NGOs and POs Participation in Local Governance

PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE: THE PARTICIPATION OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
____________________
A Research Paper Submitted to Mrs. Reynilda Palma-Cosare, MPA Graduate School Surigao del Sur State University Tandag, Surigao del Sur
____________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in Public Administrative System (PA 203)
By
ERNIE Y. GULTIANO October 7, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Objectives Significance
Page 3 3 4 4
II
METHODOLOGY
III
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION The Emergence and Role of NGOs and POs in the Philippines The Impact and Contributions of NGOs and POs in Local Governance The Problems and Issues
6 6
10
14
IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Summary Conclusion
17 17 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
21
CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION Afternoon of July 26, 2010, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III (P-Noy as he is popularly known) delivered his first State of the Nation Address (SONA) that shocked the entire country and drew various reactions from both his supporters and critics. It is worth to note, however, that other than the awful and astonishing information that the President disclosed as regards the erstwhile administration, one of the remarkable points that he accentuated was the call for partnerships with the private sector to pursue governments development efforts. Such bold pronouncement then inspired and crystallized the theme of this paper. Participatory governance, which in recent years has been increasingly associated with decentralization, has now become not only a trend but an imperative for local governments to pursue development. (www.urbangov.wordpress.com, July 2010) In the Philippines, particularly, three provisions (Article II, Section 23; Article XIII, Section 15; and Article XIII, Section 16) of the 1987 Constitution institutionalize the role of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and Peoples Organizations (POs) in the development of the country. Moreover, Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, furthers the Constitutions aims by establishing a role for people power at the local level. Sections 34 and 35 of such Code specifically mandate the participation of NGOs and POs in the decision-making processes, delivery of certain basic services, capability-building and livelihood projects, and the like in the provincial, city, municipal, and barangay levels. This practically allows the stakeholders, particularly the marginalized sectors, to play vital roles in processes that may include local development planning and implementation, setting up conflict resolution strategies, and resource management.
OBJECTIVES Nonetheless, in more than a decade since this participatory governance was implemented through the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991, had there been significant contributions made by NGOs and POs in governance? This paper therefore aims to explore the extent of NGOs and POs participation in governance, particularly in local government units. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions: (1) what brought about the emergence and the role of NGOs and POs in Philippine history; (2) what particular impact and contributions did NGOs and POs make in local governance; (3) what problems came into view insofar as the participation of NGOs and POs in local governance is concerned?
SIGNIFICANCE It is within this context that the researcher embarks resolutely on this research enterprise with the utmost optimism that this study can add to the depository of materials and information relevant and useful in the study of Philippine Administrative System. The findings of this study may hopefully precipitate other students and enthusiasts in the field of research to dig into some similar potential areas that would not only boost intellectual vitality, but also become meaningful and beneficial to the lives of the people in this present day circumstance.
CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this study consists of plain documentary analysis. The researcher searched for articles, commentaries, books, and other resources from the Local Governance Resource Center (LGRC), the Graduate School Library of Surigao del Sur State University, and the rich reliable sites of the World Wide Web. After reading, analyzing and interpreting critically the resources, he then synthesized all the data and information of what now comprise the findings and conclusions of this study.
CHAPTER III PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The participation of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and Peoples Organizations (POs) in local governance includes an array of multi-faceted experiences in the extensive and superabundant strata of history and of public administration. The following subtopics are central and indispensable in this attempt to unearth the participation of such organizations in local governance. They provide well-founded facts and information from dependable personalities and institutions that would hopefully shed light on the aforementioned questions vis--vis the theme of this paper.
THE EMERGENCE AND ROLE OF NGOs AND POs IN THE PHILIPPINES The origin of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and Peoples
Organizations (POs) in the Philippines can be traced back to the era of Spanish Rule in the country. The Roman Catholic Church and other religious orders established the first welfare organizations in the Philippines. They established parochial schools, orphanages, asylums, and hospitals. However, these schools and hospitals were reserved for the local elite. The church also established Cofradas (brotherhoods), which encouraged neighborly behavior, such as visiting the sick and helping with town fiesta preparations, and foundations. In 1781, Jose de Basco y Vargas established the Economic Society of Friends, one of the few secular welfare organizations then. During the late 19th century, several cofradas were established to resist Spanish rule. Some organizations, such as the Cofradia de San Jose, were peasant groups established to fight for Filipino independence. The Propaganda Movement, led by the native intelligentsia, sought reforms and equal rights for Filipinos. The movement used Masonic lodges to spread propaganda ideals and education in collective action. By contrast, Katipunan was a secular, anti-religious group that advocated independence through popular revolution. Katipunan later inspired student activist groups during the 1960s and 1970s. All of these were termed asociaciones ilicitas (illegal
associations) by the colonial government. (Asian Development Banks NGO and Civil Society Center, December 2007) Several months later, after Spain ceded the Philippines to the Americans in the Treaty of Paris, the American colonial government took over. Such government was generally supportive of civil society. The Philippine corporation law of 1906 explicitly recognized NGOs, and the government subsidized their operation. American NGOs, such as the American Red Cross and the Anti-Tuberculosis Society set up branches in the new colony. The American Methodist and Protestant churches and the Church of England established schools and hospitals. Domestic organizations, such as Asociacion de Damas Filipinas (Organization of Filipino Women) and the Catholic Womens Federation also provided welfare services. In 1917, the Associated Charities of Manila was established to channel public fund-raising to charitable institutions and hospitals in the city. With the support of the government, hundreds of farmer credit cooperatives were born in the 1920s and 1930s, soon claiming more than 100,000 farmers as members. At the same time, dissatisfaction among peasants about rural life fueled growth in membership of the communist movements labor federation, the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO). (ibid.) After the World War II, the emergence of welfare and civic organizations were geared towards post-war relief and rehabilitation work. They were set up to provide packages of health, education, and socio-economic services. Several private organizations entered the scene to promote the community development approach. A vital element involved was harnessing the labor capacity of the masses to support government objectives. The government used this strategy as a comprehensive counter-insurgency measure and private organization projects became complementary efforts in the government's counter-insurgency campaign during this time. (www.um.dk, July 2010) Ferdinand Marcos, who became President in 1965, envisioned a new society in which there was little space for civil society and no tolerance for advocacy NGOs. His administration became increasingly associated with the suppression of civil, human, and political rights. As a result, such organizations either fled underground by joining the armed struggle of the National Democratic Front or sought shelter from Marcos security forces by affiliating with a
university or religious institution such as the Catholic Churchs National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA), the Share and Care Apostolate for Poor Settlers, the Association of Major Religious Superior of the Philippines, etc. Other anti-Marcos organizations operated under innocuous names, such as the Agency for Community Education Services and the Organization for Training. The activism of these and other Civil Society Organizations eventually contributed to the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the people power revolution of 1986, which marked the beginning of resurgence in civil society. (Asian Development Banks NGO and Civil Society Center, December 2007) Furthermore, the period starting from mid 1960s to 1972 marked the intensification of socio-economic and political crisis that spurred the surge of revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements. Church-based organizing gained prominence during this period and church initiated cooperatives flourished. In the latter half of the sixties, church social involvement leaned decisively more and more towards addressing "structural roots of problems". Social transformation became the agenda and in this context, rural organizing spread nationwide as it became apparent that the country was in a state of emergency. (www.um.dk, July 2010) The imposition of Martial Law in 1972 banned all forms of progressive social organizations, but NGO initiatives sharpened all the more. From 1973, there was a resurgence of popular organizing despite repression, building up to open mass actions in mid-1970s. Development workers of NGOs came from the ranks of students, service professionals, intellectuals and religious volunteers - deriving their inspiration from the Catholic Church teachings (Vatican II) and from experience of street militancy. Propelled by the intensity of events during Martial Law, NGOs and POs actively engaged in "conscientization" and community organizing activities. The development work of NGOs to build socio-economic infrastructure (e.g. cooperatives, communal farms, etc.) to ensure sustained development efforts were constantly obstructed nevertheless by government counter-development actions as many development workers were killed and PO structures destroyed due to military operations.(ibid.) Following the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986, the Aquino administration adopted the Policy Agenda for People-Powered Development, which included
decentralization of government structures, minimum government intervention and greater involvement of people in the decision-making, planning and implementation of programs through NGOs and POs. (www.fao.org, July 2010) Hence, the number of NGOs mushroomed during the administration of President Corazon Aquino. In addition to those with noble pursuits and good intentions were NGOs of dubious integrity and engaging in questionable practices. Some of these were established by politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats to advance personal, rather than public welfare. In response, ten of the largest NGO networks formed the Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) in 1991 to promote professionalism, expand reach, and increase the effectiveness of NGOs. (Asian Development Banks NGO and Civil Society Center, December 2007) President Fidel Ramos, who served from 1992 to 1998, sought the cooperation of civil society by promoting their involvement in multi-stakeholder mechanisms to promote peace in Mindanao. He also advanced the Social Reform Agenda to engage organized poor groups into national policy development. During the Ramos administration, NGOs stimulated vibrant public discourse and helped to redefine the content of politics. Topics that once would have been deemed inappropriate for legislation such as violence against women and the rights of indigenous people became common subjects of debate and successful parliamentary legislation. Civil society also became progressively institutionalized and professional. College graduates began to see a career in the nonprofit sector as a viable option. (ibid.) Eventually, many NGO leaders campaigned for Joseph Estrada, Ramos successor, and some were repaid with cabinet appointments. However, civil society quickly became disenchanted with Estrada over myriad issues foreign investment regulations, charter change, cronyism, inept governance, poor economic performance, corruption, and limitations on press freedom. More generally, NGOs claimed the Estrada administration did not fulfill its stated agenda to help those in poverty. They were unsatisfied with the National Anti-Poverty Commissions report on the 100 poorest families in every province and city, and annoyed by Estradas limited attention to NGOPOGovernment partnerships. (ibid.)
Then, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power in 2001 with strong support from civil society. Although NGOGovernment relations soured somewhat after she was accused of fraud in her victory of the Presidential Election held in May 2004, her administration has generally continued to support the freedom of NGOs. The countrys Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan, 20042010, includes NGO participation as one strategy for implementing government programs. However, the Presidents declaration of state of emergency in February 2006 raised concerns of a threat to civil liberties. These concerns have been reinforced by hundreds of extrajudicial killings of militant activists, community workers, and persons associated with leftleaning organizations and party-list groups over the last six years. President Arroyo has condemned the killings and has called for legislation to address them. (ibid.) Finally, notwithstanding all the derisory setbacks and the diverse experiences of NGOs and POs in the various circumstances brought about by different events in the course of history and public administration, reforms at the NGO-PO level, with a broader understanding and a deeper sense of citizenship, became more evident. This change in mindset saw NGO-PO changing their mode of engagement with government, from confrontational to collaborative, from the streets to the boardrooms. This period was characterized by a heightened participation in local special bodies and active involvement in local planning and budgeting processes. (www.home.earthlink.net, July 2010)
THE IMPACT AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF NGOs AND POs IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE The presence of NGOs and POs in the country is relatively as old as the history of Philippine bureaucracy. It is more than a century ago when such organizations played a vital role in the society, no less in governance, albeit they encountered a handful of challenges in various manners and degrees on account of the different political scenarios of the country. It is noteworthy, nonetheless, that after the fall of Marcos administration and with the implementation of the decentralization law in 1991, which laid the legislative framework of NGO and PO activities, the participation of such organizations has been conspicuously felt in the mainstream.
10
According to LogoLink research on Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation Southeast Asia Regional Report, the Philippines has the strongest, most dynamic, and most organizationally elaborate civil society in Southeast Asia. It has strong social movements, and NGOs to service social movement needs. NGOs are invariably connected to social movement groups (Peoples Organizations [POs]) such that NGOs are almost always referred to as NGOPO. Elaborate sectoral and issue-based networks are in place. There are strong national advocacy coalitions on constitutional reform, electoral and other political reform, and economic policy issues. At key political junctures, NGOs and social movements have united with business and church groups. There are armed Left parties with underground and aboveground organizations. Some of which are connected to unarmed underground organizations, several 'sectoral' parties, and one open social movement political party. (Rocamora, March 2003) As mentioned, with the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991 which provided legal grounds for NGOs and POs to actively participate in governance, such organizations are represented in Local Special Bodies (LSB), primarily but not limited to the Local Development Council (LDC), the Local School Board (LSB), the Local Health Board (LHB), the Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), and the Local Peace and Order Council (LPOC). Meanwhile, they are represented also in non-mandated but Code-inspired LSBs which include Agrarian Reform Councils, and Fisheries and Aquatic Reform Councils. (Local Government Code of the Philippines, October 1991) Moreover, by virtue of the same Code, NGOs and POs participate in mandatory consultations and public hearings where they help apprise National Government Agencies (NGA) and Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCC) of local sentiments to consider before implementing projects that could significantly affect local host communities. NGOs and POs participate as well in a system of recall where registered voters are against local officials whose performance is unsatisfactory. The same holds true in local initiatives and referenda where registered voters of an LGU may directly propose, enact, repeal or amend ordinances, a process that NGOs and POs can likewise facilitate or participate in. In addition, NGOs and POs are expected to participate in selecting and handling sectoral representatives to local Sanggunians
11
from labor (industrial or agricultural), women, and one representative from either the urban poor, indigenous peoples, or the differently-abled. With all these, NGOs and POs therefore can participate directly in governance through local government units, national policy and planning agencies, government line agencies, and sectoral representation in Congress. Yet beyond the threshold of written provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, NGOs and POs also perform a broad range of functions from local service delivery to program development and management, and even policy formulation according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). They look after actual delivery of services such as providing medical services under the primary health care program (immunization, medical consultations) and "institution-building" services such as serving as conduits for loans under a credit program or organizing agrarian reform beneficiaries for land tenure improvement and for support services. They also undertake actual project management, capacity building such as conducting team-building and skills training for LGUs, and special consultancy engagements such as project evaluations. And lastly, they as well participate in policy work within or outside formally constituted bodies as either policy advocate or as formal policy consultant. (www.fao.org, July 2010) Several case studies, made by the aforesaid organization, attest to the myriad contributions that NGOs and POs have made in local governance. These involve collaborative efforts that are all geared to improve the local communities' stake in their future by making them players in political processes. Such activities range from economic improvement to policy review and planning down to project implementation, where the community members are empowered with their proactive involvement. First is the enterprise development in Makilala, North Cotabato. An advisory body called the People's Agricultural and Enterprise Development Advisory Board (PAEDAB) was formed, composed of NGOs and POs. Consequently, a comprehensive development plan promoting agricultural enterprises was made through initiatives of the Makilala Municipal Government. This model mechanism has not only encouraged people's participation in local governance; it has also de-bureaucratized the LGU by transferring to PAEDAB some LGU
12
functions, particularly the extension of agricultural and enterprise development services to the community. (ibid) Second is the effective management and utilization of Eastern Samar's aquatic resources through the setting up of the multi-sectoral Advisory Committee on Marine Resource Development and Conservation, an advisory body consisting of fisher folk, NGOs and local government officials. Through the involvement of the fisher folk sector, the government was able to conduct an extensive survey of marine resources and protect marine sanctuaries by lobbying and helping prepare fishery ordinances. The fisher folk have stood as witnesses against violators of fishery laws. (ibid) Taking Care of People and the Environment, a capacity development counterinsurgency program in Negros Oriental, is also another example of how development and improving the quality of life of the people and meeting their basic needs becomes the best approach to counter insurgency. This involved the construction of a Community Primary Hospital in the hinterlands of Negros Oriental that provided basic health services to the people coupled with the Community Based Resource Management approach that empowered local fisher folk in the province to take the lead in environmental protection. (ibid) Another finding based on LogoLink research on Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation Southeast Asia Regional Report shows that one concrete contribution of NGOs and POs in local governance is the Official Development Assistance (ODA) that funded local governance projects, most importantly the two successive projects of USAID in the 1990s, which generated many participatory initiatives. Unfortunately, these initiatives have not been sustained. The only network specifically formed for civil society local governance work that sustained was the Barangay-Bayan Consortium, more popularly known as BATMAN. (Rocamora, March 2003) Founded in 1998, BATMAN anchored its work on training elected barangay government officials and bringing them together with POs to prepare barangay development plans. These planning sessions included poverty mapping, analysis of the barangay economy, planning proper, and technical preparation of project proposals. In about a quarter of the 1200 barangays covered, especially where a substantial number of barangays in one municipality had
13
finished development plans, BATMAN assisted in organizing pledging sessions where potential sources of funds the mayor, district congressman, governor, line agency officials, private funding agencies, and in a few cases foreign embassies, participated. (ibid) These collaborative undertakings, among many others which are not mentioned in this study, by LGUs and NGO-POs therefore manifest the dramatic impact and contributions that the latter made in the sphere of local governance and, needless to say, in the lives of the Filipino people.
THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES Notwithstanding the aforementioned contributions of NGOs and POs in the realm of governance in the country, a number of problems and issues came into view in their stride to work hand in hand with the government. One of the problems rests on the institutionalization of the participation of NGOs and POs particularly in the local special bodies. In the case of Local Development Councils, for instance, only few LDCs meet regularly and even fewer reflect the LGU-NGO-PO partnership envisioned by the Code. As a result, for many (if not most) LGUs, the development plans and programs that LDCs were supposed to generate have not gone beyond the documents. (www.fao.org, July 2010) A study conducted by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) in collaboration with the Urban Resources and the Evelio B. Javier Foundation, Inc. (EBJFI) reveals that most members of the local special bodies are political personalities who do not have technical capacity to carry out the responsibilities of the councils. Accordingly, this situation is another major concern that affects the efficiency of NGO-PO-LGU partnership in local governance. (DILG-EBJFI, 2001) Slow accreditation of NGOs and POs, which is a prerequisite for their membership in the special bodies as specified in the Local Government Code, is also noted. Local decision-makers have shown reluctance to open the doors wider for people's participation by preventing the implementation of the provision on sectoral representation. (www.fao.org, July
14
2010) Even worse, the accreditation of NGOs and POs are politically interfered. In 1997, the Rapid Field Appraisal on Decentralization reported the gradual easing of interference by local chief executives in the choice of NGO representatives, implying extensive interference before the report period. (Associates in Rural Development, Inc. /USAID, 1992) Such predicament has been observed that in many LGUs, the mayor explicitly decided what NGOs should be represented and who their representatives should be, including for example, the mayors wife. Moreover, it has also been observed that the accreditation process only permits larger or nationally based NGOs to sit in local special bodies, when in fact representatives of local concerns have the most to contribute. As a result, the issues brought up at the councils are not local issues at all but may relate largely to various national priorities and the sectoral interests of large NGOs. (ibid.) Another issue is the costs of convening NGO networks and ensuring that at least some of the expenses that NGOs incur when they attend conventions may be met. Some LGUs, often with the assistance of the DILG, shoulder a major part of the cost of such events. Most LGUs, however, are not as enthusiastic to part with their budget. (ibid.) Another related concern is the tendency of NGO representatives either to represent themselves as individuals rather than their sectors or their organizations. This particular issue is even aggravated when representatives find rather frustrating the tendency of LGU representatives to disregard concerns of sectors that NGOs believe should be articulated in the planning process. NGOs frustration over lack of transparency on the part of the LGU warrants their heightened absences during conventions, while others consider their attending simply a waste of time. Other reasons for non-participation included lack of commitment to genuine participation by LGUs, lack of funds for traveling and other incidental expenses, and lack of relevance to NGO operations. (ibid.) The classic issue of politics does not cease across the scene. It prevails not only in the government, but also among NGOs and POs. Favoritism and partisanship result in NGOs not talking with each other and not having a common voice. This brings about rivalry and loss of participation which breeds sporadic and intermittent approaches towards development. (ibid.)
15
These problems and issues, among many others, wreck the supposedly collaborative undertakings of NGOs and POs, and of the government. They impede the realization of the countrys development for the past decades a sad reality that may stir dismay or better say challenge to the said major players in participatory governance.
16
CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SUMMARY The presence of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and Peoples Organizations (POs) in the Philippines started during the era of Spanish Rule in the country. Their organizations were founded by the Roman Catholic Church and other religious orders. However, since these organizations were reserved for the local elite, a number of secular welfare organizations were organized to resist Spanish rule and fight for Filipino independence. When Spain ceded the Philippines to the Americans, the American colonial government, which was generally supportive of civil society, recognized the NGOs and POs and subsidized their operations. American NGOs set up branches in the new colony, which provided welfare services and established charitable institutions. After the World War II, welfare and civic organizations looked after post-war relief and rehabilitation work. They provided packages of health, education, and socio-economic services a strategy used by the government as a comprehensive counterinsurgency measure during the time. When Ferdinand Marcos became President, civil, human, and political rights were suppressed. As a result, NGOs and POs either fled underground or sought shelter from Marcos security forces. Activism and insurgency arose which eventually contributed to the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the people power revolution of 1986. Following the fall of Marcos dictatorship, the Aquino administration adopted the decentralization of government structures, minimum government intervention, and greater involvement of people in the decision-making, planning and implementation of programs. Hence, the number of NGOs and POs mushroomed during the Aquino administration, including those with dubious integrity and engaging in questionable practices. In response, the Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) was formed in 1991 to promote professionalism, expand reach, and increase the effectiveness of NGOs. When President Fidel Ramos assumed the presidency from 1992 to 1998, he sought the cooperation of civil society by promoting their involvement in multi-
17
stakeholder mechanisms. NGOs and POs stimulated vibrant public discourse and helped to redefine the content of politics. Eventually, many NGO leaders campaigned for Joseph Estrada, the successor of Ramos. However, civil society quickly became disenchanted with Estrada over myriad issues. NGOs claimed that the Estrada administration did not fulfill its stated agenda to help those in poverty, and were unsatisfied with Estradas limited attention to NGOPO Government partnerships. Then, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power in 2001 with strong support from civil society. Despite soured NGO-Government relationship after the alleged fraud in her victory on the Presidential Election on May 2004, Arroyo administration has generally continued to support the freedom of NGOs. Reforms continued to thrive in the mode of NGO-PO engagement with government from confrontational to collaborative, from the streets to the boardrooms. With the enactment of the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991, NGOs and POs participation in local governance had been conspicuously felt in the mainstream. They were well represented in the local special bodies. They also participated in mandatory consultations and public hearings as well as in a system of recall, local initiatives, and referenda. And expectedly, they were to participate in selecting and handling sectoral representatives to local Sanggunians. Beyond the written provisions of the Code, NGOs and POs also performed a broad range of functions from local service delivery to program development and management, and even policy formulation. They looked after actual delivery of services such as providing medical attention, institution-building, and the like. They also undertook actual project management, capacity building, and special consultancy engagements. Several case studies attested to some among these myriad contributions of NGOs and POs in local governance, (e.g. the enterprise development in Makilala, North Cotabato; the effective management and utilization of Eastern Samar's aquatic resources; and Taking Care of People and the Environment in Negros Oriental). Another concrete contribution of NGOs and POs in local governance was the Official Development Assistance (ODA) that funded local governance projects, most importantly the two successive projects of USAID in the 1990s.
18
Alongside the dramatic impact and contributions of NGOs and POs in local governance were the problems and issues they encountered. One of the problems was on the institutionalization of the participation of NGOs and POs particularly in the local special bodies. Only few LSBs met regularly and even fewer reflected the LGU-NGO-PO partnership envisioned by the Code. Slow accreditation of NGOs and POs, which is a prerequisite for their membership in the special bodies as specified in the Local Government Code, became an issue. It was aggravated by extensive political interference by local chief executives in choosing what NGOs should be represented and who their representatives should be. Another issue concerned the unrepresentative NGOs where only larger or nationally based NGOs were permitted to sit in local special bodies, when in fact representatives of local concerns have the most to contribute. Related to it, there was also the tendency of NGO representatives to represent themselves as individuals rather than their sectors or their organizations. Another problem rested on the NGOs frustration over the lack of transparency on the part of the LGU and the tendency of its representatives to disregard concerns of sectors that NGOs believed should be articulated in the planning process. These problems together with lack of commitment to genuine participation by LGUs, lack of funds for traveling and other incidental expenses, lack of relevance to NGO operations, and lack of unified voice among NGOs and POs hampered the realization of the countrys development.
CONCLUSION P-Noys call for partnerships with the private sector to pursue governments development efforts is no longer a fresh charm in public administration. For centuries, the participation of NGOs and POs in Philippine bureaucracy has already gone a long way. It has left indelible imprints of lights and shadows in the lives of Filipinos across the different chapters of history. NGOs and POs have provided consequential impact and contributions in governance. They have delivered welfare services, infrastructure projects, environmental protection, capacity building, people empowerment, and the like which are essential components of development. And more importantly, they have fastened the gap despite the many setbacks that fed the
19
dichotomy of government and private relationship in development. The problems and issues that have impinged the NGO-Government relationship could either mean disappointment or challenge. Whatever they may be, they need to be treated seriously and be acted upon by both entities if participatory governance must be sustained and true development must be pursued. Else, the courage and wisdom of those who have gone ahead of every Filipino today and tomorrow will be vain.
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books Local Government Code of the Philippines, October 1991.
B. Manuals/Handbooks A Study on Peoples participation in the Local Development Councils, A Project of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) in Collaboration with Uran Resources and the Evelio B. Javier Foundation, Inc. (EBJFI), November 2001. Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation Southeast Asia Regional Report by Joel Rocamora IPD, Legal and Policy Frameworks for 'Participation' in Southeast Asia, LogoLink Research, March 2003. Overview of NGOs and Civil Society Philippines, Asian Development Banks NGO and Civil Society Center, December 2007. Synopsis of Findings of the Rapid Field Appraisal of the Status of Decentralization: The Local Perspective, Local Development Assistance Program, Associates in Rural Development, Inc./USAID, August 1992.
C. Online References www.fao.org. Decentralized Rural Development and the Role of Self Help Organizations. www.home.earthlink.net. Reforms Initiated Towards Sustainable Urbanization www.um.dk. Country Study The Philippines LO/FTF Council, February 2000. www.urbangov.wordpress.com. Bayanihan sa Pamayanan Awards: Search for
Exemplary Practices in Participatory Governance.
21

NGOs and POs Participation in Local Governance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

NGOs and POs Participation in Local Governance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NGOs and POs Participation in Local Governance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE: THE PARTICIPATION OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in Public Administrative System (PA 203)

ERNIE Y. GULTIANO October 7, 2010

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Objectives Significance

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Summary Conclusion

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM

CHAPTER III PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books Local Government Code of the Philippines, October 1991.

Exemplary Practices in Participatory Governance.

You might also like