracy Agenda: Civil Society Making Civil Society. Quezon
City: Third World Studies Center.
Diamond, Larry. 1994. Rethinking Civil Society: Toward Democratic Consolidation. Journal of Democracy
5(3): 4–17.
Domingo, Ma. Oliva. 2013. The Legal Framework for the Philippine Third Sector: Progressive or
Regressive? Paper presented at the 8th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of the International
Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR), October 24–26, 2013, Seoul. Electronic document, http://
ncpag.upd.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ISTR-2013-PAPER-FINAL.pdf, accessed November
10, 2016.
Eaton, Kent. 2003. Restoration or Transformation? “Trapos” Versus NGOs in the Democratization of the
Philippines. The Journal of Asian Studies 62(2): 469–496.
Flores, Helen. 2007. Poll: GMA Most Corrupt RP Leader. The Philippine Star Global. December 12.
Electronic document, www.philstar.com:8080/headlines/32762/poll-gma-most-corrupt-rp-leader,
accessed December 10, 2016.
Franco, Jennifer. 2004. The Philippines; Fractious Civil Society and Competing Visions of Democracy. In
Civil Society and Political Change in Asia; Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space. Muthiah Alagappa,
ed. Pp. 97–137. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Geronimo, Jee. 2016. Martial Law Speak: Words that Defined the Anti-Marcos Movement. Rappler Philip-
pines. Electronic document, www.rappler.com/nation/123550-martial-law-activists-lingo-edsa,
accessed December 10, 2016.
Hedman, Eva-Lotta. 2006. In the Name of Civil Society: From Free Election Movements to People Power in the
Philippines. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Hutchcroft, Paul. 1991. Review: Oligarchs and Cronies in the Philippine State: The Politics of Patrimonial
Plunder. World Politics 43(3): 414–450.
Hutchcroft, Paul. 1998. Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Ileto, Reynaldo. 1979. Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines 1840–1910. Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Ikehata, Setsuko. 1990. Popular Catholicism in the Nineteenth-Century Philippines: The Case of the
Cofradia de San Jose. In Reading Southeast Asia: Translation of Contemporary Japanese Scholarship on South-
east Asia, Vol. 1. Takashi Shiraishi, ed. Pp. 109–188. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Southeast Asia
Program.
Jimenez-David, Rina. 2011. The NGO Capital of the World.Inquirer.net. June 11. Electronic document,
http://opinion.inquirer.net/6139/the-ngo-capital-of-the-world, accessed August 10, 2016.
Keane, John. 1998. Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lee, David. 1971. Some Reflections about the Cofradia de San Juan Jose as a Philippine Religious Upris-
ing. Asian Studies Journal of Critical Perspectives on Asia 9(2): 126–143.
Local Government Academy (LGA). 2011. Diversity and Discovery: Mapping Civil Society Organizations in the
Philippines. Pasig City: Department of Interior and Local Government.
McCoy, Alfred, ed. 2009. An Anarchy of Families; State and Family in the Philippines. Madison, WI and
Quezon City: University of Wisconsin Press and Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Mercer, Claire. 2002. NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization: A Critical Review of the Literature.
Progress in Development Studies 2(1): 5–22.
Nelson, Anne. 1988. In the Grotto of the Pink Sisters. Mother Jones Magazine 13(1): 18–24.
Poole, Peter. 2009. Politics and Society in Southeast Asia. Jefferson, NC and London: McFarland and
Company, Inc. Publishers.
Putzel, James. 1999. Survival of an Imperfect Democracy in the Philippines. Democratization 6(1):
198–223.
Republic of the Philippines. 1980. The Corporation Code of the Philippines, Batas Pambansa 68. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1986a. Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission Volume 1. Pre-
pared by the Editorial/Publication Unit under the supervision of Hon. Flerida Ruth Romero, Secretary-
General. Quezon City: The Constitutional Commission of 1986. Electronic document, https://archive.
org/details/record-of-constitutional-commission-volume-1, accessed November 11, 2016.
Republic of the Philippines. 1986b. Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission Volume 2. Pre-
pared by the Editorial/Publication Unit under the supervision of Hon. Flerida Ruth Romero, Secretary-
General. Quezon City: The Constitutional Commission of 1986. Electronic document, https://archive.
org/details/record-of-the-constitutional-commission-volume-2, accessed November 11, 2016.

127
 J. V. Tigno

Republic of the Philippines. 1986c. Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission Volume 4. Pre-
pared by the Editorial/Publication Unit under the supervision of Hon. Flerida Ruth Romero, Secretary-
General. Quezon City: The Constitutional Commission of 1986. Electronic document, https://archive.
org/details/record-of-the-constitutional-commission-volume-4, accessed November 12, 2016.
Republic of the Philippines. 1987. The Philippine Constitution. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1991. Republic Act 7160—An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991.
Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1995. Republic Act 7941—An Act Providing for the election of Party-List Repre-
sentatives Through the Party-List System, and Appropriating Funds Therefor. Manila.
Schmitter, Philippe. 1992. The Consolidation of Democracy and Representation of Social Groups. Amer-
ican Behavioral Scientist 35(4–5): 422–449.
Shoesmith, Dennis. 1979. Church and Martial Law in the Philippines: The Continuing Debate. Southeast
Asian Affairs, 246–257.
Sibal, Jorge. 1996. A Century of the Philippine Cooperative Movement. University of Wisconsin Center
for Cooperatives. Electronic document, www.uwcc.wisc.edu/info/abroad/sibal.html, accessed
December 10, 2016.
Sidel, John. 1999. Capital, Coercion, and Crime: Bossism in the Philippines. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity.
Silliman, Sidney G., and Lela Noble, eds. 1998. Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Society and the Phil-
ippine State. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Stepan, Alfred, and Juan J. Linz. 1996. Toward Consolidated Democracies. Journal of Democracy 7(2):
14–33.
Thapa, Basan. 2012. Ambivalent Civil Society in Democratic Consolidation—The Case of Local
Chambers of Commerce and Industry in the Visayas and Northern Mindanao. MA thesis, Potsdam
University. Electronic document, http://basantathapa.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/THAPA-
MA-Ambivalent-civil-society-in-democratic-consolidation.pdf, accessed August 8, 2016.
Tigno, Jorge V. 1997. People Empowerment: Looking into NGOs, POs and Selected Organizations. In
Democratization: Philippine Perspectives. Felipe B. Miranda, ed. Pp. 83–113. Quezon City: University of
the Philippines Press.
Tuaño, Phillip. 2011. Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities,
Challenges. In Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment. Lydia Yu
Jose, ed. Pp. 9–46. Quezon City: Civil Society Resource Institute.
Wurfel, David. 1988. Filipino Politics: Development and Decay. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wurfel, David. 2004. Civil Society and Democratization in the Philippine. In Growth and Governance in
Asia. Yoichiro Sato, ed. Honolulu: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. Electronic document,
www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/GrowthGovernance_files/GrowthGovernance.
htm, accessed October 10, 2016.
Youngblood, Robert. 1978. Church Opposition to Martial Law in the Philippines. Asian Survey 18(5):
505–520.

128