UP THIRD WORLD STUDIES CENTER: July 2006

25 July 2006 (Tuesday) 1:00-4:00 p.m. Balay Kalinaw University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City

SPEAKERS

WILFREDO B. PRILLES JR.
Co-Team Leader of the i-Governance Program
City Government of Naga

FRANCISCO A. MAGNO
Associate Professor of Political Science and Development Studies
De La Salle University-Manila

EDNA MAGUIGAD
Coordinator
Local Governance Program
Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal

Moderator
JORGE V. TIGNO
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman

RATIONALE

Decentralization as a framework of governance is viewed as a tool to further strengthen capacities of both government and nongovernment actors in engaging each other in directing local development. This encourages participation of stakeholders at the local level, specifically the marginalized sectors, thus allowing them to play vital roles in processes that may include local development planning and implementation, setting up conflict resolution strategies, and resource management. This establishes collective ownership of the development process. In the human security discourse, stakeholder participation in decision-making processes creates an enabling environment where marginal groups can have a voice and conflicts are resolved peaceably among various interest groups.

In the Philippines, the Local Government Code of 1991 enshrines the governance framework of decentralization to strengthen the role of local governments in contributing to the goal of national development. Section 28 of the Code specifically mandates the representation of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) in decision-making processes in the provincial, municipal, and city structures.

More than a decade since the decentralization experiment was implemented, recognition has been given to local governments where significant positive changes in their localities have taken place. Case studies have been written about “best practices” in good governance; various good governance models are documented for possible replication. Participation of marginalized sectors–women, children, elderly, and differently abled, among others–has also been highlighted as one of the major breakthroughs with the implementation of the Code.

OBJECTIVE

Focusing on the governance dimension of human security, this second installment of the series seeks to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and experience on how “best practices” in local governance promote and protect human security particularly of marginalized sectors.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

The second session of the Policy Dialogue Series 2006 aims to elucidate issues surrounding the nexus of human security and governance under the Local Government Code. Among these include:

What are the salient provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991?
What can be learned from the Code’s potentials and limitations in relation to human security?
How can existing structures and processes be constituted or further strengthened to ensure meaningful participation, especially of marginalized sectors in local governance?
How can a human security framework be integrated in the existing local governance framework to further promote the participation of marginalized sectors?
How can various governance actors be involved in the process of integrating human security in the governance framework?
Where can human security be positioned especially in the current proposal to change the Charter?

PROCEEDINGS

WILFREDO PRILLES JR. (Co-Team Leader, i-Governance Project, City Government of Naga):

Participatory local governance in Naga came at a time when the Local Government Code (LGC) was not yet passed. There was no mandate for local government units to engage with nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs). During this time, the euphoria behind the People Power revolution was high. Various groups were trying to build and capitalize on the euphoria to push the agenda forward–that is, to institutionalize the concept of "people power" more concretely in the bureaucracy.

The story of the local government of Naga is an evolving journey in good urban governance. Eighty years ago, we are just one of the small and faceless urban centers south of Manila. Over the last 18 years, we were able to build a niche of our own through five essential steps. One, which took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, is to engage with civil society. I think it was one of the most critical decisions made during the first term of Mayor Jesse Robredo. Then, we institutionalized the participation of civil society in governance processes. The experience enabled us to come to our own homegrown governance model.

The first three steps essentially focus on organized groups. At present, we are trying to develop alternative means of engaging with individual citizens, knowing that there are citizens who do not want to get involved in organized groups or associations. Finally, we are trying to institutionalize participation in the local planning machinery of the city, which led me to be re-assigned to the Local Planning Office. Prior to the now popular Naga City People’s Council (NCPC), we created a council made up of a loose coalition of NGOs and POs. The council sought to work with the City Hall in maximizing the potential of the local government council.

The effort to bring in organized sectors in Naga was not ours but of local civil society groups. Active NGOs in the area like the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas played an important role in these initiatives. The group’s effort established the city’s engagement with local NGOs and POs, facilitated by what we call an "open city hall."

The NCPC was given impetus by a civil society organization that was ready and a city government that was also willing to listen. The engagement and discussion concretely led to the formation of Kaantabay sa Kauswagan (Partner in Progress) Program that addressed the needs of the urban poor. The urban poor, who comprised 25 percent of our residents, was a growing concern at that time. As the program progressed, nine associations developed, with the facilitation of Community Organizers of the Philippines Enterprises (COPE).

At that time, we realized that community organization was not the core competency of the city government. Furthermore, people, especially in the low-income communities, did not trust the government. Thus, we allowed COPE to assume the organizing work. Having been organized, the urban poor became empowered. The urban poor had a voice.

Kaantabay sa Kauswagan was essentially a social housing program, anchored on the goal of securing tenural rights for the urban poor. Tenural right was accomplished by acquiring occupied land holdings. As much as possible, we veered away from relocation, although over time it became an inevitable solution. We did on-site acquisitions through various innovative schemes—land sharing, land swap, among others.

These strategies have long been institutionalized. Former President Ferdinand Marcos came out with a series of issuances on how this can be carried out, but these remained in paper. In our case, the strategies became reality.

The housing program is designed such that, when negotiations are completed, beneficiaries could amortize home lots under affordable terms through community mortgage. Community mortgage makes the amortization cost of home lots very affordable. If a household has paid but the entire community has not done so, the transfer of title to the beneficiary would be withheld. Once the land holdings are fully paid, property right to the home lot is transferred to the beneficiary. There is a mother title, which is subdivided into individual households.

At the very start, we already implemented participatory strategies. We were not really into theories of participation then. We just approached the situation through gut feel and trial-and-error efforts. We pursued the things that worked and abandoned those that did not. One of the things that worked was community organizing. From nine organizations in 1989, there were about 80 urban poor associations in 1995.

We recognized that these associations have a role to play in the development of the city. Involvement of the urban poor is part of the concept of "tripartism." This mechanism enabled the involved parties–cities and national government agencies, urban poor association aided by NGOs and POs, as well as the private landowners–to try to reason together, come into the bargaining table, and try to do something about the collective decision.

Urban poor organizations were represented in the Urban Development Housing Board, the policymaking entity for housing and urban development, as well as in the NCPC. The NCPC appoints NGO representatives, while the City Hall can only appoint ministerially upon the recommendation of NCPC. NCPC representatives can both observe and participate up to the committee level. They can propose legislation and act as the people’s representative in the exercise to right to information. This led to the People Empowerment ordinance—a menu of the mechanisms through which people, individually and collectively, can participate. It took the form of multilevel consultation mechanisms, consultations in the barangay (village), and referendum on development issues, showing that it can work at such size and scope. It eventually led to the birth of the Empowerment Ordinance, which concretized the NCPC.

Over a seven-year period, we were able to develop a governance approach built on participation, partnership, and the progressive perspective. Participation includes mechanisms that ensure the long-term sustainability of local undertakings. In terms of function, partnerships enable us to do more with less. The progressive perspective is the approach of management to seek prosperity but to temper it with an enlightened perception of the poor. This model was utilized in all government programs that were initiated since then.

Ideally, planning is the first step in undertaking a program or project. But we took the opposite course and we are now trying to fix the planning process. We are currently updating our plans within a nine-year timetable; we are fully cognizant that we should attain some targets in line with the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Our challenge is to revisit outputs, refine the target sets, and align these plans towards 2015 to attain these targets. Our approach is to tap existing mandated councils to come up with sectoral components of the local plans.

There is already more than adequate government and civil society representation in this approach. This enables us to establish baseline data, assess needs, craft programs, projects and activities that will respond to these targets, cost this out and lay out a 9- to 10-year plan that we can use to monitor and evaluate performance. The City Development Council is used as framework for the planning process, but the approach involves consultation by subsectors—children, women, senior citizens, among others, are consulted and involved in making the plans. The approach has advantages in terms of participation and generating higher data quality because stakeholders have the opportunity to validate and reconcile official and unofficial data. There is shared ownership and responsibility over output plans.

What are the factors behind Naga City’s success? Undoubtedly, Mayor Robredo played a key role as a progressive local chief executive who guided us for 15 years. However, we should not overlook the efforts of the active civil society organizations (CSOs) in Naga. Without the people and the CSOs in the city, Mayor Robredo would not be able to do it. What is very important in Naga City’s success is leadership continuity along with the same management team. We have a competent bureaucracy and outstanding mid-level management. But our willingness and readiness to push the envelope of local autonomy is the most important factor. For instance, we adopted the perspective that ‘what the law did not explicitly prohibit, it allows,’ which enabled us to do something with the school board. Since the LGC does not prohibit participative budgeting, we used the budget, and in so doing gained wonderful outcomes.

There are very good opportunities for mainstreaming participation. We have the policy environment and Supreme Court rulings affirming local autonomy, as well as support systems that can reinforce good practices in participation. But there are continuing challenges insofar as Philippine decentralization is concerned. To our mind, decentralization transformed government’s structure from a vertical, top-down orientation, towards a broad-based approach. We do not have solid data to back up this claim but this is our gut feel: decentralization contributes to the tremendous resilience of the Filipinos. True, we were met with crisis after crisis, but some self-reliant communities also emerged. Innovation is limited to a few it seems, so we are compelled to come up with various ways of developing more self-reliant communities and not only depend on the internal revenue allotment.

In a way, the national government contributes to the slow progress of decentralization. There is lack of focus and weak policy support at the national level. National government competes with local government units (LGUs) in service delivery, which should not be the case. In the principle of subsidiarity, we are closest to the clients we serve; therefore, we should be given the opportunity to do so. National agencies, on the other hand, should focus on quality assurance, but they should also be complemented with an effort towards best practice-driven policymaking.

FRANCISCO MAGNO (Associate Professor, Political Science and Development Studies, De La Salle University–Manila):

The concept of human security addresses non-traditional threats to people’s security. This is precisely why we are talking of security issues in local governance.

There is a very thin line dividing human security and human development precisely because of poor governance. As consequence, there is a real threat to the livelihood of people. The security of individuals is no longer defined exclusively within the realm of the nation-state. Thus, efforts should really be done on the local level.

The origins of today’s security are diverse and can be found in social, economic, and environmental factors. Security is also increasingly transcending state borders, as can be found in local areas. Nonetheless, the repercussions are global in scale.

Human security threats often impact the marginalized and vulnerable sectors including women, children, and indigenous peoples. Concretizing the concept of human security on the ground requires the participation of multiple stakeholders. Civil society can help address human security threats by promoting responsiveness, transparency, and accountability in governance.

Local politics is often viewed in terms of factionalism, bossism, and patronage. In reality, local politics develops through simultaneous developments. Participation exists alongside patronage politics. But we are more interested in moving forward, and installing reforms and participatory processes at the local level. That is why we recognize the changing landscape in many local areas.

The example of Naga City is well known in terms of the good practices developed over a long period of time. The transformation of local politics through participatory tools and active civil society participation since 1987 led to a new legislation–the LGC–and a multistakeholder processes, which provided the window for local participation.

The LGC was enacted in 1991 but it took some time before local practices were developed. The democratization process in the Philippines since 1986 has been characterized by the increased participation of NGOs in promoting good governance. In the past, NGOs usually referred to an oppositional brand of politics. But opportunities for engagement at the local level emerged, so that the concept of NGOs gradually changed. NGOs and POs claim to represent the marginalized sectors in civil society. The demands for further accountability and transparency in local governance served as impetus for civil society participation and the LGC facilitated these mechanisms for civil society participation in governance.

Minimum conditions for civil society to flourish include the existence of democratic space and citizens’ vigilance in resisting exclusionary processes. The demand for decentralization and participation is also fuelled by efforts to apply the principles of efficiency and subsidiarity. We know that local mechanisms for participation include local initiative, referendum, and civil society participation in local development councils and bodies. The latter includes the local health board, local school boards, local peace and order councils, local pre-qualification, awards committees and other special bodies.

Participatory governance through barangay governance is provided for under the law. The consent of the barangay is required before any development project in the local area is undertaken. Public participation extends to all stages, from project planning to implementation to project monitoring and evaluation. But we are not limited to the LGC because participatory governance mechanisms are embodied in other laws, such as the 1992 National Integrated Protected Areas Act, providing for the Protected Area Management Boards; the 1997 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, providing for Ancestral Domain Management Board; and the 1998 Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act, providing for Fisheries, Farming, and Aquatic Resources Management Board.

Let me go to the rationale for participatory local governance in addressing human security. Responsive good governance is required in ensuring human security. As such, human security issues can be contextualized at the local level.

Addressing human security threats requires participation from various social domains. The most vulnerable and marginalized sectors are women, children, indigenous peoples, disabled, agricultural workers, and others. Local governance mechanisms can facilitate their participation in addressing such cross-cutting issues as health, environment, social justice, and poverty, which pose threats to lives and livelihoods.

One of the key efforts of civil society to engage in governance at level of the barangay is called the Barangay Training and Management or BATMAN. The program enables both civil society and local officials to understand and actually introduce participatory processes in local development planning. This kind of project increases the residents’ familiarity of formal and informal governance processes. It is a capacity-building effort that is very much integrated in the planning process. Under this project, a barangay training manual was developed as a tool for participatory local governance interventions and the conduct of a basic orientation on barangay governance.

The people are involved in the making of the Barangay Development Plan. The Barangay Development Plan is made to go through a participatory planning process. The plan then goes up to the municipal or city level. The key idea is to develop capacity at the lowest level for the people to participate in prioritization of development projects including budgeting. Under the local development planning process, 20 percent of the budget has to go through the process of participation.

People’s perception of the importance of transparency in barangay governance is very important. Participatory local governance can encourage public participation through increased levels of awareness and acceptance of the roles and responsibilities of local officials. It places more pressure on officials to perform better and deliver outputs, and helps in identifying clear goals for programs and projects to be undertaken. It increases the capacity of the barangay to source out funds to support projects and enhance consultation to ensure sustainability through the sharing of resources.

One of the key concepts integrated into the planning process is the idea of leveraging—making claims, for instance, to the pork barrel, which in many situations are allotted to projects that are identified by the legislators’ staff. But because of the participatory planning process, the people themselves at the barangay, municipal or city level are able to identify the types of projects they want. In this regard, one of the changes we have seen is the integration of people’s priorities in municipal or city level plans. Instead of the multitudes of basketball courts and waiting sheds being constructed, the list of priorities of the people are now being addressed, depending on the type of barangay. To cite a case: in one barangay in Claveria, Misamis Occidental, the concerns of the people are integrated into the local development planning process.

By activating participatory processes in the local development council, CSOs actually practice a form of sectoral representation: they organize people and mobilize them to be part of the project development process. Such efforts, however, still fall short of formal local sectoral representation since we still have no enabling law for that.

There are existing mechanisms like local development councils through which civil society can participate, but more skills and capacity-building efforts have to be employed. Commitment is not enough to help the marginalized sectors. It is important to build their capacities, empower and enable them to identify priorities for their development.

EDNA MAGUIGAD (Coordinator, Local Governance Unit, Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal [SALIGAN]):

One of the more innovative provisions of the LGC is the provision calling for local sectoral representation (LSR). LSR is a mechanism or system in local governance where representatives from local sectoral groups are elected to sit as members of the local sanggunian (council) in the municipal, city, or provincial level.

The principle of LSR is not new in the Philippines; the ratification of the 1987 Constitution elevated it into constitutional mandate. Back in 1987, representatives from the urban poor, women, and persons with disability were appointed by the President to sit as sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives. Eventually, the party-list system came into effect in 1995.

As we know, sectoral representation is not only limited to the national level. Article 10, Section 9 of the Constitution provides that local legislative bodies shall have sectoral representation as may be provided by law. Section 9 also implements two other provisions of the 1987 Constitution, strengthening the role of people’s participation in local governance. Article 1, Section 41 (c) of the LGC also provides that there should be, in addition to the regular members of the sanggunian, at least three sectoral representatives–one from the women sector, one from the workers and one from the sector to be determined by the sanggunian.

Local sectoral representation is an essential democratic principle under the LGC. It feeds into local governance reforms and fulfils the good governance requirement, which specifies that marginalized and underrepresented sectors should be represented and enabled to participate in local legislative processes. Thus, LSR is expected to enhance local legislation. In pushing for political-electoral reforms, issues brought to fore by sectoral representatives can now be integrated in the local legislative agenda. LSR likewise departs from the personality-based brand of Philippine politics.

Why, then, is LSR not yet practiced at the local level? The absence of an enabling law to implement it can be traced to sheer technicality and objections. One of the objections to LSR is the additional funding required to implement it. However, this should not be an issue with the LSR as having constitutional mandate. We have an accommodation clause to address the issue of financing the election of additional members of the sanggunian. The inclusion of local sectoral representatives for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-class municipalities shall not increase the number of seats in the sanggunian as presently provided by law, unless an LGU passes a resolution stating that they have available funds for the election of such additional seats.

Salient Features of the Local Sectoral Representation Bill

Article 1, Section 41 (c) of the LGC mandates the appropriation of three seats for marginalized sectors in the sanggunian––one from the women, one from the workers, and one from any of the following marginalized sectors (hereinafter referred to as the "third sector"): indigenous peoples, differently abled persons, senior citizens, victims of calamities and natural disasters, children, urban poor, and any other sectors as may be determined by the sanggunian.

Under the proposed LSR bill, organizations and coalitions–not individuals–can run as candidates to veer away from personality politics. The organization or coalition must submit three nominees following a set of qualifications. An elected sectoral representative who changes his/her organizational affiliation during the course of his/her term forfeits his/her seat. The first election is proposed to be simultaneously held with the May 2007 local elections. Sectoral representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries, emoluments, rights and benefits as other sanggunian members as they serve as representatives of the people. It will be unconstitutional if they are not afforded the same because of the equal protection clause.

Local Sectoral Representation: The Unfulfilled Mandate

The LSR remains to be an unfulfilled mandate mainly because there is no enabling law. While the LGC identifies the sectors, there is no provision on how the representative will be elected, the manner of election, how the sectoral organization will be registered, and when the election should be held. Section 41 (c) of the LGC states that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) shall issue the guidelines for the election of sectoral representative. In the 1990s, however, two Comelec circulars pertaining to local sectoral representation was not put into effect because of opposition from the Philippine Councilors League and the League of Municipalities. In 1998, the LSR election was suspended. While Republic Act 7887 amending the synchronized law of 1991 provided that the issuance of said guidelines must be in accordance with an enabling law, the Comelec could not issue the guidelines because Congress is yet to pass the enabling law.

Another issue is that some LGUs do not have additional resources to implement the LSR. This, however, is disputed by a 2000 study conducted by the Task Force LSR with the help of the Evelio Javier Foundation. The study asserts that there really is no budget deficit in all levels of the LGU. In fact, there was a PHP 6.8 billion budget surplus. All it takes is PHP 1 billion for local sectoral representatives to be elected in all levels of the sanggunian in the city, municipal, and provincial levels. We should look at it as an investment rather than as an expenditure because LSR can curb local-level corruption and can be a means to shorten the process of consultation.

At present, we have three bills pending in the Senate and the House of Representatives introduced by Senators Francis Pangilinan, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, and Jinggoy Estrada in the Senate, and representatives from the Lower House. But almost a year after these were called out in the Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws and Codes, another committee hearing is yet to be called to discuss the bill. Another challenge would be the charter change. In both the House and Consultative Commission versions that was issued December 2005, the local sectoral representative provision was cropped out of the 1987 constitution.

Campaigning for the LSR Bill

Our campaign initiatives include urging LGUs to pass a resolution in support of the LSR bill. We also continuously lobby and network with key legislators and government officials, conduct information and education campaign in local communities, and focus our campaign on enacting a local sectoral representative ordinance in the LGUs. Right now, the local government of Naga is in the process of enacting an ordinance implementing Section 457 (B) of the LGC, which is the election of sectoral representatives. The third sectoral representative in Naga will be coming from the agricultural sector. Other similar initiatives are being undertaken in Mindanao like in Cotabato and Agusan to replicate the Naga experience of passing their own versions of the People Empowerment Ordinance.

DINA DELIAS (Teaching Fellow, Department of Political Science, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy [CSSP], UP-Diliman):

How exactly do you model and encourage individual participation? What are the alternatives in instances when municipalities do not have people who have the necessary skills to be part of local special bodies; for instance, the lack of accountants in the area?

WILFREDO PRILLES JR.:

We realized that services are the interface between individual households and citizens, and their government. We tried to make public service delivery more transparent. We came up and published what we call the Naga City Citizens Charter, which is updated every three years as the law requires. The charter spells out the procedures in the provision of services, identifies those responsible for the delivery of the service, and the time required for the delivery of services. This should ideally be circulated among the 26,000 households. So far, the city government has produced only 5,000 copies. We have realized that it is better to publish it in the local language and broken down into useful forms. You must give a whole range of options to the citizens of the city.

We are also trying to push for the development of information and communications technology (ICT) to help us make service delivery more efficient. We have developed our own program that can do modular applications using the ICT resources of the city. Information will be directly routed to service providers so they will be able to respond better. This is in addition to the website that has the digital equivalence of the charter and all other information about Naga.

In choosing sectoral representatives, we rely on the wisdom of the NCPC. The city mayor’s duty to appoint representatives selected by the NCPC is only ministerial. It is entirely within the province of NCPC to determine who their representatives will be. This is how local civil society can check government and curb the excesses of the state.

EDNA MAGUIGAD:

SALIGAN and the Alternative Law Group conduct legal education in the form of paralegal formation. Through paralegal formation, representatives from different sectors with paralegal training are able to advocate their sectoral concerns. Trainees also undergo legal education, including basic training on local governance, skills training, and thematic training. One of the trainings they undergo is on People’s Participation in Local Governance. Through this, they are expected to have the capacity to check on transparency and accountability at the barangay level. Most of the paralegals we have trained have evolved into barangay and municipal officials.

FRANCISCO MAGNO:

Regarding the absence of qualified professionals in local special bodies, let me cite the case of Concerned Citizens of Abra on Good Governance (CCAGG). The local bidding and awards committee is an important area of engagement for civil society organizations. Much as they want to participate in this form of engagement, CCAGG members have little knowledge of auditing procedures. To address this problem, CCAGG leveraged the fact that they are organized to gain financial support from the Commission on Audit and the United Nations Development Programme for in-house participatory audit trainings. For its accomplishments, CCAGG has been recognized as an accredited NGO participant in this type of local governance activity.

Participatory audit is like bringing activism in the boardroom. Still, skills are necessary to work in the boardroom. One cannot do sloganeering in a procurement meeting.

I believe it is necessary to have a local governance network of civil society organizations that are able to engage in participatory auditing. In so doing, best practices can be shared and replicated.

GILBERT LOZADA (Professor, Ateneo School of Government, Ateneo de Manila University):

What are the likely implications of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s supraregionalization to the development activities of Naga City? If at all, how are you going to localize it?

WILFREDO PRILLES JR.:

For so long we have operated on the principle to really allow local governments to flourish. The benefits of the supraregion can or cannot happen, but we will endeavor to do our obligation to Naga and build a livable and sustainable urban community.

FRANCIS CUPANG (Community Organizing Coordinator, Coalition of Services for the Elderly):

If the process of participation can be done in Naga City, why did it not happen in other places? How do we change our politicians’ appreciation of participation?

FRANCISCO MAGNO:

According to an assessment, only 25 percent of all LGUs in the Philippines are actually having quality civil society participation in local governance. Perhaps we need to distinguish between the replication of best practices and mainstreaming them. We have to elevate the discourse from "best practices" to "mainstreaming" because we already have a lot of best and good practices. The question now should be: How do we mainstream these practices?

First, we have to consider the enabling factors. Perhaps, by looking at these factors, we can venture into broader areas like electoral reform. Second, it is very important to look at the quality of elected local leadership as well as the quality of civil society in that area. If that type of synergy is absent then it becomes a confrontational type of engagement. However, if the local government is not open to engagement, civil society should not simply stop. Civil society’s role is to adapt to situations like this and continue their efforts.

NICOLAS TORRE III (Chief of Operations, Quezon City Police District):

Is there a common definition of security? During the time of former President Fidel Ramos, there was this concept of national security with seven elements. Are we still adopting this concept?

FRANCISCO MAGNO:

When we talk of human security, we are perhaps considering the term conflict prevention and management, which is the role of local governance. We might be thinking of community policing type of activities, like the local peace and order council. The council involves the local government, the civilian population, and the community. There is an established set of norms regarding how conflict is managed.

Another example of human security is disaster management. It requires the participation of the police force and the military but it has to be under the leadership of maybe the mayor or the governor.

Human security requires good governance because a lot of threats take place due to poor governance. Addressing human security with local governance as a mechanism may adopt good environmental governance in disaster-prone areas as a response.

EDNA MAGUIGAD:

SALIGAN’s definition of security is to have a Philippine society where man can live fully, a society without discrimination, and without poverty. Being lawyers seeking alternatives, we use the law creatively and our legal resources to advocate for particular issues. An example would be the expansion of the role of barangay captains because of laws that were recently passed by Congress. With the passage of the law on Violence against Women and Children in March 2004, barangay captains now have the power to issue a barangay protection order. We embarked on a nationwide information dissemination campaign to teach barangay officals and other paralegals on how to draft a barangay protection order. Other laws that expanded the roles of barangay authorities include the Anti-Trafficking against Women and Children Law, the Juvenile Justice Law, among others. For purposes of public information and assistance, we began offering our legal services. We are also train paralegals to do the work at the barangay level.

NICOLAS TORRE III:

Having worked with the local government and its officials in the area of peace and order, the problem with decentralization is that the broad strokes is not felt on the ground. Local government officials are supposedly the implementors, and policymakers at the same time. But do they understand the broad strokes of decentralization? What are the measures for barangay captains, for instance, to understand that what they are doing is part of the bigger picture?

WILFREDO PRILLES JR.:

About the lingering lack of participation in some areas, I think the key lies in the people themselves. At the end of the day, it is the people who elect these leaders.

Often, we hear of big words such as human security and national security. When you go to the local level, you do not see statistics, but people suffering and facing their own challenges. I think it helps that from time to time, you keep abreast with developments in the intellectual field. These fresh ideas help us when we continue doing our job in our hometowns. At the end of the day, human security will be measured by how you will uplift the last individual citizen that is marginalized in your community.

Participation is a two-way process. People choose the ones to lead them, while these leaders see how individual citizens are coping and how the community collectively propose solutions to overcome local problems. For local officials to understand the broad strokes of decentralization, the long-term responsibility that we are trying to do is to educate them on matters of participation. Education is the key to secure Naga’s future.

EDNA MAGUIGAD:

The key to Naga’s success is the 100 percent support of the sanggunian for initiatives such as the Naga People Empowerment Ordinance.

DANTE ANG II (President and Chief Executive Officer, The Manila Times):

Mr. Prilles said that part of the success of Naga City is creativity in the enforcement of laws. If you ever encountered problems with the laws, how were the programs in Naga run? How were you able to delineate the responsibilities of the barangay vis-à-vis the local government, and vice-versa?

IWAN SOETJAJHA (President, Health All Development International Foundation [HADI]):

We in HADI feel that if we want to solve our current problems, we have to look at human security in a very broad way. Hence, we view security in terms of health because it is the one sector that covers or relates to all other sectors.

We believe that we have to exert influence at the level of policy and regulation. We have adopted the approach of encouraging people to change the economic system to a more human-oriented, well-being related system. This way, our policies will be geared towards improving human development.

In the beginning, we thought about human happiness but since we have no mechanism for developing happiness, we have found, in our opinion, that focusing on health allows a holistic way of addressing issues concerning physical, mental, and social well-being. We know that to change a system is not easy because it involves changing the people themselves. We have many sectors, all of which have to function. If we use health development as the overarching system, that means we have to change the health paradigm.

The economic sector claims to solve our problems through equity in economy. Equity in economy can never happen, but equity in health can because the conditions for being healthy are the same.

First, we need to re-evaluate the policies and regulations of the government to make sure that we are going in the right direction–that these improve our conditions. Then, we have to have the right activities through the local government. We do not propose to create new organizations, but work with existing ones in the villages with the help of the local government.

DIVINA LUZ LOPEZ (Civil Society Organizations Adviser, Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program):

I was struck by the point made by Dr. Magno about mainstreaming applicable good practices. The goal is to create opportunities where advocacies for human security are really mainstreamed in government policies and programs, especially at the local level. It is true that you will see participation at its most optimal at the barangay level because it is where people are really organized. But we should not also neglect the fact that there are parallel processes, for example, development plans that also occur at the municipal and provincial levels.

Since the time we started innovations in governance at the barangay level, how much have we achieved? It is good that tools are being developed to help us expand people’s participation, not only in terms of budget processes at the local level, but most of all in terms of making sure that projects and programs are really human security-oriented or compliant, at the very least. We need to go a step further.

We may be very good at convincing barangays and LGUs to allocate their legal resources for projects; we were able to influence them to prioritize. However, it would also be better if these programs and projects that were funded from the barangay to the municipal and provincial level are responsive to the needs and concerns of indigenous peoples, the urban poor, women and childen, among other sectors.

It is not enough that we are able to integrate good practices in the local government’s investment program, the Annual Investment Plan. We have to make sure that money has been allocated to projects that have been implemented well. Participation can take place in this process through monitoring bodies for project and program innovation. It would be a lot better if we can enrich the tools of development and participation beyond influencing budget priorities and plans.

With regards supraregionalization, which the national government is promoting, it does not happen at the barangay level or the municipal level. This takes place in the level of regions. I think the most strategic level for people’s participation, in terms of intervention in government plans, for example, is at the provincial level. The challenge is how we get to that level by influencing or, at the very least, providing inputs to local government decision making at the provincial level.

How effective the LGC is in terms of participation in governance depends on how it made an impact on human security. I think it is also very important to try to explore avenues that go beyond policy, which should involve the issue of what mechanisms should be adopted at the lower level.

In our experience working with various NGO and PO networks, our assessment showed that in areas where there is strong NGO and PO participation, executive legislative agenda (ELA) were crafted partly because of the inputs that have been shared by CSOs. In 2007, the Department of Interior and Local Government will be releasing a policy circular that will oblige LGUs to develop their ELA for 2007-2010. It will be a very good opportunity for NGOs to be involved in that process.

We should bear in mind the factors needed to make this happen. It was mentioned that an open and a developmental mindset of local government officials, with the aid and participation of the community, make for a good process or a good output in the ELA.

WILFREDO PRILLES JR.:

Earlier, it was pointed out that health should be the crucial sector of society. I would like to argue that it is not only health, but essentially education, that we need to advocate here.

In operationalizing the concept of "what the law does not explicitly prohibit, it allows," let me cite the example of the Naga City school board. The board consists of eight members: the mayor, the school superintendent, the chair of Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council) Committee on Education, parents, and teachers. Despite opposition to our proposal to implement innovation in the performance incentive system for teachers, we used the budget as the authorizing document for us to proceed with the plan. The plan allowed the allocation of a portion of the budget for the new performance-based incentive system. It also gave the superintendent the authority to disburse the amount. Further, mechanisms to measure the teachers’ performance were also installed. This created opportunities for us to be involved in the process.

Since the money is coming from the local government, we make sure that the hiring is transparent. Hiring, which is now based on ranking, involves not only the superintendent but also a representative from the city government. There has been an agreement that the ranking of applicants will be respected, regardless of who they supported in the last elections. We also expanded the Local School Board to include high school principals of private universities and business sector representatives, who are able to fully articulate issues to the Department of Education (DepEd).

Our perception of how we interpret the law is supported by a publication issued by the Office of Senator Francis Pangilinan, which stated that LGUs have residual powers in the same manner that the President of the Philippines as an executive has residual powers; that, although not provided for in the Code, we [LGUs] can also pursue things, if we are willing or brave enough. We are happy to know that the DepEd has adopted some of these innovations. They form part to the Basic Educational Sector Reform Agenda, which we hope the DepEd Secretary will adopt.

We agree that mainstreaming is a challenge. It will be different from one locality to another. However, fifteen years should have been enough to come up with certain benchmarks or minimum performance standards. These standards should exact accountability from our elected leaders—which brings me to my final point.
We should exact accountability on the candidates, on how they are performing with regard to policy implementation and management. That is the only way we can change the discourse from personality-based to issue-based governance in the local level.

DANTE ANG II:

It was also discussed that the definition of security also has something to do with conflict resolution. It is very difficult for me to imagine, for example, LGUs negotiating with the New People’s Army or other rebel groups when some who are allegedly responsible for killings of journalists, for instance, are those from the LGUs.

EDNA MAGUIGAD:

There are various mechanisms through which communities can participate in conflict prevention. Let me share the experience of SALIGAN Mindanao, which has been an active member of the Mindanao Peace Weavers. They monitor the peace situation and the peace process on the ground. If there is a violation in the ceasefire agreement, SALIGAN lawyers in Mindanao assume representation in the peace process between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or with the Organization of Islamic Conference. They also train Bangsamoro (homeland of the Moro) groups on human rights and how to document these cases, and most importantly, on accessing available venues where they can have their claim.

The Local Governance Unit of SALIGAN in Manila has a two-year project, which seeks to build peace through sustainable community dispute-resolution system in partnership with the municipality of Culion, Palawan. Culion became a municipality only in 1995. As such, they do not have the concepts of autonomy and barangay. In the course of implementing the project, they find it difficult to implement a new governance system. They were used to the dole-out set up, which they had under the Department of Health. The program helped lay the foundation of good democratic governance in the first barangay of Culion.

With the changing politico-administrative system in Culion, there was a growing clamor for private ownership of land. With no judicial system in place, we promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and train the people to maximize the Katarungang Pambarangay (Justice in the Barangay) system to prevent conflict from arising due to scarcity of resources such as land and water.

FRANCISCO MAGNO:

Regarding the issue about local vis-à-vis national conflicts, we have to identify the types of conflicts especially when it comes to development projects. I think it becomes standard that local ownership should be made part of the process.

We should be reminded that conflict in the 1970s was because of lack of local participation. This contributed in the spiraling of violence. This resulted not only in the loss of lives, but also in the withdrawal of the World Bank from funding development projects. This is the reason many development projects, especially in support of local communities, need prior informed consent. These are examples of local jurisdiction and processes in conflict prevention. Another example is the creation of local peace zones, which in some areas were created even before the LGC.

Beyond the traditional types of conflicts where you see people bearing arms and fighting each other, there are a lot of conflicts that actually emerge because of development disputes and resource conflicts. Governance boards have been created in some areas to respond to these conflicts.

Deaths caused by resource conflicts impel human security to present a broader view of protecting human lives. Conflicts such as solid waste management and community forestry take place in the local level. More people are dying because of disasters, compared to people who are dying because of firefights between the rebels and the police and military forces.

On replication of best practices versus mainstreaming, I think these processes are operating simultaneously. Replication is a process that is being undertaken because of innovations. The latest I heard in Naga City, for example, is a proposed LSR, which the local government will be implementing before it gets recognized at the national level. I think that is how policy should be made, but the national government is more conservative compared to innovations by governance practitioners at the local level.

In the case of mainstreaming local practices, perhaps one practical suggestion is to seriously look at the qualification requirements for mayors or elected public officials. Maybe they should undergo training before they become mayors, councilors, and barangay officials. Normally, what happens is that first-term mayors or governors enroll in public administration classes during their first year in office. On the second year, they start preparing for their re-election. The third year is spent campaigning. It is only during their second term that they actually practice governance. Will it not be better if they become local administrators first before they become mayor? In this manner, they learn the processes.

I think it is very important to mainstream good governance; that there are people to implement and abide by these minimum standards. The real challenges, I think, are the lack of capacity to comply with minimum standards and the lack of commitment among local officials. Consideration should also be given to politics, which requires engagement. You can create all these tools, but if you do not have people with the capacity to do this, good governance will not prosper. Development should integrate participation as well.

We are not downplaying the fact that supraregions is the way of the future, but the processes subsumed herein require engaging and building the capacity of civil societies. Since participation is the key point in our discussion, the tools that have been developed and the practices that have been exercised in the municipal or provincial level should be elevated to a higher level of governance.

These are challenges that we have to be sensitive to. Governance operates at different levels. Thus, networking should also operate at all levels.

DANTE ANG II:

It is important for innovation to be mainstreamed, and for innovation to be honed by the agency you are trying to influence. It is important for national government agencies such as the DepEd to own these innovations so that they would be motivated to implement this throughout the country. But that is only one part of the story. The other part of the story is for us to develop a constituency at the community level who will look at how the local divisions are doing it. It is important for the people on the ground to see how these things are implemented. No matter how good your policies are in government, no matter how sound they are, how ideal they are, if the people are not really vigilant, the bureaucrats will always get their way.

LU VICTELLES (Department of Interior and Local Government):

I was thinking of education beyond what was indicated as education of major stakeholders in local governance. I am curious as to how colleges, universities, and academics are involved in Naga City’s internationally renowned example of participatory governance. Universities can offer financial resources that come from tuition, user fees, and from the national government—in the case of state colleges and universities. They can also offer human resources to engage in the education of the different stakeholders.

In the many places that we have observed, however, the university’s typical role is primarily on an advisory level in poverty reduction and in so-called participatory-development projects. There has been no systematic integration of what is being learned, for example, from communities, from civil society, from local governments into the curriculum. Real-world problems do not respect interdisciplinary boundaries that we have in universities, which can actually become a laboratory for exchange. This issue should be looked into.

JOHN EUGENIO (Balaod Mindanao):

Are there any concrete policy programs or reforms especially at the local level that address the increasing trend in killing activists and paralegal leaders, the impact of which is not only physical but extends to the emotional, social, and economic well-being of children of these slain activists and leaders?

ALELI BAWAGAN (Assistant Professor, Department of Community Development, College of Social Work and Community Development, UP-Diliman):

No matter what we say about local autonomy and local governance, it seems that local governments do not have any power when it comes to military operations, which take place in the villages. The LGC made it possible for marginalized sectors to participate and express their views. But I am more interested in asking for real, direct, and palpable gains. What have been the gains in terms of addressing the development agenda of the people? Have they been able to access a higher budget for health, for instance? If this is the "best practice," how can marginalized sectors address their very basic, living issues of health and education to local government? Have the local government responded to this?

At the same time, we should also expect some kind of culture change from the local government. I think it would also be a direct gain for people’s organization if local governments change their culture, in terms of listening to the people in expressing their agenda. Have local governments been listening to them and getting their participation? What percentage of the policies come from the marginalized sectors? What have local officials been doing in terms of putting NGOs and POs in development councils? Do NGOs and POs and their participation in the development councils approximate what is being expected of the people in the local sectoral representatives? Do representatives of NGOs and POs in the local development councils approximate the role of the people being elected in the LSR?

RYAN BARCELO (City Government of Makati):

Based on experience, convincing the policymakers to implement sectoral membership in the local council is not a one-night success. Is it not strategic that participation in different sectors should be acted in the different special bodies under different local governments? After all, the actual work happens in these special bodies, not in offices of the elected officials or council members of the local government. Perhaps we can adopt this approach when we become active at the bottom where we advocate at the top.

EDWIN CHAVEZ (Center for Popular Empowerment):

In advocating for participatory processes, is it really just mainstreaming or just implementing the provisions of the Code? It is clearly stated in the LGC that each LGU should have a comprehensive, medium- and long-term local government plans. We notice that almost all of the barangays are preparing recycled annual improvement plans.

The Barangay Development Council is a mechanism that makes it possible for the POs, NGOs, and marginalized sectors to participate. I am not sure if any study has been conducted on the participation of NGOs and POs in barangay development councils. How many barangay development councils do we have in the Philippines? How many of these are functional since the LGC was passed in 1991?

Participation of marginalized sectors in governance is directly related to the prevailing electoral and political culture. Based on our experience and observation, you cannot promote participatory governance to local chief executives and the members of local councils if they are not convinced with the concept. If there are have NGOs in the barangays who are committed to implement participatory barangay development planning, but the local chief executive is not supportive of this undertaking, it is difficult to integrate the barangay development plans in the municipal level. If the local chief executive is already convinced with the process, but the Sangguniang Bayan is not supportive, the budget to support the priority barangay development plans will not be there. The political exercise will make the difference in this context.

ED BALDORIA (Secretary, Office of the Vice-Mayor of Quezon City):

There is a big difference in the approach of the national and local levels of government. In order to reach the people, we have to go through the local level. Political dynamics is a reality that we have to contend with, even if at times it impedes the growth of participatory democracy.

NICOLAS TORRE III:

We can never have security if we do not have moral and spiritual consensus. I am recalling an element of national security that was included in the medium-term development goals of former President Ramos, which up to now is still being adopted. Some decisions that were made do not support our moral and spiritual concerns, one of which is environmental protection. Our concept of national security is still in relation to the police and the military, and still focused on territorial integrity.

JOSEPHINE DIONISIO (Deputy Director, Third World Studies Center [TWSC], CSSP and Project Leader, TWSC Policy Dialogue Series 2006):

From this afternoon’s discussion, I gather that one way of defining human security is that it is the promotion and preservation of human life. One important dimension towards that goal is the expansion and deepening of democracy. One way of operationalizing democracy is to promote, protect, and enhance participation, not only of an informed local government but also of an informed NGO, of civil society and all other stakeholders. If increased participation is defined in this way, this should exemplify human security in the experience, for example, of the local government of Naga and the local government units that Atty. Maguigad has been exposed to.

POLICY BRIEF

The data and insights in this brief are based, in whole or in part, from the proceedings of the forum on Human Security and Governance (Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 25 July 2006), the second installment in the Third World Studies Center’s Policy Dialogue Series 2006: Towards a Human Security Framework. This brief was prepared by Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo, University Research Associate, Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines-Diliman and Project Coordinator of the TWSC Policy Dialogue Series 2006.

Human Security, Participation, and the Local Government Code of 1991The post-EDSA democratization process is characterized by an increased participation of civil society organizations (CSOs) in governance. This provided the impetus for the decentralization project, which seeks to enhance further the capacities of both government and nongovernment actors as participants in the local development process. In the Philippines, the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 enshrines the governance framework of decentralization to strengthen the role of local governments in contributing to the goal of national development. It institutionalizes state-civil society relations. Section 28 of the Code specifically mandates the representation of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) in decision-making processes in the provincial, municipal, and city levels. The law likewise provides for mechanisms to facilitate participation. Levels of participation, particularly in the local level, vary from local initiatives, referendum, to representation of NGOs and people’s organizations (POs) in local development councils and bodies.

The forum was attended by representatives from local government units (LGUs), CSOs, and the academe in an attempt to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and experience on how “best practices” in local governance promote and protect human security, particularly of marginalized sectors. Questions on the governance-human security nexus were addressed, focusing on the Local Government Code of 1991 to see how existing structures and processes can be strengthened further to ensure meaningful participation, especially of marginalized sectors in local governance.

The Local Government Code as a Tool to Ensure Human Security through Participation

Responsive and good governance as a means of ensuring human security entails not only the provision of basic social services to local constituencies. An equally important dimension is the opportunity for various development stakeholders, specifically the marginalized sectors, to play vital roles in local development processes. In a decentralized context where there is co-responsibility between governance institutions at the national and local levels (Work 2002 quoted in Mani 2005), enhancing the capabilities of both local government officials and civil society actors is given prime importance for two reasons. First, capability enhancement gives local officials and civil society participants the opportunity to understand and practice participatory processes in local development planning. Second, this enables CSOs to participate in local development processes and exact transparency and accountability from local executives. The LGC goes further than mere participation in policymaking processes; the Code upholds representation especially of underprivileged groups to make possible claim-making.

The existing policy environment is unambiguous in its bias for participation of various stakeholders, particularly of disadvantaged sectors, in decision-making processes that impact on local development. The National Integrated Protected Areas System law, Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, and the 1998 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act are among many legislations that include participatory governance mechanisms. The LGC, however, contains the most innovative stipulation allowing for local sectoral representation. It facilitates and provides for mechanisms of civil society participation, particularly in the context of increased demands for transparency and accountability in local governance.

One mechanism in the Code is the inclusion of NGO representatives in the Local Development Council (Section 107b), which is tasked to chart the comprehensive multisectoral development plan. This provision, along with many others (Sec. 35, 106) not only recognizes NGOs and POs as partners but more importantly opens the decision-making process to civil society representatives of marginalized sectors. Sectoral representation is a means of ensuring that perspectives of various sectors are taken in to account in local legislations. Apart from a constitutional mandate for local sectoral representation (Art. 10, Sec. 9; Art. 18, Sec. 15-16), the LGC authorizes specifically for at least three representatives from the women sector, workers sector, and a third sector, which may be determined by the local legislative council (sanggunian) (Sections 41c, 446, 457, and 467).

While participation and representation is enshrined in the LGC, it remains unrealized in majority of LGUs. Concerns of marginalized sectors remain centered on human security threats. Local officials, who are primarily politicians instead of public servants, feed on the electorate’s desire for short-term solutions to community problems instead of investing in more sustainable and viable undertakings. The existing personality-based political culture in the Philippines is identified as the culprit in the failure of local government to respond to the needs of their more disadvantaged constituencies. This results to a mismatch of programs implemented and the needs of the communities. Exacerbating this is the incoherence and conflict between national and local policies. These myriad of factors, when put together, aggravate the insecurity of marginalized sectors despite provisions for representation.

Policy Proposals

The LGC as a framework affords flexibilities for LGUs to function. It is actually a matter of creativity of the local government officials to provide a whole range of options to its citizens. The democratic space and the existence of a vibrant civil society present a ripe context for genuine participation and representation to flourish. In response to the challenges posed by the existing political and electoral milieu, the passage of the Local Sectoral Representation (LSR) bill is being advocated continually. According to SALIGAN, an NGO and a consistent advocate of LSR, LSR seeks to introduce local governance reforms, politico-electoral reforms, and social reforms. The bill’s salient features include:

Three seats reserved for marginalized sector in the local sanggunian, which is consistent with what the Philippine Constitution mandates. The proposed provision on the third sector, which may come from various sectors2, is that the inclusion of local sectoral representatives for 4th, 5th and 6th class municipalities shall not increase the number of seats in the sanggunian as presently provided for by law, unless an LGU passed a resolution stating that there are available funds for such additional seats.
Organizations or coalitions, not individuals, are candidates for the sectoral representative seat.
All registered voters are entitled to vote for each of the three positions reserved for the sectoral representatives.
The seat of the elected sectoral representative shall be forfeited if s/he changes his/her organization affiliations during his/her term of office.
The bill fills the seats reserved for sectoral representatives in case a permanent vacancy occurs. (SALIGAN 2006)

At present, the LGC only identifies the sectors that may be elected to the seat in the council and not how representatives will be elected. The Commission on Elections, thus, must issue a guideline for the election of sectoral representatives. However, Republic Act 7887 (amending the Synchronized Elections Law of 1991) implies that the issuance of said guidelines must be in accordance with an enabling law, which is yet to be enacted by Congress.

Another striking proposal is to align local and national government plans and programs. The conflict between the national and the local becomes more pronounced in cases where national government policies impinge on the territorial jurisdiction of local governments and adversely impact local communities. Section 3 (k) of the LGC stipulates that “[t]he realization of local autonomy shall be facilitated through improved coordination of national government policies and programs and extension of adequate technical and material assistance to less developed and deserving local government units.” While this plan alignment may be prescribed by law, reality shows that in majority of LGUs, national policies exercise supremacy over local ordinances.

In the few instances where local government has continuously asserted territorial, administrative, and management authority, it requires not only innovation and continuity but also the openness of local officials to recognize civil society actors as part of governance. Completing the devolution of services such as education facilitates the process for LGUs to be innovative. Citing the case of Naga City, Wilfredo Prilles Jr. related that the local government was able to respond to the needs of the education sector in the city through its local school board by working around with what the LGC provides, instead of waiting for the Department of Education in the national level to respond to their needs. Hiring and awarding of performance incentives were based on local mechanisms with its financial requirements drawn from the budget of the local government. Such practices and mechanisms are harnessed with the full delegation of authority at the local level.

Greater decentralization and participatory governance require overhauling existing political culture and practices. This includes the promotion of voting based on track record, which is made possible through voters’ education, inclusion of a standard of quality of service for aspirants, and support for management training for LGUs especially at the barangay level.

The role of civil society in instigating these changes becomes more emphasized. However, stress is placed on civil society to readily take the cudgels and incessantly exact accountability from local officials.

A third proposition is to elevate the standards for those running for public office. This electoral reform complements the proposal to improve the track record of candidates.

References

Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160).

Mani, Devyani. 2005. Strengthening Decentralized Governance for Human Security. Paper presented in the UNDESA/UNCRD Workshop on Decentralization, Poverty Reduction, Empowerment and Participation, International Conference on Engaging Communities, 14-17 August, Brisbane, Australia. Accessed through http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN021098.pdf on 13 June 2006.

SALIGAN. 2006. Local Sectoral Representation: Unfulfilled Mandate. Presented by Atty. Edna Maguigad during the Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2006 on Human Security and Governance in 25 July 2006 at the Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.