57-1-4_Philippines_Scoping_Study.pdf

7/27/2019 57-1-4_Philippines_Scoping_Study.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/57-1-4philippinesscopingstudypdf 1/60

Social Accountability

Practice in the Philippines A Scoping Study

Afliated Network for Social Accountabilityin East Asia and the Pacic

...connecting citizens to improve governance



Social AccountabilityPractice in the Philppines

A Scoping Study



Henedina Razon-Abadwriter

Social Accountability in the Philippines: A Scoping Study is published and owned by ANSA-EAP. This material may be copied and used for research, educational, scholarly or non-profit purposes without ANSA-EAP’s permission. We request that ANSA-EAP be cited asthe source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited tothe photographer or author or ANSA-EAP, as appropriate. If a copyright is indicated on aphoto, graphic, or any other material, permission to copy and use these materials must beobtained from the original source.

Material in this publication is subject to revision. The findings, interpretations, andconclusions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of ANSA-EAP, its donors, and its associated institutions.

The Ateneo School of Government, a unit of the Ateneo de Manila University (Philippines),operationalizes and oversees the development of ANSA-EAP, with support from The WorldBank’s Development Grant Facility. ANSA-EAP is an independent project of the AteneoSchool of Government under the Ateneo de Manila University, which is the executing agencyof the project. As a project of the Ateneo, it falls under the legal governance of the AteneoBoard of Trustees and President.

For more information, please contact:

ANSA-EAP Operations TeamAteneo School of Government, Pacifico Ortiz Hall, Fr. Arrupe Road, Ateneo de ManilaUniversity, Loyola Heights, Quezon City 1108, Republic of the Philippines.Telephones: +6 32 426-6062 and +6 32 426-6002 ext 4627. Fax: +6 32 920-2920.E-mail: [email protected]. Website: www.ansa-eap.net.

© 2010 by the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific(ANSA-EAP). This is a release edition, published January 2010.



1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. METHODOLOGY FOR STOCKTAKING 5

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: ACCOUNTABILITY ANDSOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 6

A. Conceptualizing Accountability: Power RelationshipBetween State and Citizen 6

B. Social Accountability: Claiming People’s Right to Development 9

4. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES 12

A. Accountability Deficit Despite People PowerConstitution and Legislation 12

B. Pervasive Corruption 15 C. Mapping Social Accountability Practice: Main Findings 16 D. Forces Driving Current Social Accountability Practice 16

5. VARIOUS APPROACHES 19

A. Political and Democratic Accountability 19 B. Financial Accountability 21

C. Accountability for Performance 21 D. SAc Practices in the Philippines 22 E. Tools and Approaches 26

6. SIGNIFICANT OUTCOMES 31

A. Critical Factors 31 B. Dilemmas and Challenges 32Annex A. Information on the Different Social AccountabilityPractices in the Philippines 33

Annex B-1. Social Accountability Practices: Political/Democratic Accountability 38

Annex B-2. Social Accountability Practices: Financial Accountability 41

Annex B-3. Social Accountability Practices: PerformancePublic Oversight/Monitoring 47

Table of Contents



ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED

AERANSA-EAP

ATINCACCBCPCCAGGCMFR

CNGG-NegrosCode-NGOCSODepEdFDCG-WatchGPRAInciteGov

IPD

IPERIRA WatchLGUMBCMOANASSA

NGOPAJDGG

PCIJPDAF WatchSAcTANWAND

2 Social Accountability in the Philippines: A Scoping Study

Action for Economic ReformsAffiliated Network for Social Accountability in EastAsia and the PacificAccess to Information NetworkCoalition Against CorruptionCatholic Bishops Conference of the PhilippinesConcerned Citizens of Abra for Good GovernmentCenter for Media Freedom and Responsibility

Citizens Network for Good Governance NegrosCoalition of Development NGOs in the PhilippinesCivil society organizationDepartment of EducationFreedom from Debt CoalitionGovernment WatchGovernment Procurement Review ActInternational Center for Innovation, Transformation,and Excellence in GovernmentInstitute for Popular Democracy

Institute for Political and Electoral ReformInternal Revenue Allotment WatchLocal government unitMakati Business ClubMemorandum of AgreementNational Secretariat for Social Action-Justice andPeaceNon-government organizationProvincial Advocates for Justice Development andGood Government

Philippine Center for Investigative JournalismPriority Development Assistance Fund WatchSocial accountabilityTransparency and Accountability NetworkWomen’s Action Network for Development



3Introduction

INTRODUCTION

ecent years have witnessed a growingapprehension about the quality ofgovernance and accountability of publicofficials for their decisions and actions.Public investments have failed to achievesignificant poverty reduction. Lack oftransparency, absence of rule of lawand corruption continue to beleaguerdeveloping countries, revealing the

inability of existing accountabilitymechanisms to resolve these problems(Paul: 2005). In a survey conductedin 2005 for the World EconomicForum to measure citizen trust ingovernment, respondents identifiedfour deficiencies: responsiveness,accountability, transparency andeffectiveness (Ramkumar and Krafchik2008).

In the Philippines, democracy ishandicapped by the continuingdominance of a political aristocracywhose source of wealth is derived fromtheir control of the state apparatus andan economic oligarchy whose economicbase may be independent of the state

apparatus but whose access to thestate is nonetheless its principal wayof accumulating wealth. The result is asituation that has been caricatured overand over again in political commentariesabout our condition: a small network offamilies and clans monopolize powerand economic wealth, while the greatmass of people live in poverty and

misery.

A very thin layer of middle class in thepyramidal structure exists but mosthave gambled the little possession theyhave and reluctantly left their familiesto seek their fortune as overseasworkers in unfamiliar culturesabroad. Over the years, this conditionhas fostered a culture of politicalpatronage, which breeds and thriveson the insecurity and helplessnessof the poor. The deeper the poverty,the greater the dependency, the moresecure the hold over power. One of thepersistent problems beleaguering thePhilippines is this culture of corruptionand patronage that permeates its

1.

R



4

political and governance institutions. Theresult is a weak state engaged in rentseeking activities that cause corruptionand mismanagement of the Philippinepolitical economy.

Amidst this context, several non-government organizations (NGOs) in thecountry have initiated various actionsto assert their right to participatorygovernance and to make governmentaccount for its policy choices and decisions.Initially, perhaps their interventions have

not been called social accountabilityinterventions until the World Bankdeveloped the label. This is not surprisingsince the Philippines is known to have oneof the most vibrant, dynamic and capablecivil society in the world – providingpolicy inputs, delivering social services,pursuing socioeconomic development andgenerating accountability.As the sector substantially responsible forthe transition from authoritarian rule, civil

society believes that it still need to playa critical role in deepening democracy inthe country amidst persistent problemsof weak political institutions, unabatedcorruption and increasing poverty. Theinvaluable role of civic engagementin development is similarly argued byReuben as he asserts that the “existence

of a healthy and active civil society doesnot preclude the existence of a robuststate, and vice versa” (Reuben: 2003).

This study builds on a number ofscoping studies on social accountabilitymechanisms in the Philippines andin the region that have already beenconducted1. A more in-depth analysiswill be undertaken to define fromactually practice the following: (1) socialaccountability framework that containsa set of principles and indicators of

performance; (2) environmental factorsthat enable civil society to play the roleof informing and engaging citizens inexacting accountability from government;(3) approaches, tools and techniques usedto ensure significant outcomes from SAinterventions; (4) significant outcomesof SAc mechanisms in governance,sustainable development and citizenempowerment; and (5) challenges facingcivil society and strategies to address

these challenges.

1 World Bank Institute, 2007, “Empowering the Margin-alized: Case Studies of Social Accountability Initiativesin Asia”. Arroyo, Dennis and Sirker, Karren, “Stocktak-ing of Social Accountability Initiatives in Asia and thePacific”, World Bank Institute.

Social Accountability in the Philippines: A Scoping Study



5Methodology For Stocktaking

METHODOLOGY FOR

he main elements of the methodologyused in the stocktaking are thefollowing:

Survey of Literature: Review of studieson social accountability to understandthe content and substance of thediscourse as well as the issues beingdeliberated by theorists, practitionersand advocates. The literature reviewed

covered social accountability practicesin the Philippines as well as in otherparts of the world.

Scoping: Inventory of socialaccountability initiatives undertakenby civil society organizations based onreview of literature, extensive Internetsearches and previous scoping studiesundertaken. Social accountability orSAc interventions were selected based

on proposed definition and frameworkof social accountability.

Template: Adaptation of the WorldBank’s template used in initial scopingstudies conducted by Arroyo and Sirker(2004), Sirker and Cosic (2007) and themore recent preliminary scoping by

Songco (2008). Questions to understandhow the space for engagement iscreated are added to the template.Information was initially gatheredthrough the Internet and literaturereviews. Identified civil societyorganizations (CSOs) were requested tocomplete the template.

Deepening and Clarification of Facts:

Face-to-face interviews, email andtelephone contacts were conductedto clarify and amplify the informationgathered through the completedtemplates

Data Analysis: Data gathered from theaccomplished templates were reviewedand analyzed. Patterns and trendswere identified across the different SAcinterventions.

Other SAc interventions that wereimplemented in the past were alsoconsidered. On the whole there were40 social accountability interventionsidentified. Templates for 34 SAcinterventions were completed.

2.

T

STOCKTAKING



6

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

he virtues of social accountabilityhave been extolled in various goodgovernance literature. Most recently,it has been a favorite buzzword. Ifsocial accountability is to be more thana fad, conceptual and analytical clarityis necessary. This section aims tohelp in clarifying the concept and helpin laying down the fundamentals toensure that social accountability addsenduring value to anti-poverty work and

sustainable development outcomes.

A.Conceptualizing Accountability:Power Relationship Between

State and Citizen

Accountability is about how to controlthe exercise of power. How to restrainpower, prevent abuses and keep itin line with established rules – this is

the question that preoccupied politicalthinkers since the time of ancientphilosophers (Newell and Bellour:2002). Today, the notion of accountabilitycontinues to reflect the same concern:how to apply checks, oversight andinstitutional constraints on the exerciseof power.

Accountability implies both anobligation of public officials and a rightof people or citizens. It means “beingheld to account” (compliance) as wellas “giving an account” (transparency)of one’s performance while “takingaccount of” (responsiveness) theneeds and aspirations of constituents.It also implies both answerability andenforceability. The very function ofaccountability is to ensure that those

who wield power on behalf of othersare answerable for their conduct.Officials have the obligation to informcitizens and explain to them what theyare doing (Schroeder 2002). They aremorally and legally bound to accountfor their conduct or adherence torules and the performance of theirresponsibilities and mandates to thecitizens, who, in turn, have the right to

demand accountability from politicaland bureaucratic officials. (Singh 2004)

This obligation of public officials toreport their actions to their citizens canbe traced back to the Roman periodwhere public examination of accountswas done. These were verified through

3.

T

ACCOUNTABILITY ANDSOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY




7Conceptual Framework Accountability and Social Accountability

reference to witnesses and vouchers calledauditus or “hearings” were conducted.The auditus, however, was presentedorally because many of the parties wereilliterate1.

Accountability involves the construction ofa “grammar of conduct and performanceand the standards” used to assessperformance of public sector actors,which then defines expectations and ordersocial relationships (Paul 2005). There aretwo universal expectations. First, they are

expected to obey the law and not abusetheir powers. Second, they should servethe public interest in an efficient, effectiveand fair manner. To enforce this code ofconduct and standards of performance,there must also be the capacity tosanction. Capacity on the part of theaccounting agencies to impose sanctionson power holders who have violated theirpublic duties as well as reward those whohave complied with the code of conduct

and standards of performance. This is toprovide incentives so that public officialsbecome strongly motivated to perform attheir maximum capacity and not to breakthe rules. For example, this may take theform of voting out of office a scoundrelor meting out a penalty or issuing anindictment.

The principle of accountability lies at the

heart of a democratically governed society.How it is articulated and implementeddetermines the manner in which the

1 The root of the meaning of accountability is the Latinverb audire, which means, “to hear” . Sollis, Peter andWinder, Natalia. “Building Local Accountability in Cen-tral America: Lessons Learned and Future Challengesin the Social Sector”. 2002

social contract between state and societyis enforced. In a democracy, the stateperforms many essential functions for thewelfare and development of its citizensand provides essential services many ofwhich are “public goods”. It collects taxesfrom the people to discharge its functionsand is accountable to society for properuse of the resources entrusted to it.

Precisely because citizens have delegatedcertain responsibilities to individuals inpublic office to carry out specific tasks

in their behalf, citizens have the right tohold those in power answerable for theirdecisions and that those in power havethe obligation to listen and respond to theviews of the citizens, and that a system ofsanctions should be in place to enforcethese rights and obligations. It is thisunderstanding of accountability in whichrulers explain and justify actions to theruled, which traditionally distinguished ademocratic society from a tyrannical one

(Sollis and Winder 2002).

Traditional mechanisms to enforceaccountability can be both horizontaland vertical. Horizontal accountability isthe most direct form of accountability.It refers to the formal power of stateinstitutions to monitor one another.Horizontal accountability systemsinclude the following: (1) political

mechanisms (constitutional constraintsto power, separation of powers, legislativeoversight and investigative bodies); (2)fiscal mechanisms (formal systems ofauditing and financial accounting); (3)administrative mechanisms (hierarchicalreporting, norms of public sector probity,public oversight); and (5) legal mechanisms



8

(corruption control agencies, judiciary andombudsman.

The vitality of the horizontal accountabilityhinges on strong and capable institutionsthat are able to check and monitorone another while protecting theirindependence, rising above patronage orpartisanship. The separation of powers,the recognition of fundamental rights andthe system of check and balances areall aimed at curbing the arbitrariness ofpower. (Diamond and Morlino 2005 ) For

mechanisms of legal accountability tofunction effectively, the legal system mustbe capable of enforcing the law and tomake the rulers obey the law. (March andOlsen 1995)

Vertical accountability, on the other hand,is the obligation of electoral politicalleaders to answer for their politicaldecisions demanded by citizens andcivil society groups2. The ballot is the

classic formal mechanism of verticalaccountability that allows citizens tohold the government to account for theirrule. Political competition and informedparticipation are crucial conditions forstrong vertical accountability. For citizensto effectively use the ballot to hold public

2 Vertical accountability is also referred to as politicalaccountability.

officials and political parties accountablethrough elections, they must be engagedand knowledgeable about the issues andperformance of those in power and turnout to vote in large numbers (Diamond andMorlino 2005).

To be effective, good governanceaccountability discourse emphasizesthat horizontal accountability should bereinforced by strong vertical accountability,in which citizens, mass media and civilsociety organizations have the right to

scrutinize public officials and governmentpractice. But it is also important that publicofficials are not simply open to criticismbut must proactively work with societyto improve honesty and performanceof government. They need to engage indialogue, explain and justify their plansof action, behavior and results of theseactions and are consequently sanctioned.Hence, accountability by itself is a process.(Ackerman 2005 ).




9

Box 1: Factors for Strong Accountability Mechanisms

The following factors help in building capable political accountabilitymechanisms:

• Established rights for civil society groups to function competently andindependently, such as freedom of association, right to information and arule of law to protect them from intimidation and retribution;

• Political competition, fair distribution of power and informedparticipation to enable voters to hold their public officials and rulingparties accountable through elections;

• Legal system with the capability to enforce the law and to make therulers obey the law.

B. Social Accountability: ClaimingPeople’s Right to Development

There is widespread perception thattraditional forms of accountability –vertical mechanisms such as electionsand horizontal mechanisms such asinstitutional checks and balances failto ensure an effective watch on the useof public authority (Joshi: 2008). Thisperception is created by evidence ofcorruption and poor-decision-making bypublic authorities in most governments. Inresponse to this “crisis in accountability”

civil society organizations began toengage in different forms of collectiveaction demanding accountability fromgovernment.

Social accountability does not replacetraditional institutions of accountability.Primarily because, SAc includes a broad

range of actions and mechanisms thatrely on civic engagement to hold thestate to account for its decisions, polices,programs and actions (Malena: 2004), itinstead complements and strengthenshorizontal and vertical accountabilitymechanisms.

At the core of social accountability are theprinciples of citizen’s rights, inclusion,empowerment and social justice. Itinvolves informed action based on rigorousanalysis of data where citizens use theirrights responsibly to put an end to abuse

and misuse of public power. Since socialaccountability is anchored on rights, it doesnot merely focus on asserting interests andconcerns of the poor. More importantly,it includes developing people’s abilitiesto influence and negotiate directly withofficial decision-makers (Fischer).

Conceptual Framework Accountability and Social Accountability



10

In their most promising forms, ‘socialaccountability’ innovations offerdisadvantaged people opportunities tooperationalize rights and to shift theterrain of governance from technicalsolutions to social justice issues1. Inother words, accountability systems areexpected to, not just satisfy concerns withprocedural integrity, but also respond tonorms of social justice. In the context ofdevelopment, this means holding stateand non-state actors accountable for theircontribution to poor people’s opportunities

to reach substantive levels of humandevelopment and to realize substantivefreedoms.

Social accountability can be done afterthe fact or ex post accountability wherecitizens mobilize and sanction publicofficials for specific transgressionsthat already occurred. It could also becontinuous accountability, i.e. citizens

1 Former Philippine Senator Jose Diokno’s definition ofsocial justice reflects the connection between governanceand development: “Social justice, for us Filipinos, meansa coherent intelligible system of law, made known to usand enacted by a legitimate government freely chosenby us and enforces fairly and equitably by a courageous,honest, impartial and competent police force, legalprofession and judiciary, that:

(1) Respects our rights and our freedoms both asindividuals and as a people(2) Seeks to repair the injustices that society inflictedon the poor by eliminating poverty as rapidly as ourresources and our ingenuity permit.(3) Develops a self directed and self- sustainingeconomy that distributes its benefits to meet, at first,

the basic material needs of all, then to provide animproving standard of living for all, but particularly forthe lower income groups, with enough time and spaceto allow them to take part in and enjoy our culture(4) Changes our institutions and structures, our waysof doing things and relating to each other, so thatwhatever inequalities remain are not caused by thoseinstitutions or structures, unless inequality is neededtemporarily to favor the least favored and its cost isborne by the more favored; and(5) Adopts means and processes that are capable ofattaining those objectives.

groups participate in institutions designedfor continuous citizen involvement inpolicy formation and implementation tominimize the opportunities for the misuseof public resources.

Accountability has traditionally beenbased upon an assessment of whetherprocedures have been followed diligently,not whether a socially desirable outcomehas been produced. However, Brinkerhoffasserts that social accountability isnot simply concerned with procedures

but rather it is concerned with threegovernance issues. First issue is how toprevent or control the misuse and abuseof public resources and/or authority.The second is ensuring the citizens thatresources are used and authority isexercised according to appropriate andlegal procedures, professional standardsand societal values. The third is improvingservice delivery and management throughfeedback and learning (Brinkerhoff: 2004).

Social accountability practice showthat citizens’ efforts to hold officialsresponsible for their actions have movedbeyond the periodic elections and have alsobegun to engage in a number of activitiesaimed at exacting fiscal, administrativeand political or democratic accountabilityfrom government. These actions areconcerned with making sure that (1)

public resources are used according tothe rules – responsibly and efficiently; (2)government agencies perform accordingto agreed-upon performance standardsand targets (3) government officials (bothelective and appointive) are true to theiroath of office; (4) public institutions aregoverned by the rule of law in carrying




11

Box 2. Definition of Social Accountability

Social accountability is a set of principles with a range of tools and activities –that includes the perspectives of those who are traditionally and structurallydisadvantaged and with rigorous analysis of information and evidence seeksto hold public sector actors responsible for the performance of their functions

(Clark: 2007). SAc initiatives and practices are based on principles of citizen’srights, inclusion, empowerment and social justice.

out their functions. Social accountabilitystrategies simultaneously focus on citizenparticipation, enforcement of the rulesand improving performance. The standard

is no longer mere adherence to procedurebut the achievement of outcomes assessedin terms of improving the lives of the poorand vulnerable groups.

Conceptual Framework Accountability and Social Accountability



12

PHILIPPINES

he emergence of SAc in the countrywas brought about by political andconstitutional reforms that createdspaces for CSO involvement andparticipation in deliberation processesand service delivery. However,sustaining these reforms to furtherdeepen democracy and improve thelives of the poor remains to be agargantuan challenge.

A. Accountability Deficit DespitePeople Power Constitution and Legislation

Institutions, whether formal of informal,are the means through which authorityis exercised in the management ofresources of the state. The mostsignificant contributions of the 1987Constitution to democratization arethe provisions for direct participationsuch as people’s initiatives to recallofficials and propose laws and charteramendments, recall officials, questionthe sufficiency of the factual basis ofthe declaration of martial law or thesuspension of the writ of habeas corpus,

or form party-list groups to run forCongress in the case of sectoral groups(Pangalanan: 2002) (Sison: 2002)

The enactment of the Local GovernmentCode in 1991 devolved powers fromthe central government to the localgovernment units1 The Code aimed tobring government closer to the peoplewith LGUs bearing the responsibility

for providing services to meet thedevelopment needs of the people.Shift from the center to the local alsoprovided opportunities to practiceparticipatory governance as enshrinedin the 1987 Constitution2.“Public office is a public trust and publicofficials and employees must at all

1 The Local Government Code declared that it is

the policy of the state “to ensure the accountabilityof local government units through the institutionof effective mechanisms of recall, initiative andreferendum”. The Code also provided for thefollowing (1) mobilization of people’s participationin local development efforts; and the (2) preparationof barangay development plans based on localrequirements.

2 The Local Government Code also provided formembership of CSO representatives in Local SpecialBodies and a process of consultation throughbarangay assemblies.

4.

T

PRACTICE IN THE

SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY




13

times be accountable to the people, servethem with utmost responsibility, integrity,loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotismand justice and lead modes lives”. ThisArticle XI of the 1987 Constitution sets thestandard as to how public sector actorsshould behave. The Constitution not onlyprovided in detail the obligations and theavailable mechanisms that provide checksto the exercise of authority also providedin detail an impeachment procedureand the creation of an independentOmbudsman3 and a special anti-graft court

called Sandiganbayan as the mechanismsto sanction erring officials.

The accountability deficit in thePhilippines, therefore, refers not so muchto the absence of laws and regulationsand formal institutions that provides foraccountability in governance but the lackof enforcement and actual application ofaccountability. While there is no dearthof laws and institutions, they have been

reduced to mere formalities. Clientelismand bureaucratic capture continue tocharacterize governance institutionsin the country. They are not driven bypublic interest but are in fact captured byeconomic and political interests.

Bureaucratic capture and corruptionresulted not only in monetary costs by alsoweakened trust relationships between

government and citizens that constitute

3 The Office of the Ombudsman is believed to be themost potent institution created by the 1987Constitution.It is seen as the answer to the clamors of the peoplefor greater public accountability. The mandate of theOmbudsman is to act promptly on complaints field in anyform or manner against public officials or employeesof the government, or any subdivision, agency, orinstrumentality, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations (Hilbay: 2002 ) (Gutierrez:2002).

the basis of all social interaction. Gettinginformation from government is difficult.Government does not easily release datadespite Section 5 of Republic Act 6713:Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards”which states that “ all public documentsmust be made accessible to and readilymade available for inspection by the publicwithin reasonable working hours”. 4

There is also no viable Freedom ofInformation Act in the country. Without afreedom of information act, citizens and

civil society organizations are have difficultygetting access to important documentsand records to monitor and scrutinizepublic affairs. This limits the opportunitiesfor public oversight and renders the policydecisions and public actions vulnerable tothe discretion of those who are in positionsof authority. When politicians and publicofficials are not required to discloseinformation regarding their actions andtransactions, the administration of public

funds is susceptible to the prerogatives ofindividuals in power rather than dictatedby public interest, for their actions anddecisions need not be justified to anaffected public 5. (Grimes: 2008)According to the Access for InformationNetwork (ATIN), governments resists fulltransparency because of the followingreasons6: (a) providing access is seennot as a part of the regular duties of

4 Advances in technology have been enabling agenciesto increase transparency in their dealings and make dataavailable. However, data available online is outdatedand is not useful for closer and deeper scrutiny.5 Examples would be the following: grave allegations ofcorruption, such as the NBN-ZTE deal, where the rightnot to divulge information to the public was rationalizedunder the so-called principle of executive privilege.

6 Position Paper of ATIN

Social Accountability Practice in the Philippines



14

government, but as a favor subject to thecustodian’s discretion and convenience;and (b) vested interest in the non-disclosure of information – informationis controversial and may open agency toquestions and criticisms or information isrelated to some anomaly or irregularity inthe official transaction of an office.

Diamond and Morlino asserts that politicalcompetition and the distribution of powermust be fair and robust enough to allowfor genuine alternatives at the various

levels of government and to producesome electoral alternatives over time, sothat incumbents face a credible threat ofelectoral punishment (Diamond & Morlino:2005). Robust political competition doesnot only affect the responsiveness ofpolitical leaders but also strengthens thecapability of citizens and organizations forsocial accountability work. The existenceof sympathetic and supportive of publicofficials, whether they are in institutions

of public oversight or in political office,affects the feasibility of civic action to holdpublic officials accountable.

But strong and healthy politicalcompetition in the country does not exist inthe Philippines. Rocamora and Hutchcroftin analyzing political institutions in thecountry lament that “political partiesand the electoral process in the country

remain dominated by personalities ratherthan programs; legislative institutionscontinue to be the domain of many of thesame old political clans and trapos; andthe legislative process is still driven by thepolitics of pork and patronage” (Rocamora& Hutchcroft: 2003).

Adequate freedom and pluralism in medialikewise strengthens the ability of mediato take up a cause and assist in mobilizinga broader segment of the populationfor social accountability causes. Mediashould be protected from intimidation andretribution. There should be freedom ofspeech, information and assembly.7

Philippine media have been subjected tolegal harassment in the form of libel suitsand continuing murders of journalists.According to the Center for Media Freedom

and Responsibility (CMFR) in its reportentitled “The State of Press FreedomReport 2007”, 71 journalists were killedin the line of duty since democracy wasrestored in the country in 1986 and of these,54 were killed under the administration ofPresident Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. CMFRalso noted in its report that 90 percentof those killed had exposed corruptionin government (Inquirer.net: 2008).Freedom House classified the country

since 2005 until the present as “partlyfree” noting many freedom indicators forthe Philippines have declined since 2005with press freedom being undermined bykillings of journalists and a poor record ofprosecuting those responsible (FreedomHouse Report 2008).

7 The Philippines ranked in the bottom 20 (142nd placeout of 168 countries surveyed) of the 5th Annual World-wide Press Freedom Index released by internationalpress freedom watchdog – Reporters without Borders(RSF).




15

Scores 2005 2006Accountability and Public Voice 4.46 4.16

Civil Liberties 3.92 3.85

Rule of Law 3.30 3.29

Anticorruption and Transparency 3.50 3.38

Table 1. Freedom House Scores, Philippines8

To this date, the persistent problem that plagues the country is how to build institutionsfor democratic and accountable governance. As most reform advocates realize – good

governance does not simply happen. Definitely, it requires a particular kind of politics andleadership (Leftwich: 1993).

8 Scores are based on a scale of 0 to 7, with 0 representing weakest and 7 representing strongest performance.

B. Pervasive Corruption

Another reality that continues to impair

government’s consistency, effectivenessand efficiency is the presence of rent-seeking agents in government. Corruptionminimizes the gains of democratization,stunts productivity, makes promptresponse difficult, strains and obstructsstate-society interaction (Magadia:2003).CSOs responded to this problem throughvarious methods and approaches – fromconfrontation to constructive engagementswith government (Arugay: 2005) .

According to a World Bank study releasedin June 2008, corruption in the Philippinesis perceived to be the worst among EastAsia’s leasing economies. The ranking ofthe Philippines on corruption control hasworsened over the past 11 years, from

45.1 percent in 1996 to 22.0 percent in2007 (World Bank: 2007). TransparencyInternational gave the country a score

of 2.5, on a scale of 10, with 10 as thecleanest. The Philippines ranked 117thamong 159 countries; indicating thatthe country has a “severe” corruptionproblem (PCIJ: 2005). In September2006, a World Bank Report on World WideGovernance Indicators showed a sharpdecline in the Philippines ranking in thecontrol of corruption, from 50.5 percent in1998 to 37.4 percent in 2005 (World Bank:2007). The Philippines was perceived as

the most corrupt in the 2008 survey of theHong Kong-based Political and EconomicRisk Consultancy, using a grading systemwith 10 as the worst possible score, thePhilippines got 9.4, worsening from itsgrade of 7.8 in 2006.




16

C. Mapping Social Accountability Practice: Main Findings

Despite this indication, socialaccountability initiatives in the countrycontinue to emerge and take on thedifficulty tasks of scrutinizing governmentperformance as well as addressing theweak public accountability prevailing inthe country. Intermediary CSOs have alsoplayed critical roles in supporting poorpeople’s capabilities, assisting to accessand understand information and use the

information to demand from governmentresponsive and efficient delivery ofservices.

The proliferation of social accountabilityprojects is related to the increasinginterest of the international donors’community in good governance plus themounting desire of ordinary citizens tohold public sector actors accountable.

Social accountability work of CSOs inthe Philippines is a response to the needto deepen democratic politics and goodgovernance, specifically to monitor andassess performance of government aswell as to curb corruption that seemsto be endemic to and embedded in theculture of government. While there area number of organizations seeking toexercise social accountability are anti

corruption organizations, there arealso organizations seeking to secureentitlements for their own community orfor marginalized communities.

Most of the SAc practices were initiatedby the CSOs themselves as a response tothe weak accountability institutions of the

state. They are supported by multilateraland bilateral funding agencies. Thereare 34 practices included in the scopingexercise9. Through their SAc initiatives,CSOs are gaining access to arenas of publicaccount and procurement processes, aswell as performance monitoring of publicsector actors. Citizens are beginning toassert their citizenship by demandinganswers directly from power-holders –auditing local spending, observing publicbidding and demanding to know thewhereabouts of funds that are missing.

These are relatively new arenas for mostCSOs.

D. Forces Driving Current Social Accountability Practice

While there may be different initiatives,there are common aspirations andobjectives that unify the differentinitiatives. These are the following; (1)

put an end to pervasive corruption andarrest further weakening of institutions bypushing for institutional transparency andresponsible leadership from public sectoractors; (2) exercise of the people’s rightto influence the public choices that shapetheir lives; (3) show that democracy worksby pushing anti-poverty agenda and betterservice delivery through community drivendevelopment strategies; and (4) actualizeparticipatory citizenship through inclusion

and empowerment in social accountabilitywork.

9 Information on two of the 34 practices included in thescoping study was based on write-ups and publishedreports. These are the Lifestyle check of PCIJ and theReport Card Survey by the Development Academy of thePhilippines.




Matrix 1 summarizes trends in the Philippines based on five fundamental questions thatshould be asked to understand accountability relationships. (A more detailed matrix ispresented in Annex A.) 10

Matrix 1. Five Fundamental Questions for Social Accountability

10 Social accountability experience of other countries shows that as various methods and tools are used to hold stateactors accountable for their actions, there are also more ordinary people seeking to engage directly in efforts to makepower holders answer for their actions, rather than relying upon intermediaries. There is also an emergence of a widerrange of accountability jurisdictions intended to expose poor governance or abuses of power – from local governmentsto national to international public domains. (Goetz) Philippine experience, likewise, is not far behind. Goetz in herarticle “Reinventing Accountability: Making Democracy Work for the Poor” enumerates five fundamental questionsthat should be asked to understand accountability relationship: (1) Who is seeking accountability? (2) From whom? (3)Where? (4) How? (5) For what?

Questions Trends in the Philippines

1. Who is seekingaccountability?

Civil society organizations (coalitions and networks)mobilizing ordinary citizens to directly engaged power

–holders to answer for their decisions and actions asstate actors

2. From whom? Bureaucrats and elected officials of national govern-ment agencies and local government units; Membersof Congress

17

Box 3. Driving Forces for Social Accountability Practice

1. Put an end to pervasive corruption2. Exercise of the people’s right to influence the public choices that shape

their lives3. Demonstrate that democracy works for the poor4. Actualize participatory citizenship through inclusion and empowerment




Questions Trends in the Philippines

3. Where? There are more avenues for social accountability:- Local and sub-national government- National government

4. How? Diverse set of Approaches and Tools:(1) Policy Advocacy(2) Self-awareness workshops(3) Information dissemination(4) Participatory budgeting(5) Budget Analysis

(6) Expenditure Tracking(7) Monitoring of Government Procurement Process(8) Monitoring of Government Infrastructure Projects(9) Report Cards(10) Opinion Polls

5. For what? Strengthen transparency, responsiveness and acces-sibility of government




19

lassifying SAc initiatives that wouldcapture the full range of experiencesas well as distinctly differentiate oneinitiative from the other was difficult. Thisstocktaking study classified initiativesaccording to objectives, using the threecategories of Brinkerhoff: political ordemocratic accountability, financialaccountability and accountabilityperformance (Brinkerhoff: 2004).

Matrix 2 summarizes this typology ofSAc practices.

A. Political and Democratic Accountability

Essentially political/ democraticaccountability involves actionsthat creates and strengthens thesocietal institutions to actualize

social accountability and in theprocess increase the citizens’ trust ingovernment and enhanced its legitimacy.It includes defining and enforcingthe standards and code of conductand ethics for assessing governmentperformance. In the Philippines, thisincludes campaigning for a Freedom of

Information Act,1 lobbying for electoralreforms,2 catalyze the creation of a“graft intolerant culture”3 or ensuringthat appointees of the President of thePhilippines are persons of integrity andcompetence. 4

1 The campaign for a Freedom of Information Actwas started by ATIN in 2002. Through a series ofconsensus-seeking meetings the network produceda draft bill aimed at compelling disclosure fromgovernment through a uniform, simple and speedyprocedure (ATIN position paper).

2 IPER.

3 Ehem!

4 Bantay Korte Suprema is one of the activitiesof Appointments Watch. The objective was toensure that President Arroyo appoints only thosedeserving to the upcoming seven vacancies of theSupreme Court. Involving people with integrity andcompetence, such as xx-magistrates, firmer andincumbent legislators and lawyers’ associations,low deans and businessmen Bantay Korte Supremaled the public in monitoring the screening processof the Judicial Bar Council that is authorized bylaw to short-list and nominate candidates for theposition. The final decision, however, still rests onthe President.

5.

C

VARIOUS APPROACHES

Various Approaches



Type Objectives Tools/Techniques Outcome

Political/DemocraticAccountability

Ensure thatgovernmentdelivers on electoralpromises, fulfills thepublic trust, respondsto ongoing andemerging societalneeds and concerns

Effective politicalaccountabilityenhances thelegitimacy ofgovernment in theeyes of citizens

Transparencyand openness ofgovernment recordsand transactions

Policy advocacy andlobbying

Public discussions

Increased levelsof citizen’s trust ingovernment

Clear agreed uponstandards of probity,ethics, integrityand professionalresponsibility

Enhanced legitimacy ofgovernment

FinancialAccountability

Tracking andreporting onallocation,disbursement, and

utilization of financialresources, includingprocurement andcontracting

Tools of auditing,budgeting andaccounting

Proper financialmanagement

Reduced opportunities

for graft and corruption

PerformanceAccountability

Demonstratingand accounting forperformance basedon agreed-uponperformance targets

Focus is on theservices, outputsand results ofpublic agencies andprograms

Performancemeasurement andevaluation

Policies/projects/programs responsive tothe needs of the poor

Achievement of servicedelivery targets

Service deliveryimprovement

Public sectormanagement reform

20

Matrix 2. Types of Accountability Based on Objectives and Outcome

Brinkerhoff, Derick. “Accountability and Health Systems: Toward Conceptual Clarity and Policy Relevance”. 2004




21

B. Financial Accountability

According to Brinkerhoff, financialaccountability is concerned with howgovernment “allocates, disburses andutilizes financial resources” (Brinkerhoff:2004). SAc practices under this categorycan be further differentiated into thefollowing sub-categories (1) informedbudget advocacy; (2) public expendituretracking; and (3) participatory budgeting.

Informed budget advocacy. Budgets are

the basic instrument of governments tomobilize, allocate and monitor scarceresources. Thoughtful and methodicalscrutiny of the public budget enablescitizens and civil society groups toraise important governance and policyissues and advocate reforms on publicexpenditure priorities, distribution ofbenefits to different groups of people andrevenue raising schemes.

Informed budget advocacy focus on theimpact of the budget on transparency,accountability and responsiveness todevelopment needs of the country,especially the poor. It involves solid fiscalresearch; production and dissemination oftimely, accessible and useful informationto a wide range of stakeholders andmobilization of people to influence publicbudget processes and outcomes.

Public expenditure tracking. The primaryobjectives of this practice are to identifyleakages and to improve efficiency in thedelivery of public goods and services.This involves scrutinizing how specificgovernment agencies actually spend themoney appropriated to them.

Participatory budgeting. Participatorybudgeting relates to the involvement andconsultation of citizens in the budgetingcycle. Citizens participate in the differentphases of budget formulation, decision-making and monitoring of budgetexecution. Practitioners hope to increasegovernment responsiveness to the needsof the poor and at the same time increasetransparency to allow citizens and officialsto understand and commit themselves todifficult trade-offs inherent in budgetingprocesses.

SAc practices such as Priority DevelopmentAssistance Fund (PDAF) Watch andInternal Revenue Allotment (IRA) Watchintroduce the social justice element in theaccountability discourse. These practicesrecognize the imperative of addressingthe pressing needs of the poor as well asactualizing their right to hold governmentofficials accountable. After all, the poorare the group most affected by corruption.

(Sallis Peter)

C. Accountability for Performance

The principal focus of SAc practices underthis category is the delivery of public goodsand services and how public sector actorsfulfill their roles and responsibilities.Main strategy in these types of SAc ismonitoring by citizens through the use

of report cards, citizen feedback throughopinion polls and participatory audits. Theprincipal motivation is to ensure relevance,responsiveness and sustainability of localdevelopment programs and services.

Various Approaches



22

D. SAc Practices in the Philippines

1) Typology based on objective

Chart. 1 Social Accountability Practices, According to Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Typology of Social Accountability Practices

Local

National

Local 0% 15% 24% 38%

National 21% 32% 9% 62%

Political Financial Performance Total

Chart 1 shows that 47% of the SAcpractices scoped in this study are focusedon financial accountability. Thirty-threepercent of scoped practices centered onaccountability for performance with 24%of the initiatives implemented at the localgovernment unit (LGU) level while 21%were aimed at enabling and strengtheningpolitical/democratic accountability.

Sixty-two percent of the SAc practicesstudied were being done at the national

level with 32% of these practices focusedon financial accountability; 21% centeredon political/democratic accountability and9% on performance.

Thirty-eight percent of the scopedpractices were being implemented at thelocal level with 24% of these practicesconcerned with holding local governmentsto account for their performance and 15%

focused on financial accountability.




Type byObjective

SA Practice Implementing Organization

Political/Democratic

Freedom of Information BillCampaign

ATIN

Lifestyle Check PCIJ

Citizen’s Participation inLifestyle Check

TAN

Electoral Reform Consortium for Electoral Reform

Pera’T Pulitika (Monitoring ofCampaign Funds)

Tam. Libertas, ATIN

Ehem! (Anti-Corruption) Society of Jesus, Philippine Province

Appointment Watch TAN

Co-financing and Co-Production of Basic Services

IPD

Financial DA Budget Analysis Code-NGO

Education Watch AER

Philippine National BudgetMonitoring Project

InciteGov, The Budget Network

PDAF-Watch Code-NGO

ODA Watch MODE

Debt and Public Finance Cam-paign

FDC

Local Gender Budgeting WAND

IRA Watch CBCP-NASSA

CSO Participation in MonitoringPublic Procurement

Procurement Watch

Alternative Budget Initiative Social Watch Philippines

Textbook Count and TextbookWalk

G- Watch - Ateneo School ofGovernment

23

Table 2. Clustering of SAc Practices by Objectives: Political/Democratic; Financial;Performance

Various Approaches



Type byObjective

SA Practice Implementing Organization

Building Bridges Towards GoodGovernance with LGUs andOther Agencies

CNGG-Negros

Participatory Local Governance La Salle Institute of Governance

Counter Corruption inProcurement and Delivery ofServices

CAC – MBC

Capacity-building for BACObservers

MSAC and EBJF

Performance Participatory Planning andBudgeting

Naga People’s Council and Citygovernment

Report Card Survey Development Academy of thePhilippines

Monitoring InfrastructureProjects for Good Governance

CCAGG

Localized Anti-PovertyProgram 2

CODE-NGO

Road Watch TAN

SWS Surveys Social Weather Station

Transparent and AccountableGovernance

Iloilo-CODE

Participatory Monitoringof Barangay InfrastructureProjects and Procurement ofMedicines in the Province ofIsabela

PAJDGG

24

Social accountability work, both at the local and national levels, is undertakenpredominantly by coalitions rather than individual organizations. Although there’s awide spread of social accountability practices, there is a narrow spectrum of groups andorganizations involved in such practices. There is an overlap of membership in the variousnetworks and coalitions involved.




Local National Total

Type of Practice Coalition Single Org Coalition Single Org

Political 15% 6% 21%

Financial 6% 9% 32% 47%

Performance 15% 9% 3% 6% 32%

Total 21% 18% 50% 12% 100%

25

Table 3. SAc Practices According to Geographical Scope and Types of ImplementingOrganizations

Majority of the SAc practices reviewedwere being implemented independentof government and are primarily drivenby the desire to curb corruption andpromote transparency and accountabilityin government within the framework of

participatory governance. It is interestingto note that at the local level, the SAcpractices reviewed by the study wereimplemented in partnership with localgovernment.

9%

35%29%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Independent Partnership w/

Government

Type of Engagement

Local

National

Chart 2. SAc Practices, According to Type of Engagement

Partnership with government werecovered with MOAs that defined roles and

responsibilities of the different partiesinvolved in the partnership. Workingwith government is largely driven bythe need to have access to reliable and

relevant data. Again, without a Freedomto Information Act, such access is difficult.

However, CSOs also expressed that evenwith MOAs, access to relevant data remaina challenge.

Various Approaches



Local National

Type of Practice Independent Partnershipw/ Gov’t.

Independent Partnershipw/ Gov’t.

Total

Political 15% 6% 21%

Financial 6% 9% 18% 15% 47%

Performance 3% 21% 3% 6% 32%

Total 9% 29% 35% 26% 100%

26

Table 4. SAc Practices, According to Type of Engagement with Government

E. Tools and Approaches 5

Social accountability work challengedCSOs to venture in unfamiliar terrain,such as budget processes, governmentaccounting, public procurement, andpublic sector oversight. The practicesreviewed in this study showed a variety oftools and approaches.

Policy advocacy. The principal focus ofpolicy advocacy in social accountabilityis to strengthen the accountabilitymechanisms of government as wellas create the enabling environment inholding public leaders accountable.Among the SAc practices reviewed in thisstudy – campaigns were launched to enactimportant legislations, such as freedomof information act, electoral reforms and

effective enforcement of anti-corruptionlaws.

At the local level, policy advocacy takeson a different form through the “co-

5 Complete descriptions of practices are in AttachmentA and B.

financing and co-production approach ofthe Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD)where communities identify projects orservices that they need and raise funds,which they leverage with the LGU foradditional funding.

Ehem! Self-Awareness Workshops(Corruption Sensitivity Seminars). Unlike other anti-corruption campaigns

and programs, which are exclusivelyoriented towards exposing wrongdoings ingovernment, the Ehem! approach aims tosensitize people to their own involvementin dishonest and corrupt practices. It ispremised on the behavioral principle thatsustained action in combating corruptionemanates from self-aware individuals.The focus is value transformation. It isintrospective and aimed at individual andpersonal change. Corruption sensitivityworkshops are conducted to facilitateindividual’s self-examination of their rolein perpetuating corruption in Philippinesociety and likewise assist participants incrafting their own individual action plans.




26

Budget Advocacy and Analysis. Fifty-sixpercent of the financial accountability-SAC practices center on budget advocacyand analysis. Recognizing that the budgetis the most important public policyproduce by government every year, thereare increasing initiatives aimed at makingpublic sector budgets – both local andnational – transparent, accountable andresponsive. The practices using thisapproach utilized a number of methods:formulation of alternative budgets; fiscalresearch for sectoral and national budget

analysis, website- maintenance andnetworking with media to provide timelyand reliable information on the budget.

Guarding Procurement as Observers.The enactment of the GovernmentProcurement Reform Act provided CSOsto engage government as observers in thepublic procurement process. A number ofCSOs got initiated in social accountabilityprimarily through their involvement in

improving the transparency, efficiencyand accountability of governmentprocurement processes. When the policyreforms were put into place through theenactment of Government ProcurementReview Act (GPRA), CSOs also re-tooledthemselves to make sure that the law isproperly implemented. ProcurementWatch, G-Watch, Transparency andAccountability Network, Coalition Against

Corruption and MSAC are partnering withgovernment agencies – playing the role ofindependent observers aimed at curtailingcorruption that is perceived to prevail inmost bidding activities of government.

Field monitoring of government projectsand service delivery. A number of CSOswere focused on scrutinizing governmentprojects and service delivery as citizenwatchdogs through field monitoring ofgovernment projects and service delivery.Infrastructure for transport, such asroads and bridges; public education, suchas textbook delivery and constructionof school buildings; and delivery ofhealth services, such as procurement ofmedicines are the areas covered by theSAc practices reviewed in this study. One

of the more outstanding CSOs in this fieldis Concerned Citizens of Abra for GoodGovernment (CCAGG), a pioneer in thearea of monitoring public projects. Usingcommunity organizing to mobilize thepeople and on-sight monitoring to collectfacts and public meetings to analyzefindings they have been inspired the spiritof volunteerism for social accountability.

Social Covenants. This is a performance

evaluation and public disclosure/feedbacking mechanism through activecitizens’ query in the form of publicmeetings and for a. The process beginsduring the electoral campaign period.Political candidates are asked tosign “covenants for clean and honestelections with the winners committingto hold themselves accountable to thepeople through performance evaluation

undertaken by constituents. Basis for suchevaluation would be the promises made bythe winning candidates during the electioncampaign as reflected in the “platforms”or agendas. Iloilo – Code created thisinnovation and has been implementing itto monitor the city government of Iloilo.

Various Approaches



Objective Public SectorFunction

SAc Practice Methods and Tools

Political/Democratic

Accountability

Policies andPlans that buildsor strengthensthe enablingenvironment fordemocratic practiceand accountableinstitutions

Political andElectoral Reforms

Campaign for aGraft- SensitiveCulture

ParticipatoryPolicy Making andPlanning

Policy advocacy

Self-awarenessworkshops

Engaging andempoweringcommunities for serviceimprovement


Revenue,Appropriations,Allocations,Expenditures

Informed budgetadvocacy

Tracking PublicExpenditure

ParticipatoryBudgeting

Budget Advocacy andBudgetAnalysis

Training workshops

Accountabilityfor

Performance

Delivery of Goodsand Services

Public Monitoringand Oversight

Monitoring by PublicWatchdogs

Citizens’ CharterSocial Covenants

Report Cards

Opinion Polls

28

Matrix 3. Summary of SocialAccountability Practice in the PhilippinesReport Card Survey 6. The objective

of the survey is to establish what thelocal residents think about the quality of

6 Report Card Survey on Specific Services of Nine Citiesin the National Capital RegionDevelopment Academy of the Philippines. Manila Phil-ippines, February 2002.

selected services provided for by the localgovernment units. These services aregarbage collection, traffic management,

public (neighborhood) safety; publicmarket management, and permitissuance/licensing.

The findings as well as the experiencesin implementing the RCS demonstratedthe tool’s ability to empower citizens toprovide feedback on public services even




29

Box 4. Example of Innovative Social Accountability Practice

Covenant for Social Accountability: Beyond Lip ServiceThe Philippine Experience

Concrete practices of social contracts or covenant-types of agreement betweenthe citizen-electorates, politicians and bureaucrats, pro-actively promoted aperformance-based, platform-oriented politics and good citizenship. Specifically,in the late 1990’s with the graft and corruption issues in its unabated notoriety,innovations for Transparent Accountable Governance took the form of SocialContracts were introduced by Iloilo-CODE. The key model is the Kwentahan HindiKwentuhan that literally means Accountability not Lip Service, a performanceevaluation and public disclosure/feed backing mechanism thru Citizens’ Query.

Politicians have the penchant for talking and making empty promises in order towin over people’s votes. Adopting the principle that elected officials have socialcontract with electorates, Philippine CSOs have introduced innovative modesof citizens engagement with politicians to provide greater opportunities to beheard and at the same minimizing the vulnerability of the electorates from beinghoodwinked by money politics and empty promises. The key is the participation ofa critical mass… as the politician’s fear is always the greater numbers.

Starting with the election campaign, candidates’ forums were organized bymulti-sectoral stakeholders (churches, peasant/laborer organizations, media,

professionals and academe) for platform watch. During the process, politicalcandidates sign a “Covenant” for clean, honest election with the winners holdingthemselves accountable for performance evaluation.

The CSOs gather the platforms of each candidate, and an assigned body documentsthese. The electorates would use these later as solid evidences in exacting socialaccountability. The politicians have learned the lessons: “Keep your promises...or bust.”Source: Mr. Emmanuel C. Areño; Executive Director, Iloilo CODE NGOs.

Various Approaches



30

those who do not belong to organizedgroups. However, effort to RCS was notsustained.

Opinion Polls/Surveys. Scientific surveysof the general public and of variousstakeholder-groups to monitor the qualityof governance are useful approaches inevaluation performance of government.Among the SAc practices reviewed isthe regular survey conducted by SWS oncorruption as part of the Transparent andAccountable Governance project funded by

The Asia Foundation. The survey focuseson perception of the business sector asto prevalence of corruption as well as theeffectiveness of government efforts tocurb corruption.

Networking with Media. An importanttool of social accountability practioners ismedia. It is through media that informationgenerated and analysis undertaken bysocial accountability groups reaches thegeneral public. In fact, in a number ofinnovations, media people are involvedeither as observers or initiators of socialaccountability practices.

Use of Internet. The use of the Internetis seen as another means of reachinga wider public and making information

readily available and easily accessible.Use of the Internet would be in the formof website maintenance and networkingin the Internet – where documents can beuploaded and downloaded.




31

he ultimate test of success of SAc iswhether they result in fundamentalreforms/changes in how governmentdoes things – promoting theprinciples of citizen’s rights, inclusion,empowerment and social justice.Despite the potential power and impactof social accountability work of CSOs,they could not by themselves addressthe accountability deficit. Pressure

may make service providers andpublic agencies more accountable butthey cannot assume the role of theinstitutions of government that havebeen assigned the responsibility ofmaking accountability mechanismswork. In the final analysis, it is thegovernment that has a duty to makeaccountability a reality. (Arugay)Increasingly, the standard is no longerthe simple adherence to procedure

but the achievement of outcomes,assessed in terms of their value forpoor and vulnerable groups.

The scoping study yielded vague answersto the question of impact and outcome ofSAc work. Responses were general andnot measurable nor verifiable. This may

be a reflection that social accountabilitywork in the Philippines is still work inprogress.

A. Critical Factors

Professional bureaucracy andcredibility of public institutions. Framework of social accountability workof CSOs in the Philippines is premised

on an analysis that poverty could notbe eradicated without the necessarypolitical reforms and that many ofthe development outcomes cannot beachieved, much more sustained withoutchanges in the way socio-economicand political resources are managed.But good governance requires acapable and more professional staterather than a government mobilized bypolitical patronage. CSOs, through their

involvement in social accountabilityseek to help in building this capablestate as described by Grindle – “havingthe required political and institutionalcapacity to respond to issues of security,entitlements, social justice and socialdelivery” (Grindle).

6.

T

SIGNIFICANT OUTCOMES

Signifcant Outcomes



32

Responsible and reform-orientedleadership. Experience also tells us thatleadership matters in the practice of goodgovernance to ensure that developmentoutcomes endure (Leftwich: 1993).1

Empowered citizenry includes attitudeand capacities of CSO actors. Change in thementality of the people is critical, from oneof mendicancy -looking always for help fromabove – to one of responsible citizenship.Local grassroots organizations could helpthe poor to assume responsibility to some

degree for their own welfare and that oftheir communities. These local groupsof individuals, asserting not only theirrights but also their duties as citizens tobe concerned for the common good, arethe building blocks of true democracy.(Carroll)

B. Dilemmas and Challenges

One of the hurdles in the practice ofsocial accountability is the “inability orunwillingness of society to call powerful andprominent people for their wrongdoings”,which Fr. John Caroll refers to as the

1 Leftwich, A. “Governance, democracy and Developmentin the Third World”, 1993 Third World Quarterly 14 (3),605-625

weakest spot in Philippine political culture.In his book “Engaging Society”, points outstories in Philippine history that reflectsthe failure of Filipinos to mete out thepunishment these wrongdoers rightfullydeserved, such as the amnesty granted tothe collaborators of Japanese occupationand the easy treatment given to way inwhich family members and former alliesof President Marcos. (Carroll: 2006) Theseactions convey the message that the publicinterest is not that important after all andthat a “thick face” – with power and wealth

– could violate it with little risk (Carroll:2006).

Greatest challenge for socialaccountability advocates and practitionersin the Philippines is the culture of impunityand increasing policy framework of theMacapagal-Arroyo administration againstinformation disclosure and transparencyand the continued perception of increasingcorruption. How can CSOs engage

government in this environment?

How do CSOs guard and preserve theirindependence and integrity as they partnerwith government?




SAcPractice

Who is SeekingAccountability?

FromWhom?

Where? How? For what?

Campaign forthe passageof a Right toInformationAct

Access toInformationNetwork

LegislatureandExecutiveBranch

Nationwide Policy Advocacyand Lobbying

Coalitionbuilding

Access toinformation ondecisions andactions done bygovernment

IRA Watch Diocesan SocialAction networksof the CatholicChurch

LGU -Barangayofficials

144barangaysin 3Dioceses

Monitoring theuse of InternalRevenueAllotment ofthe barangay

Transparentand responsibleutilization of theInternal RevenueAllotment

MonitoringInfrastructureProjectsfor GoodGovernance

Citizens of Abrathrough theConcerned Citizensof Abra for GoodGovernment

LGU Province ofAbra

Fieldmonitoring andevaluation ofinfrastructureprojects

Responsible useof public fundsand efficientdelivery ofservices

Ehem Society of Jesus inthe Philippines andAteneo de DavaoUniversity

Governmentofficials;generalpublic

Nationwide Anti corruptionseminarsthat link anti-corruptionwork with valuetransformation

Production anddisseminationof manual

Build a graftintolerant culture

PDAF Watch CODE NGO and theCoalition AgainstCorruption

Members ofthe House ofRepresenta-tives

LegislativeDistricts -Nationwide

PublicExpendituretracking of forfunds releasedfor Legislator’sPDAF

Transparentand responsibleutilization of thePDAF and CAfunds

33

Annex A. Information on the Different Social Accountability Practices in the Philippines

Signifcant Outcomes



SAcPractice


FromWhom?


DA BudgetAnalysis

CODE-NGO ExecutiveBranch, spe-cifically of-ficials of theDepartmentof Agricul-ture

National Independentbudget analysis

Transparency andaccountability inthe DA budgetprocess – frompreparation toexecution

LocalizationAnti-PovertyProgram 2

CODE-NGO LGU 9 provincesand 100barangays

PovertyIndicatorMonitoring

ParticipatoryBudgeting

ParticipatoryMonitoring andEvaluation

Improvedresponsiveness oflocal governmentpriorities topoverty situation

Monitoring ofProcurement

Citizens ofNegros through

the Citizens’Network forGood Governance(CNGG) in theProvince of Negros

LGU ofNegros

Occidentaland regionaloffices ofDPWH, SSS,PPA and theDOH-runRegionalHospital

Provinceof Negros

Occidental

CSOparticipation

(as observers)of the agencyprocurementprocess

Transparent,accountable and

professionalpublicprocurementprocess

Debt andPublicFinanceCampaigns

Freedom fromDebt Coalition

LegislatureandExecutive

Nationwide Policy Advocacyand Lobbying

Public auditof public debtand contingentliabilities

Public financepolicies toaddress nationaldebt burden




SAcPractice


FromWhom?


TransparentandAccountableGovernance

Caucus of Non-GovernmentOrganizations inIoilo

LGU Provincesin Region 8

Public Feedbacking

PerformanceReporting

ParticipatoryMonitoring

Citizens’

ServiceSatisfactionIndex

Use of socialcontracts andcovenants

PublicExpenditureManagement

Utilization ofpublic fundsand fulfillmentof campaignpromises andcommitments ofpolitical officials

PhilippineNationalBudgetMonitoringand Analysis

Network of NGOsPhilippine NationalBudget MonitoringProject

LegislatureandExecutive

National Independentbudget analysis

Mentoringof NGOs inBudgetAnalysis andMonitoring

National Budget:Process andPriorities

35Signifcant Outcomes



36

SAcPractice


FromWhom?


GuardingProcurementof Textbooks,Medicinesand Schoolbuildings

G-Watch –Ateneo Schoolof Government;Boy Scouts andGirl Scouts ofthe Philippines;NAMFREL; Barug!Pilipino; ConcernedCitizens of Abra forGood Government;

Naga City People’Council; SocialWatch Visayas;Negros Centerfor PeopleEmpowermentand RuralDevelopment;Coca- Cola BottlingPhilippines, Inc.

and Kaakbay

TextbookpublishersandDepartmentof Educationofficialsf(nationaland locallevels)

Districts –nationwide

Monitortextbookdelivery

Systemsimprovement

Procurement ofTextbooks – fromprocurementto contractimplementation

ParticipatoryPlanning andBudgeting

Rural communities LGU 20 LGUsand 2,000barangays

Buildingcommunitycapacity fortariff andservice deliverydesigns thatincludescommunitiescontributing to

the financingof servicesthat they willreceived

Delivery of basiclocal services,particularly waterand health




37

SAcPractice


FromWhom?


PolicyAdvocacy –Campaignfor ElectoralReform

Members ofConsortium ofElectoral Reform

LegislatureandCOMELEC

Nationwide Campaign andlegislativelobbying

Comprehensivereform inthe OmnibusElection Code toensure fair andhonest electoralcompetition

Changes inelection relation

laws such as partylist, automationand campaignfinances

Training CSOsfor GoodGovernance

Local CSOs LGUs NorthernLuzon

Capacitybuilding forCSO membersin Local SpecialBodies in Local

Budgetingand ProjectMonitoring

Local budgetsand developmentpriorities

CoalitionAgainstCorruption

Civil SocietyOrganizations,Business,Integrated bar ofthe Philippines

Governmentprocurementagencies

Nationwide Training ofBAC observersProcurementMonitoringInformationDissemination

Multi-sectoralCoalitionAgainstCorruption

Network of CSOsparticipatingas observers inbidding process ofgovernment

ProcuremententitiesOmbudsman

Nationwide TrainingParticipation ofCSOs in Bids-and-AwardsCommittees

EffectiveEnforcement ofGPRAAbatement ofCorruption

Signifcant Outcomes



Classification/Type

Based onObjective

Objectives Focus SAc Practice Organization

Local National

Political/DemocraticAccountabilityFocus onestablishing thefundamentals

for politicaland socialaccountability tobe feasible andeffective

Push for thepassage of aFreedom of anInformation Lawbased on theprinciples of

disclosure andpublic interest

InformationDisclosure

Freedom ofInformationBill Advocacy

Access toInformationNetwork(ATIN)Secretariat: AER

Investigatethe lifestyle ofgovernmentofficials of the BIRto weed out thecorrupt from thebureaucracy

LifestyleCheck

Lifestylechecks

PhilippineCenter forInvestigativeJournalism(PCIJ)

Develop a toolthat the publiccan utilize inconducting acitizens’ lifestylecheck of publicofficials

LifestyleCheck Citizen’sParticipationin LifestyleChecks

TransparencyandAccountabilityNetwork (TAN)

Push for thereforms in existingelectoral laws

to ensure clean,honest and fairelections

ElectoralReforms

ElectoralReform

Institute forPolitical andElectoral

Reform(Secretariat)

Consortiumfor ElectoralReform (40organizations)

38

Annex B-1. Social Accountability Practices: Political/Democratic Accountability




39

Classification/

TypeBased onObjective


Local National

Identify areaswhere reform oncampaign financecan be proposedand considered bypolicy makers;

Heighten publicawareness ofthe importanceof monitoringcampaignexpendituresof parties andcandidates

CampaignFinanceReform

Monitoringof CampaignFunds“Pera’tPulitika”

TransparencyandAccountabilityNetwork(Secretariat)Consortium

for Electoralreforms

Sensitize every

Filipino aboutCorruption

Facilitate aprocess forvarious sectorsto understandthe culture ofcorruption andallow seriousreflection on

societal valuesthat reinforcecorruption

Build a graftintolerant culture

Value Trans-

formation

Ehem! Anti-

CorruptionMovement

Society of Jesus,

PhilippineProvince

Ateneo de DavaoUniversity

Signifcant Outcomes



40

Classification/

TypeBased onObjective


Local National

Encouragecivil societyparticipation inthe appointmentprocess to ensuretransparency and

accountability

Credibleappointmentprocess

AppointmentWatch

TAN

Cause politiciansto respond to realneeds of people

Replace patronagepolitics withnew practices ofservice delivery

Co-financingand Co-productionof BasicServices

Institutefor PopularDemocracy




Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National


Promotetransparency andaccountability inthe formulationand execution ofthe budget of theDepartment ofAgriculture

IndependentBudgetAnalysis

PublicExpenditureTracking

DA BudgetAnalysis

CODE-NGO

Monitor the na-tional budgetthoughtfully andsystematically toensure efficientand responsibleallocation and uti-lization of publicfunds

Build interest andcapacity of Philip-pine NGOs andmedia in nationalbudget monitoringto influence pol-icy and programpriorities of the

legislative and ex-ecutive branchesof government

IndependentBudgetAnalysis


Monitoringthe NationalBudget

InciteGov

Annex B-2. Social Accountability Practices: Financial Accountability




42

Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Influenceindividuallegislatorstowards a moretransparentand responsibleutilization of the

PDAF and CAfunds


PDAF-Watch Code NGO

Build broadestunity among CSOsin promoting ODAthat serves thepeople and socialaccountability inthe conduct ofODA projects

Create awarenesson ODA

Engagegovernments(host and donors)in ODA policy,priority, designand processes

PublicFinancePolicies

ODA Watch ManagementandOrganizationalDevelopment forEmpowerment –Secretariat




43

Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Push for specificprogressivechanges on debtand public financepolicies of thegovernment, suchas the following:

• Comprehensive

audit of allpublic debtsand contingentliabilities

• Institute a

transparent andparticipatorybudget process

and progressivespending, revenuegeneration andborrowing policies

Debt andpublicfinancepolicies

Debt andPublicFinanceCampaign

Freedom fromDebt Coalition

Signifcant Outcomes



44

Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Move from quotabased budgetingsystem to atotally genderresponsive one;results-orientedand rights-basedplanning and

budgetingAssess genderimpact of localgovernmentpolicies, budgetsand expenditureson maternalhealth andagriculture

Local GenderBudget

WANDLocal LevelGenderBudgeting

Women inNation-Building andDevelopment

Curb corruption atthe barangay levelExplore how fundscan be used forcommunity

IRA Watch CBCP-NASSA

Develop a toolthat would beeasy to use bythe procurementobservers

Develop a tool/template thatwould providereports/feedbackto an agency inrelation to itsprocurementprocess

MonitoringProcurement

Developmentof aDiagnosticReportingTemplate

ProcurementWatch




45

Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Develop anddemonstrate aprocess of publicparticipatoryassessmentof governmentexpenditures

Develop a toolthat would provide

accurate baselinedata for futuremeasurementof efficiency/inefficiency in anagency

MonitoringProcurement

DifferentialExpenditureEfficiencyMeasurementTool

ProcurementWatch

Ensure adequatefunding forsocial services,health, education,environment andagriculture

InstitutionalizeCSO participationin budget process

Broaden CSOparticipation in thebudget process

Strengthen CSOcapacities forresearch work onbudget analysis.Information and

media work,campaigns,lobbying andnetworking

Build awarenessand developmentchampions ingovernment

InformedBudgetAdvocacy

AlternativeBudgetInitiative

Signifcant Outcomes



46

Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Removecorruptionin textbookprocurement

Systematizedeliveriesnationwide

Make suppliersmore responsiveto clients’ needs

Establishbenchmarkfor DepEdperformance

Mobilize citizensfor monitoringand inspectionfor greatertransparency

GuardingPublicProcurement

TextbookCountTextbookWalk

G-Watch –Ateneo Schoolof Government(including BoyScouts of thePhilippines,Girls Scouts ofthe Philippines,NAMFREL)




Classification/Type

Based onObjective

Objectives Focus SAc Practice Organizatio

Local National

PerformancePublicOversight/Monitoring

Entails citizengroups orcommunitiesmonitoringand evaluatingthe executionof plans andprograms aswell as theperformanceof roles and

functions ofpublic agenciesand officialsaccording toindicators theythemselves haveselected.

Establish what thelocal residentsthink aboutthe quality ofthe followingservices: garbagecollection, trafficmanagement,public safety(within theneighborhood),public marketmanagement andpermit issuance/licensing

Develop a toolto empowercitizens to provide

feedback on publicservices

PerformanceMonitoring

Report CardSurvey onSpecificServices inNCR LGUs

DevelopmentAcademy of thPhilippines

47

Annex B-3. Social Accountability Practices: Performance Public Oversight/Monitoring

Signifcant Outcomes



48

Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Create a sense ofcitizenship andcapability of ordi-nary citizens to bepublic watchdogsof governmentinfrastructureprojects

Monitor imple-mentations ofgovernment proj-ects to ensure thatfunds meant forthe projects are judiciously usedand that projects’plans and specifi-

cations are fol-lowed

Enforce honestyand integrity inpublic service


ParticipatoryMonitoring ofInfrastructure

ConcernedCitizens ofAbra for GoodGovernance

Track publicsatisfaction withperformance ofkey governmentofficialsinstitutions ingeneral as wellas along spe-cific tasks such asfighting corruption

Publicsatisfactionongovernmentperformance

SWS Surveys Social WeatherStation




49

Classification/Type

Based onObjective

Objectives Focus SAc Practice Organizatio

Local National

Exercise roleof CSOs aswatchdogs andhold politicalleaders to accountfor promises

PerformanceMonitoring

TransparentandAccountableGovernance

Iloilo –CODE

Train local CSO/

community forbetter governanceresponsive topoverty situation

Gather povertydata throughthe use ofPoverty IndicatorMonitoring

Involve communityin budget planningto make localbudget moreresponsive andinvolve them inProject Evaluationand Monitoring

Responsive-

ness of localbudget toanti-poverty

Localized

Anti-PovertyProgram 2

CODE-NGO

Signifcant Outcomes




Classifica-tion/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Mobilize NGOand privatestakeholdersand officialdevelopmentassistancepartners towork hand-in-hand withthe DPWHand othergovernmentstakeholderagencies inenhancing de-livery of qual-ity nationalroad services

through moreresponsive,efficient andtransparentuse of publicresources

Minimizecorruption inDPWH

ParticipatoryMonitoring ofRoad Construc-tion Projects

Bantay Lansangan (Road Watch)

TAN – SecretariatMembers:Roads Users: (Allianceof Unified Transport andTelecom Organizations;Automobile Association ofthe Philippines; Federation ofJeepney Operators and Driver

Association of the PhilippinesInter City Bus OperatorsAssociation, Provincial BusOperators Association of thePhilippinesGovernance Advocates:Ateneo School of GovernmentGovernment Watch;Procurement Watch, Inc.;Concerned Citizens of Abrafor Good Government;

TAN;Investigative Journalism(observer)Road Service Providers:Confederation of FilipinoConsulting Organizationsof the Philippines; NationalConstructor Association ofthe Philippines; PhilippineConstructors AssociationNational Road AssetManagers: DPWHGovernment Partners: Officeof the Ombudsman; PAGCRegulators and Enforcers: LTCenters of Expertise: NationaCenter for TransportationStudies Road BoardPhilippine Construction




Classification/Type

Based onObjective


Local National

Provide capabilitytraining to vol-unteer observersand the membersof the BAC-Sec-retariat and TWGmembers on theGPRA and its IRRto serve deterrentto collusion, con-nivance and otheracts detrimentaland disadvanta-geous to govern-ment

Monitoring ofProcurement

BuildingBridgesTowards GoodGovernancewith LGUsand OtherGovernmentAgencies

Improve transpar-ency in the utiliza-tion of provincial

funds allotted tobarangays underthe Ugnayan ngBayan project ofthe Governor andhealth projects

Introduce moni-toring and evalu-ation of end usersto village levelinfrastructure

Establish stan-dards for trans-parency in theallocation and uti-lization of publicfunds at the locallevel

ParticipatoryMonitoring

ParticipatoryMonitoring ofInfrastructure

Projectsand DrugProcurementin PublicHospitals,Isabela

People’sAlliancefor Justice,

Democracyand GoodGovernance

Incite Gov




Classification/Type

Based onObjective

Objectives Focus SAc Practice Organizati

Local National

Build capacityof CSOs in localspecial bodies,specifically onbudgeting, projectmonitoring andimplementation

Influence LGUs

CSOs onParticipatoryLocalGovernance:ParticipatoryPlanning andBudgeting

Upscale capacitiesof CSO-BACobservers

Link BACobservers withtheir governmentcounterparts

Trainingof CSO-Observers inProcurement

Multi-SectoraCoalition AgaCorruption

Bring to the citygovernmentsectoral agendato empowercommunities

ParticipatoryPlanning andBudgeting

Naga People’Council and CGovernment



Pacico Ortiz Hall, Fr. Arrupe Road

Ateneo de Manila University

ANSA-EAP is currently hosted by

Ateneo School of Government

The Afliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacic (ANSA-EAP)is a networking facility for networks promoting the “social accountability” approach to goodgovernance. It provides capacity building through a learning-in-action approach and serves as aninformation gateway on social accountability tales, tools and techniques.

Social accountability is the process of constructive engagement between citizens and governmentin monitoring how government agencies and their ofcials, politicians, and service providers usepublic resources to deliver services, improve community welfare, and protect people’s rights.

The social accountability approach needs four basic conditions to work: a) organized, capablecitizen groups; b) responsive government; c) context and cultural appropriateness; and d) accessto information.

ANSA-EAP operates in a large and diverse region. It pursues a geographic strategy that currentlyputs priority on support and technical assistance to social accountability activities in Cambodia,Indonesia, Mongolia, and the Philippines. It also follows a thematic and sector strategy by supporting

mainly local social accountability efforts that deal with service delivery (education, health, localinfrastructure), procurement monitoring, the youth, extractive industries, and climate change.

57-1-4_Philippines_Scoping_Study.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 57-1-4_Philippines_Scoping_Study.pdf