Legitimacy and voice
Participatory Governance in the Philippines
MANILA, Philippines – For two consecutive years, the country has been internationally
recognized for its efforts to involve citizens in governance.
In 2013, the country’s program on Citizen Participatory Audit – a joint project of the
Commission on Audit (COA) and civil society groups that audits government performance –
bagged an award at the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Summit held in London.
This year, the country won the Gold Open Government Award at the 1st Open Government
Awards of the OGP for its Grassroots Participatory Budgeting program.
Despite the country’s successes in good governance, it still continues to struggle with
corruption.
The problem lies with the country’s weak institutions, said Joy Aceron, project head of G-
Watch, the Ateneo School of Government's social accountability program.
Weak institutions
Speaking at the "Ako, Ikaw, Tayo, ay may Pananagutan" forum held on Monday, September
29, Aceron said: “We have good laws (on) paper. Our procurement law and legal framework
against corruption are considered world-class. However, we have a problem with regard to
the implementation of our laws.” (READ: #BrgyAssembly: When theory does not equal
practice)
These anti-corruption efforts include the barangay assembly that happens twice a year,
the anti-red tape law, and the grassroots participatory budgeting.
The Aquino administration also launched a series of open data initiatives earlier this year in
an attempt to address concerns on public governance and accountability.
However, due to the country’s weak institutions, projects that aim to curb and discourage
corruption are not fully operationalized, Aceron explained.
“While we have participatory projects, these are not maximized in a manner that solves the
everyday struggles of many Filipinos,” Aceron said in Filipino.
https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/70604-gwatch-citizen-participation-philippines
Achieving ‘real change’ thru participatory governance pushed
ERWIN P. NICAVERA
January 31, 2018
TO ENSURE that President Rodrigo Duterte’s promise of “real change” will be largely felt by
all Filipinos, the government working with the people is an imperative.
This was stressed on Tuesday by Undersecretary for Local Government Austere Panadero
during the opening of the two-day Open Government and Participatory Governance
Regional Dialogues Visayas Cluster 1 at SMX Convention Center in Bacolod City.
Panadero, who delivered the message of Participatory Governance Cluster (PGC) co-
chairman Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno, said given the sheer extent of corruption in the
bureaucracy, changing how the government works would not be possible without the
effective mobilization of civil society and sustained demand from the public.
“This dialogue is aimed at empowering citizens to become active in the fight against
corruption," he said, adding that there is a big improvement in the participation of people
since the last couple of months, if using as indicator the reports lodged through the 8888
hotline.
The activity, participated by at least 200 representatives from the government and private
sector in Western and Central Visayas, is the kick-off run of the Open Government and
Participatory Governance Regional Dialogues in the country.
Organized by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG), this is the first of a series of serious conversations
with citizens on key priority programs of the government.
In May 2017, Duterte signed Executive Order (EO) No. 24 that reorganized the Cabinet
Cluster System and created the PGC.
The President also created the Office of Participatory Governance under the Office of the
Cabinet Secretary through EO No. 9.
Assistant Secretary Marlon Broto of the Performance and Project Management Office of the
Office of the Cabinet Secretary, who was also present at the dialogue, said the government
wants to make sure that people are aware of updates in terms of governance in the country.
Broto said the dialogue aims to enable citizens to understand that there is an ongoing
development in so far as what the administration would like the governance to be in the
future.
“We want a whole of the national approach by involving civil society organizations, people’s
organizations, and communities, among others,” he said, adding that “there should be a
clear connection between the government and the people.”
Through participatory governance, responding to what really is needed by the citizens is
assured, Broto added.
Tuesday’s session also included consultation with various stakeholders on the proposed new
initiatives to be included in the PGC Roadmap 2017 to 2022.
“We aim to develop a roadmap that highlights the inclusion and strengthening of the push
for sectoral policies and program goals that will directly impact the lives of the Filipinos at
the grassroots,” Panadero said.
He added: “We hope to get agreements with partners here especially on how to make the
system become more facilitative to the concerns of the people.”
For Wednesday’s session, there will be discussions on national budget for Fiscal Year 2018,
Budget Reform Bill, and tax reform program of government, among others.
Among other organizers include the Caucus of Development NGO Networks, Department of
Finance, and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce.
https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/416640
Political transitions and legitimacy
By: Randy David - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:37 PM January 18, 2014
On a cold day like this in January 2001, exactly 13 years ago, the Philippines found itself in the
throes of another wrenching political transition. The impeachment trial of President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada had been abruptly aborted. The political convulsion that followed thrust Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo to the presidency. Although her succession to the highest office was
repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court, questions about its legitimacy hounded the Arroyo
presidency until its final days, something Cory Aquino, who also became president via people
power 15 years earlier, did not have to deal with.
Legitimacy is the lifeblood of modern political systems. What this means is that any
government—no matter how authoritarian it may be—must eventually justify its rule in terms
the people can accept if it is to continue issuing collectively-binding decisions.
The question is: What is the basis of political legitimacy? We often associate legitimacy with
elections. Indeed, that is the usual form it takes in stable societies. Yet, we all know that
elections can be rigged or manipulated in various ways so as to cast doubt on their reliability as
the mirror of the people’s will. Therefore, winning elections does not always put to rest doubts
about political legitimacy.
Ferdinand Marcos called for a snap election in the fading months of his rule in order to shore
up the legitimacy of his government. The political exercise he instigated, that he officially won,
instead produced the conditions that led to his overthrow through a civilian-military coup—
the event we celebrate as Edsa 1. Joseph Ejercito Estrada was elected to the presidency in
1998 with the biggest margin in the Philippines’ political history. Yet his solid electoral
mandate did not make him immune to the effects of Edsa 2, the civilian-military coup we have
opted to forget. Because of such events, “people power” has come to be viewed as a direct
expression of the sovereign will of the people, a force capable of canceling the mandate given
by elections.
But, the term “people power” is a self-description given by those who initiate it. It may speak
in the name of the people, but that claim is not easily validated. In other words, it has no
analytical value to an external observer who may wish to understand the conditions under
which extra-institutional transitions are legitimized in constitutional democracies.
These are issues that have recently been brought to the fore in neighboring Thailand, a
constitutional democracy under a unifying monarchy. The events in Thailand, whose economy,
interestingly, has remained stable and dynamic despite the ongoing political crisis, make us
wonder, once again, what political legitimacy consists of.
In the last two months, leaders and followers of the opposition Democratic Party have poured
into the streets of Bangkok almost daily calling for the ouster of duly-elected Yingluck
Shinawatra, Thailand’s first woman prime minister. In response to this challenge, Yingluck—
who is widely derided by the opposition as the mere pawn of her brother Thaksin, the exiled
former prime minister—dissolved parliament and called for elections in February, in
accordance with the Thai constitution. This did not appease the opposition, which has refused
to recognize and participate in the February elections.
The demonstrations have escalated in the meantime, encircling government ministries in an
attempt to paralyze operations and force Yingluck to yield power. The demonstrators, mostly
from the Bangkok middle classes, demand the installation of an unelected “people’s council”
that will clean up government, reform the electoral process, and dismantle the political base of
the Shinawatras. Yingluck has denounced these demands as undemocratic and contradictory
to the rule of law. The international media appear to be sympathetic to this view, seeing in the
opposition’s impunity the tacit backing of the military.
The Shinawatras are themselves not without any support in Thailand. Their followers are
among that country’s teeming poor, who have immensely benefited from the populist
programs of Thaksin. They, too, have shown their capability as a political force both in the polls
and in the streets. Known as the “Red Shirts,” they can actively take to the streets again to
defend their leader, and Thailand can be plunged in a civil war. Only the military, with the tacit
approval of the King, can avert Thailand’s irreversible slide to political chaos.
As in 2006, when the military hounded Thaksin out of power with the prodding of the Bangkok
middle class, royalists, and intelligentsia, the awaited transition can usher in a new
government, creating its own justification for the crushing of the old order. But, unless the
Thai people accept this legitimation, whatever its basis may be, the new government cannot
rest easy. For, soon, elections would have to be called again—if only to lend plausibility to the
Thai political system’s projection of itself as a democracy. Ousted, the Shinawatras can be back
again.
For that is the nature of legitimacy: It has little to do with obtaining electoral mandates, or
conformity with law, or being able to deliver on promises. It is simply the political system’s
formula for explaining itself at any given time, in such a way as to render its communications
consistent and its claims plausible. As Niklas Luhmann succinctly put it, “Legitimation is the
form in which the political system accepts its own contingency.”
https://opinion.inquirer.net/69879/political-transitions-and-legitimacy#ixzz63CKnnikA
Good governance
By: Fernando Fajardo - @inquirerdotnet
Cebu Daily News / 07:39 AM May 09, 2012
In our government or private institutions, “governance” is now used increasingly. We all want
good governance not only in government but also in business because what they do also
affects the public at large. When a locality is governed well, we can expect that locality to grow
fast economically in a manner that is sustainable and equitable. Not a few of us also regard
bad governance as one of the reasons for our widespread poverty.
So what is governance and what is good governance?
The concept of “governance” is not new, according to a UNESCAP paper that I read. “It is as old
as human civilization.” It is defined as “the process of decision-making and the process by
which decisions are implemented or not implemented.”
Accordingly, since governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which
decisions are implemented, the key to the kind of governance that we get also depends on the
kind of people that make the decisions and implement them, hence the importance of electing
the right people to lead us in government. But make no mistake about this: the kind of people
that we are also determines the kind of leaders that we elect. If our leaders are bad, we have
only ourselves to fault
The paper says that for governance to be good it must have at least eight major characteristics.
It must be participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective
and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. Good governance assures
that corruption is minimized and the views of minorities and weak are taken into account.
Most of all, it is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.
The cornerstone of good governance is the participation by both men and women, which
could be exercised directly or indirectly through legitimate intermediate institutions or
representatives in an informed and organized process, which also mean freedom of
association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand.
Without fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially, governance will fall. It fails when it
cannot provide full protection of human rights, particularly of minorities and other vulnerable
groups in our society. To enforce laws impartially, we need an independent judiciary, which
unfortunately in the country today is very much tainted with corruption and opportunism and
disregard of public opinion.
Transparency means that decisions are made and enforced following certain rules and
regulations and not simply by the whims and caprices of those in power. It also means full
disclosure of information in understandable forms that are freely available and directly
accessible to everyone interested in the affairs of government and those affected by such
decisions and their enforcement.
Fortunately, in the case of the Department of Interior and Local Government, it has this Full
Disclosure Policy that requires all LGUs to provide and make accessible to the public
information on 12 matters, which includes its Annual Budget, Quarterly Statement of Cash
Flows, Statement of Receipts and Expenditures, Trust fund ((PDAF) Utilization, Quarterly
Report of SEF Utilization and Annual SEF income and Expenditures Estimate and the 20
Percent Component of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) Utilization among others. But this
is not enough; we also need the freedom of information law.
To be responsive, good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all
stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.
Good governance requires reaching a broad consensus in society on what is in the best
interest of all and how this can be achieved, such as with respect to the issue we had with the
construction of flyovers in Cebu. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is
needed for sustainable development and how to achieve. Without a new plan that we so badly
need to guide our development in Cebu, for example, I wonder what our future will be.
A society is good if all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded
from sharing the benefit or opportunities offered by society for them to meet their needs or
realize their potentials, especially the poor.
Good governance means that our leaders meet the need of the people by using in the best
manner possible the resources at their disposal with due consideration of their sustainability
or continued availability of these resources for future use of the generations to come.
Accountability is also key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions
but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public
and to their institutional stakeholders for everything that they do. In general, an organization
or an institution, whether public or private, must be accountable to those who will be affected
by its decisions or actions. Unfortunately, accountability cannot be enforced without
transparency and the rule of law.
The Philippines, including Cebu, is still far from achieving good governance in its entirely but
this also shows not just the failings of our leaders but also our own failure as a people to elect
the right people to lead us.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/190373/good-governance#ixzz63CLZXi00
Hear our voice: Young people in the Philippines want more from their leaders
MARK RAYGAN GARCIA
|MAY 26, 20161
Scroll through social media in the Philippines, and you’ll get the feel of how
young people have transformed digital spaces into a microcosm of what the
Philippines should or should not be. If only their ideas and fervor in cyberspace
could be translated to engaged participation on the ground, the light at the end
of the tunnel would be brighter.
“So what now after the May 2016 elections?”
We asked this question at an event for the Knowledge for Development
Community (KDC) network a few months before the May 9 national and local
elections. The KDC was formed by the World Bank office in Manila in 2002 to
promote knowledge sharing of development issues. It’s a network composed of
19 universities, non-government organizations and think tanks across the
country. We turned to the largest segment in our network – students – and
asked: “What do you want from your next leaders?”
Spearheaded by Silliman University based in the Visayas in Central Philippines,
the KDC organized youth discussions in three cities in each of the major island
groups: Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. St. Paul University Philippines handled the
discussions in Tuguegarao in Luzon, Silliman University for Dumaguete, and the
Western Mindanao State University for Zamboanga based in Mindanao. The
project involved 30 youth representatives in each city: 15 in-school and 15 out-
of-school. Its composition was not just sensitive to, but also affirmed, the equal
value of the out-of-school youth in development processes.
Participants and facilitators during the youth discussion session at Silliman
UniversityWe clustered questions into four major themes: education,
employment, environment, and engagement. They were asked about their
personal views and their hopes for the country; the extent to which government
is a partner and considers them one; why problems that cripple the country
remain pervasive; and how to break barriers that breed cynicism and apathy
among young people.
Their responses ushered in a grounded perspective of their sense of the country’s
development. They revealed issues and concerns that are (alarmingly) nothing
new. They offered practical solutions that are sensitive to regional nuances and
responsive to social narratives that strike a chord with each of us.
On education: They recognize government support but lament poor access to
quality education due to lack of good roads and bridges. They also noted the
continuing threat to peace and security, and teachers struggling with low morale
due to pay issues and outdated and inadequate learning facilities. Those from
remote rural communities would rather stay home, because while the cost of
tuition is waived, they still have to worry about where to get the money for
transportation and food, forcing them to drop out of school. Thus, they propose
for the government to work with schools to create programs where they are able
to earn money and study at the same time.
On employment: Young Filipinos are talented and ingenious yet there’s little
support for them to become entrepreneurs. They recommend increased access
to micro-financing opportunities or credit to enable young people to start their
own businesses and eventually generate jobs. Developing a regional career
guidance mechanism was also brought forward, to promote courses that are
more relevant to the needs of their localities, instead of those that zero in on
high-income jobs in big cities and abroad.
On environment: Common to the participants is the need to promote tree-
planting and coastal clean-up activities, but they bring to light the failure to
monitor progress, sustain and scale up these efforts. It doesn’t help that local
governments have also failed to enforce environmentally sound ordinances in
favor of so-called “economic” interests. So the youth suggests the development
of a public inventory of area-specific environmental problems and efforts made
to tackle these. And to address the “disconnect” down the line, they recommend
institutionalizing environmental education to penetrate households in the village
or barangay level.
On engagement with citizens: There’s distrust in youth-oriented government
agencies. They say that since officials heading these agencies are usually political
appointees or connected with political clans, these are vulnerable to undue
influence, corruption, and abuse. A more objective composition with less
government intervention was sought in achieving better representation in
government offices.
So what do Filipino youth want beyond the May 2016 elections? They want
leaders who can see them for who they are: “We are engaged, optimistic, the
next breed of changemakers – and we want to help.”
The results of the youth consultation in these 3 cities were presented in the
Philippine good governance summit held in the capital, Manila, where some 200
youth leaders also came together to air their priorities and proposed solutions to
the country’s challenges.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/what-the-filipino-youth-want-beyond-the-may-
2016-elections
