Anti-Poverty Programs
Lessons From the SRC and NAPC Experiences
Download 143.88 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Interviews and Roundtable Discussions
- APPENDIX A The Social Reform Council
- APPENDIX B The National Anti-Poverty Commission
Lessons From the SRC and NAPC Experiences The experiences of the basic sectors in the SRC and NAPC do reveal some lessons that may be relevant to other attempts at government-basic sector engagement. Both cases reveal the difficulties that arise and the gains that can be obtained from such engagements. The basic sectors’ experiences validate the observation that government is inherently different from civil society and vice-versa. Differences arise due to varying perspectives on issues, approaches, strategies, and frameworks. It has also been said that government and civil society possess distinct cultures, and this is one factor that makes it difficult for each to work with one another. However, the SRA and NAPC experiences show that while the differences are real, it is possible for government and the basic sectors to come together and work towards a common goal. According to Ms. Llorin, while government is different from civil society and civil society is different from government, these two actors can still interface, and whenever and wherever such as interface is feasible, the opportunity must be maximized. The experience of Naga City in Camarines Sur, for instance, illustrates how objectives can be attained when government and civil society recognize each other as a partners in development, respect each other’s autonomy and integrity, and work hand-in-hand towards the realization of an agenda that both set together through a consultative and participatory decision-making process. Naga City is a pioneer in the area of formulating and implementing an empowerment ordinance that allowed basic sector representation in its decision-making structures. The success that Naga City has been able to achieve so far has not been extensively replicated in other LGUs. Nevertheless, it shows that government-basic sector engagement can be, and is actually being, done successfully. The Naga City experience can serve as a model for a government-basic sector interface which other LGUs can adopt.47 Some factors that allow for productive relations between the government and basic sectors are the openness of both sectors to work with one another, the willingness and ability to adjust to the peculiarities of each sector (i.e., flexiblity), respect for each other’s culture and viewpoints, and the ability to forge a consensus on a common framework which will guide their work.48 Another revelation has to do with the state of the basic sectors. The level of organization and preparedness to engage government differs among the basic sectors. While it took some sectors minimal time to organize themselves, elect their council members and leaders, and set up their agenda, the other sectors found all these a more difficult exercise to undertake. Those with previous experiences in dealing with government also had an easier time getting used to engaging their flagship champions or lead agencies. They were also more familiar with the workings of government and thus, were better able to make use of their partnership with government departments and agencies. In contrast, sectors that were less organized had to first deal with organizational and operational problems before they could even proceed with the more substantive aspects of their involvement in the SRC and NAPC. The agenda-setting and policy advocacy work usually had to take a back seat to other concerns such as electing their commissioners and council members. As such, the pace of the work, and consequently, accomplishments among the basic sectors varied from one sector to another.49 What this points to is that for the basic sectors to maximize their participation in multisectoral bodies such as the SRC and NAPC, they must do their homework and prepare for such an engagement.50 Moreover, by seriously preparing for engagement, the basic sectors will help convince the government that they are serious about participating in anti-poverty programs in particular and in governance in general. A third consideration has more to do with the NAPC itself that with the basic sectors. In the government’s policy pronouncement, President Estrada has articulated that the: [O]ur war on poverty is not just one program of government. It is the OVERRIDING business of the government itself. It is built into and embedded in our total economic and social programs. It defines and drives the substance, the content, and the heart and soul of our entire strategy of government (underscoring in the original).51 The problem however is that this pronouncement has not been matched by actions. The NAPC, which is supposed to be the government body that will coordinate all anti-poverty programs of the government, is organizationally and structurally weak as compared to the different implementing agencies. If the NAPC is to perform this function at all, then it has to be given the power to be able to make the different agencies follow its lead. As things stand now, the NAPC is unable to do this given that it lacks the technical, financial, and human resources that the departments boast of. Therefore, without President Estrada’s active intervention, the NAPC will not be able to coordinate the anti-poverty efforts of the government and each department will go about doing its own thing. Another contributory factor is that if poverty is indeed the overriding concern of government, then the underlying philosophy of government agencies must be anti-poverty. The programs, policies, and decisions of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government must be guided by this anti-poverty philosophy. However, before this can become reality, a major attempt at social engineering must be undertaken. This would involve, among other things, a major reorientation of the entire bureaucracy and leadership in order that positive changes can take place. But how feasible is it to achieve this goal within a period of six years?52 Hence, a key to the effective and efficient implementation of anti-poverty programs is the strengthening of the very institution that is supposed to handle all anti-poverty concerns of government. The SRC and NAPC are relatively novel experiments in the history of the Philippine government. They are government bodies, one established through an Executive Order while the other was created through a Republic Act, with both government and basic sector representation. The SRC sought to institutionalize basic sector representation and participation in government decision-making pertaining to anti-poverty programs and policies while the NAPC is an attempt to sustain this partnership. Given that these are efforts that are quite different from any ventures undertaken by government and the basic sectors before, it is but natural to expect that the journey will be anything but smooth and problem-free. However, while there have been several stumbling blocks along path of the SRC and NAPC, it is undeniable that several gains — symbolic or otherwise — have been made along the way. The next steps are to build on these gains and to deal with the challenges that have arisen and address these immediately so that the government and basic sectors can now focus their energies on the more important aspect of the work that lies ahead — implementing the various anti-poverty programs that will uplift the plight of the marginalized sectors of Philippines society. References De Dios, Emmanuel. “Can He Do It? Assessing the Estrada Administration’s Anti-Poverty Program.” Paper presented during the Philippine Political Science Association Annual Conference on the “Politics of Poverty and Poverty of Politics,” Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 23-24 July 1999. “Document Section: The Social Reform Agenda.” Philippine Journal for Public Administration XXXIX(2)(April 1995):218-229. “Document Section: Social Reform Agenda Implementing Mechanism.” Philippine Journal for Public Administration XXXIX(2)(April 1995):230-241. Estrada, President Joseph E. “State of the Nation Address: A Poverty-Free Philippines.” Speech delivered during the second session of the 11th Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, Quezon City, 26 July 1999. Lauzon, Memen L. “Assessing Ramos’ Social Reform Agenda.” Intersect 11(1)(January 1996):10-11 & 13. LaVinia, Emy. “Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation of the Ramos Administration.” Speech delivered during the Anti-Poverty Summit Meeting, Cebu City, 1996. Downloaded from http://www.gsilink.net/home/cebungos/poverty.htm on 29 July 1999. National Anti-Poverty Commission. “Media Release: Poor Rallies Behind Erap in Advancing the Poverty Eradication Program." 6 July 1999. __________. “NAPC: Organizing the Anti-Poverty Movement.” The Philippine Star Supplement, 25 September 1999. __________. Sourcebook on the Social Reform Agenda (Volume 1): Major Presidential Directives, 1992-1998. Manila: NAPC, 1998. __________. Sourcebook on the Social Reform Agenda (Volume 3): Social Legislation Initiatives During the 9th and 10th Philippines Congresses. Manila: NAPC, 1998. “The National Peace Conference and the Estrada Administration: What Happened to Erap’s Anti-Poverty Program?” Statement read by NPC Secretary-General Emil Yuson during the Philippine Political Science Association Annual Conference on “Politics of Poverty and Poverty of Politics,” Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 23-24 July 1999. National Peace Conference Technical Working Group. Social Reform Should Form the Core of Governance: The Basic Sectors’ Agenda for the Post-Ramos Administration. Quezon City: NPC, 1998. Republic of the Philippines. “Republic Act 8425: An Act Institutionalizing the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Program, Creating for the Purpose the National Anti-Poverty Commission, Defining Its Powers and Functions, and For Other Purposes.” 11 December 1997. __________. The Social Reform Agenda: Winning the Future. Quezon City: Social Reform Council Secretariat, n.d. Sta. Ana, Men. “Coming to Grips with Philippine Poverty.” Farm News and Views IX(1-2)(January-April 1996):6-11. Tordesillas, Ellen. “Poor Grade for a Pro-Poor President.” Politik 5(4)(May 1999):33-35. Interviews and Roundtable Discussions Interview with Engineer Alain Bustamante, NAPC, Malacañang, Manila, 3 September 1999. Inteviews with Ms. Jean Llorin, Bahay ng Alumni, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 9 August 1999 and Ateneo de Naga, Camarines Sur, 14 August 1999. Interview with Ms. Teresita Quintos-Deles, GZO Peace Institute, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, 4 November 1999. Interview with Ms. Karen Tañada, Women’s Action Development Network, Quezon City, 21 December 1999. Remarks by Mr. Emmanuel Buendia during a roundtable discussion on “Reflections on the Ramos Administration’s Social Reform Agenda,” Bahay ng Alumni, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 28 July 1999. Remarks by Commissioner Ana Maria Nemenzo during a roundtable discussion on “Women, Bureaucracy, and the Governance of Poverty,” Bahay ng Alumni, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 9 August 1999. Remarks by Ms. Teresita Quintos-Deles during a roundtable discussion on “Reflections on the Ramos Administration’s Social Reform Agenda: The NGO-PO Experience,” Center for Integrative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 15 September 1999. APPENDIX A The Social Reform Council President Fidel V. Ramos --- Chairperson DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao --- Vice-Chairperson and Lead Convenor Undersecretary Emmanuel E. Buendia --- Secretary-General
DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramos --- Protection of Ancestral Domains DSWD Secretary Lina B. Laigo --- Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) DOH Secretary Carmencita N. Reodica --- CIDSS DECS Secretary Erlinda D. Pefianco --- CIDSS HUDCC Chair Dionisio D. de la Serna --- Socialized Housing DOLE Secretary Cresenciano P. Trajano --- Workers Welfare and Protection and Livelihood DTI Secretary Cesar Bautista --- Livelihood DOF Secretary Salvador M. Enriquez --- Expansion of Credit LBP President Jesus Diaz --- Expansion of Credit DILG Secretary Epimaco A. Velasco --- Institution-Building and Effective Participation in Governance DOE Secretary Francisco L. Viray DOT Secretary Mina Gabor DND Secretary Fortunata U. Abat DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao DPWH Secretary Gregorio R. Vigilar DOJ Secretary Silvestre H. Bello DOST Secretary William G. Padolina Presidents of Leagues of Local Government Units Governor Robert O. Pagdanganan --- League of Provinces Mayor Agnes V. Devanadera --- League of Municipalities of the Philippines Mayor Jesse M. Robredo --- League of Cities Mr. James Marty Lim --- Liga ng mga Barangay Sectoral Representatives Engineer Benjamin Cruz --- Farmers Mr. Ronald L. Adamat --- Indigenous Peoples Mr. Charlie C. Capricho --- Fisherfolks Mr. Nicanor R. Salameda Jr. --- Urban Poor Ms. Jurgette M. Honculada --- Women Mr. Oscar J. Taleon --- Persons with Disabilities Ms. Armela C. Evardoloza --- Youth and Students Ms. Saturnina L. Hamili --- Children Ms. Ma. Mercedes I. Nicolas --- Informal Workers Mr. Vladimir R. Tupaz --- Organized Labor Mr. Juan Blenn I. Huelgas --- Disaster Victims Dr. Felix Gabriel --- Senior Citizens Ms. Teresita Quintos-Deles --- Non-Government Organizations Mr. Renato Florencio --- Business Sector APPENDIX B The National Anti-Poverty Commission President Joseph E. Estrada --- Chairperson DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales --- Lead Convenor and Head of the NAPC Secretariat Secretary Donna Z. Gasgonia --- Vice-Chairperson for the Government Sector Secretary Ana Maria Nemenzo --- Vice-Chairperson for the Basic Sectors
DBM Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno DOH Secretary Alberto G. Romualdez DILG Secretary Alfredo Lim DOF Secretary Jose Pardo DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales DOLE Secretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma DSWD Secretary Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo DECS Secretary Andrew Gonzales DENR Secretary Antonio H. Cerilles NEDA Director General Felipe M. Medalla PCFC Chairperson Orlando J. Sacay PCUP Chairperson Donna Z. Gasgonia
Mayor Alipio F. Fernandez --- League of Cities Mayor Jinggoy E. Estrada --- League of Municipalities of the Philippines Brgy. Captain James Marty L. Lim --- Liga ng mga Barangay Basic Sector Commissioners Mr. Romulo Tapayan --- Farmers Mr. Bonifacio Federizo --- Fisherfolks Ms. Cynthia Villarin --- Urban Poor Mr. Mariano Pagang --- Indigenous Peoples Mr. Arnold de Guzman --- Workers in the Formal Sector Ms. Julie Diez --- Workers in the Informal Sector Ms. Ana Maria Nemenzo --- Women Mr. Arnold Obina --- Youth and Students Mr. Ricardo Calapatia --- Persons with Disabilities Mr. Juan Blenn Huelgas --- Victims of Disasters and Calamities Mr. Pilimpinas Conding --- Senior Citizens Ms. Ana Marie Balayon --- Non-Government Organizations Mr. John Paul Claudio --- Children Mr. Myron Gawigawen --- Cooperatives 1 The term “basic sectors” is used in R.A. 8425 to refer to the disadvantaged sectors of Philippine society and these are the farmers-peasants, artisanal fisherfolks, workers in the formal sector and migrant workers, workers in the informal sector, indigenous peoples and cultural communities, women, differently-abled persons, senior citizens, victims of calamities and disasters, youth and students, children, and urban poor. Republic of the Philippines, “Republic Act 8425: An Act Institutionalizing the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation program, Creating for the Purpose the National Anti-Poverty Commission, Defining Its Powers and Functions, and For Other Purposes,” 11 December 1997, Section 3(a). 2 “Document Section: The Social Reform Agenda,” Philippine Journal for Public Administration XXXIX(2)(April 1995):221-229. 3 Almost three months after the issuance of E.O. 203, former President Ramos signed E.O. 217 in order to strength basic sector representation in the SRC. The new E.O. provided for the nominations and selection of additional non-government sectoral representatives to the SRC. Republic of the Philippines, The Social Reform Agenda: Winning the Future (Quezon City: Social Reform Council Secretariat, n.d.), pp. 3-4. 4 “Document Section: Social Reform Agenda Implementing Mechanism,” Philippine Journal for public Administration XXXIX(20(April 1995):235-236. 5 Republic of the Philippines, “Republic Act 8425 ...,” Section 3(b). 6 Republic of the Philippines, “Republic Act 8425 ...,” Section 7. 7 The jury is still out on whether the EPMP is a continuation of the Ramos administration’s SRA. According to NAPC National Coordinator for Basic Concerns Engr. Alain Bustamante, the NAPC has incorporated into its plans the basic premises and concerns of the SRA. There are, however, those who argue that the EPMP has only a few similarities with the SRA. According to an economist: “Even a cursory comparison of [the EPMP] with the SRA ... would suggest ... that the level of discourse is different. The SRA talks about generic reforms: social, economic, environmental, and governance-related, and therefore gives free rein as it were for society to continually renew itself. It therefore signals a basic openness to the idea that the basic sectors can and ought to push for social changes, even those not specifically mentioned in the law. By contrast, the EPMP is confused in placing on the same level what are presumably end-states (food security) as well as actions to achieve these (agriculture modernization) ... The contention that the EPMP is equivalent to the SRA and that therefore the legal mandate for the latter is transferred to the former is therefore certainly a logical and legal novelty.” Emmanuel S. de Dios, “Can He Do It?: Assessing the Estrada Administration’s Anti-Poverty Program,” paper presented at the Philippine Political Science Association Annual Conference on the “Politics of Poverty and Poverty of Politics, Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 23-24 July 1999. 8 President Joseph E. Estrada, “State of the Nation Address: A Poverty-Free Philippines,” speech delivered during the second session of the 11th Congress of the Phlippines, Quezon City, 26 July 1999, p. 6. 9 National Anti-Poverty Commission, “NAPC: Organizing the Anti-Poverty Movement,” The Philippine Star Supplement, 25 September 1999, p. 16. 10 Remarks by Commissioner Ana Maria Nemenzo during a roundtable discussion on “Women, Bureaucracy, and the Governance of Poverty”, Bahay ng Alumni, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 9 August 1999. 11 National Anti-Poverty Commission, “Media Release: Poor Rallies Behind Erap in Advancing the Poverty Eradication Program,” 6 July 1999, p. 2. 12 Remarks by Ms. Teresita Quintos-Deles during a roundtable discussion on “Reflections of the Ramos Administration’s Social Reform Agenda: The NGO-PO Experience,” Center for Integrative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 15 September 1999. 13 Republic of the Philippines, The Social Reform Agenda ..., pp. 1-2. 14 Social Reform Council, “Basic Sector Counterpart Council: Organization Mechanism and Guidelines,” 1996, pp. 23-31. 15 National Anti-Poverty Commission, Sourcebook on the Social Reform Agenda (Volume 1): Major Presidential Directives, 1992-1998 (Manila: NAPC, 1998), p. 92. 16 Ibid., pp. 71-72. 17 National Peace Conference Technical Working Group, Social Reform Should Form the Core of Governance: The Basic Sectors’ Agenda for the Post-Ramos Administration (Quezon City: National Peace Conference, 1998), pp.10-11. 18 However, according to Ms. Quintos-Deles, while asset reform was included in the SRA, the focus of government efforts was on the delivery of basic social services and the implementation of the Minimum Basic Needs (MBN) approach. One reason why this shift from asset reform to social services took place was the realization that the government was not yet prepared for asset reform. Remarks by Ms. Quintos-Deles, 15 September 1999. 19 The NPC, based at the Social Development Complex at the Ateneo de Manila University, is an organization committed to creating peaceful paths to peace. Its mission is to fulfill the basic sectors’ agenda through direct engagement and advocacy of the basic peace agenda with the government and other concerned parties. Among the NPC’s programs are advocacy of the basic sectors’ political and economic issues, support for direct and genuine sectoral representation in governance, and cooperation and joint action among civil society networks. 20 Remarks by Ms. Quintos-Deles, 15 September 1999. 21 Ibid. 22 Memen L. Lauzon, “Assessing Ramos’ Social Reform Agenda,” Intersect 11(1)(January 1996):13. One should note that this assessment was made in 1996, less than two years after the SRA was adopted and the SRC established. Therefore, it is understandable why the mechanisms for information dissemination and coordination were not yet fully institutionalized. These observations are cited in this case study to reveal the difficulties and challenges that the SRC had to deal with during its initial years of existence. 23 Ten SRA priority bills were identified by the SRC and both government and the basic sectors lobbied for the passage of these bills. The priority bills included the following: (1) Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation; (2) Fisheries Code; (3) Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act; (4) bill to repeal the Anti-Squatting Law; (5) bill on increasing the Agrarian Reform Fund; (6) Land and Water Use Code; (7) Anti-Rape bill; (8) Child and Family Courts Act bill; (9) Agricultural Modernization and Irrigation Crisis Act bill; and (10) bill on the Magna Carta for Students. Out of the ten, only the Land and Water Use Code and the Magna Carta for Students have not been passed yet. National Anti-Poverty Commission, Sourcebook on the Social Reform Agenda (Volume 3): Social Legislation Initiatives During the 9th and 10 Directory: files -> dmfile files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations dmfile -> Brazilian innovation in the global automotive value chain: Implications of the organisational decomposition of the innovation process Research Report prepared Download 143.88 Kb. Share with your friends:
|