The issue on the misuse of
the Pork Barrel or the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) through
bogus Non-Government Organizations had been anticipated decades ago. Only that it was not expected that the stolen
money could amount into billions of pesos.
This blog attempts to link yesterday’s
perceptions with the reality of today, and to trace the metamorphosis of Non-Government
Organizations and the public- private sector cooperation in governance.
Governance styles and
concepts changes with the times to keep abreast with the present requirements
of the governed, and even to satisfy the ends of the ruling authority. These changes come in various forms and
nomenclature as in “reorganization”, “re-inventing”, “re-engineering”,
“pole-vaulting to the next millennium”, “a shot in the arm”. Or simply the bureaucracy is trimmed as in
the Rationalization Plan mandated by Executive Order 366.
Not in a few cases do these
re-engineerings are conceived merely to lend a semblance of a working
bureaucracy, which policy directions are but in reality just a rehash of the
same processes.
These re-inventions and
policy directions of the bureaucracy come with catchphrases like “Matatag na Republika”, Perlas ng
Silangan” and currently P-Noy’s “Daang Matuwid”.
Governance leans towards
privatization and government- private cooperation institutionalized under the
Local Government Code of 1991, the “Build-Operate-Transfer” (BOT) or “Build-
Own-Operate-Transfer” (BOOT) schemes on project implementation and management.
In the same manner,
Non-Government Organizations have mushroomed, faded into oblivion, or have
bloated into notoriety as in the bogus NGOs through which public funds were
funneled into private accounts.
Debureaucratization, or the transfer of responsibility, from the national or local
level, of the public functions usually
delivered by government institutions to the private sector is the primary purpose
of public governance under R.A. 7160. It aims to change the delivery of services
from being impersonal to that of a
“dynamic and flexible services controlled by the user rather than by top-down
planners” as elicited by grater public participation.
The era of de-bureaucratized governance has
fathered the birth of many NGOs.
NGOs or People’s Organizations are to some
extent assume the bureaucratic responsibilities as
theoretically they are the “creation of the civil society that stands as a
counter balance to the state and ensures that people are given the primary
responsibility in determining their
lives (Local Development Assistance
Program, “Building the Foundations for People’s Governance, cited by Tomas A.
Sajo, NGO/PO Participation in Local Governance)” these organizations provide a venue wherein the citizenry may
directly participate in the management of
governmental affairs directly affecting them.
NGOs proliferated shortly
after the enactment of Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991
that Legazpi City, with fifty-nine (59) accredited NGOs, has the highest number outside of Metro Manila.
This number as of July 1998 dwindled to fifteen (15),
with five (5) pending new applications, which raises the conclusion that these
NGOs/ People’s Organizations were fund driven. Obviously,
NGOs mushroomed overnight more in the context of personal gain or benefit for
its members and organizers. NGOs and
People’s Organizations organizers were evidently more concerned with possible
fundings rather than community service.
Others may have just used the accreditation papers to secure foreign grants
for their exclusive agenda.
What had been lacking
perhaps in NGO partnership that scams ran out of proportion was an effective monitoring and evaluation
mechanism can be achieved through GO-NGO/PO partnership. It is the system of checks and balances
which need no further elaboration. The
only concern is the possibility of a collusion between the LGU and NGO/PO to
which the citizenry should be vigilant of.
After about seven years when NGO’s existence
proliferated or came into the limelight secondary to the adoption of the Local
Government Code of 1991, non-government organizations should at this time have
acquired vast experiences to be mature enough to be less dependent or motivated
by monetary backing.
The problem with most NGOs is that project
implementation or any socio-economic
development endeavor is always equated with fundings, aggravated by the
‘solitary existence syndrome’. It is a
common pitfall for NGOs to conceive a
project on the context of the confines of the NGOs organizational set up and
resources. Most NGOs fail to recognize
the vast potentials of cooperation
between other NGOs and the government, and instead driven into competitiveness
which at times proves fatal for being thrown off course from the development
agenda, and succumbs to mutual destruction by popularity, mistrust by
client-beneficiary, and organizational weakness created by intrigues.
The Filipino trait of “amor propio” or pride
is negatively carried over to the NGO’s organizational directions that one may
rather operates on its own un-mindful of similar organizations. It is rare to see an NGO publicly admitting
its limitations by forming an alliance with other NGOs to achieve a common
purpose.
Cooperation by and among all sectors of
society and local government units for self-reliance is the very essence of the
Local Government Code. This is the main
consideration that many NGOs have failed to take into account that instead NGOs
were instead transformed into political dummies. The services of an NGO may be limited to
the utilization of its human resources, and may cooperate with other well
funded NGOs engaged in similar projects.
In a paper, “Two Decades of Bicol NGOs”, written thirteen
years ago attention is called on the end note which predicted the creation of
dummy NGOs as what was discovered now.
The “One Million People March” protesting the large scale
graft through bogus NGOs may not have reached the projected number. But the message has been clear.
One of the lessons to be learned from history is for leaders to listen and heed
the people’s
voice. EDSA I and EDSA II also started
as a “picnic” and the consequences were never expected.
“Vox populi, vox dei”
TWO DECADES OF BICOL NGO’S
---- JAIME E. MASAGCA, PM 251
A
RETROSPECT
During the first quarter
storm and onwards, while student activism was common, non-government
organizations were unheard of in the City of Legazpi. Cooperativism was new and whatever voluntary
organizations existing at that time were but mere social, civic, or religious associations
organized for their own agenda and not in the context for which the modern day
NGO’s were organized.
The dominant
voluntary organizations working hand in hand with the Marcos martial law
government belongs to the minority and confined to the favored few. Its membership were mostly of the unthinking
elite, the likes of the Ministry of Public Works and Highways Blue Ladies
Circle, and the Green Revolution Movement who but served as the dictator’s
cheering squad. The existence of groups
of this kind props up the legitimacy of the dictatorship with a guise of an
active democracy.
The formation of
these government sponsored organizations during the Marcos era, including the
so called youth participation in the democratic processes through the Kabataang
Barangay were organized merely to quell unrest specially among the youth. Subsequent events validate the criticisms
that the KB was conceived as a training ground for the Marcos siblings groomed
to perpetuate a political dynasty.
In the countryside,
membership to the Coconut Farmers Federation (COCOFED) and the “Samahang Nayon”
was encouraged and non membership to these government inspired organizations
were considered as taboo, to some extent
non-members were suspected as rebels.
This unmistakably reveals its ultimate purpose in the counter-insurgency
tactics which is to control and monitor individual activities in the grassroots
level. Other group activities not
sanctioned by the government were considered as “illegal assemblies,” or one
may be accused of “rumor mongering.”
On the last years of
Martial Law in the Bicol Region, non-government organizations representing
different sectors of society have proliferated, with many of them
metamorphosing from simple third
sector organizations concerned with basic activities such as backyard
gardening, animal dispersals, community resource management, and organizational
development.
This evolution was
the result of the intensification of
advocacy works “to create greater public awareness to mobilize civil society for collective
protest actions ( Luis
P. Eleazar, Dimensions, Patterns and
Limits of Interdependence: An Assessment of Government -Third Sector Relations
in Environmental Management).”
They came to be known as cause oriented groups; and rather
than viewed as conduits for development or as a potential tool through which
government basic services may be delivered, were frowned upon by the
government and branded by the military as “leftist groups” or “infiltrated by
subversive elements.”
In these phases of
martial rule the line that divides the cause oriented groups from the
“legitimate organizations”, or the forerunners of the present day NGO’s, is
its subservience to government policies
or its being critical to the administration.
With such tests, the Basic Christian Community, the Bicol Medical Action Group, the Bicol Coconut Planters Association, Inc.,
the Daraga-Legazpi Jeepney Drivers & Operators Association, Inc., the Urban
Poor Federation, the Alliance of Concerned Teachers, and other similar people’s
organizations in Bicol were regarded as leftist or subversive infiltrated
groups and were under constant watch by the military.
POST
EDSA
The
growing number of people’s organizations in the pre-EDSA era was a gross
indication of people’s discontent in the administration’s failure or
inadequacies to deliver basic services, which fueled people’s unrest that
culminated at EDSA on February 1986. The
late Lean Alejandro, former Bagong Alyansang Makabayan Secretary General, had said
that the wave that crashed at EDSA was not an overnight effort but the result
of the years of militancy and consistent
advocacy for public awareness by cause oriented groups.
The post-EDSA
Revolution era, particularly during the Ramos Administration, had ushered in
the mushrooming of NGO’s as it is known today while the cause oriented groups
had been reduced in number and ceased to share the political limelight. Not a few from the cause oriented groups had
“changed strategy” in advancing their cause.
From being street parliamentarians
they seek elective posts while others joined the bureaucracy in the hope
of serving as catalysts for change.
Many organizations,
mostly falsely claiming to have been
anti-Marcos, came into existence to advance the political and economic
interests of the ambitious while others were motivated by government fundings
and foreign assistance. The incidence of
fund anomalies as publicly reported and known NGO and civic organization
leaders or members seeking public elective offices supports this theory.
History streams by
and has brought political and socio-economic changes but has left some
non-government organizations the same.
These are those elitist organizations whose concepts of community service does not go
beyond an annual medical and dental mission in some rural or depresses areas.
or the building of waiting sheds with
the name of their group emblazoned in gold.
As one, who is now
elected as Municipal Mayor, then laments : “The trouble with these
organizations is that a middle class applying for membership is regarded as a
‘social climber’.”
At this point, one
may be tempted to conclude that following Emerson’s theory of reciprocal
power-dependence relations, the
distinction between a cause oriented group and
a non-government organization as contemplated in contemporary
definitions is directly proportional to power dependence ratio. Simply stated, cause oriented organizations
have a low level of inter-dependence
with the government while NGOs induced by the implementation of the Local
Government Code of 1991 have a high level of inter-dependence with the
government.
LGU
- PRIVATE SECTOR COOPERATION
In the paper of Perla E. Legaspi and Eden V. Santiago (ASPAP Collaborative Research; The State of
the Devolution Process: The
Implementation of the 1991 Local Government Code in Selected LGU’s) summarizing the case studies on the issues
and concerns of the devolution process in its first years, Legazpi City with 54
accredited NGOs has been ranked as the
city outside of Metro Manila with the highest number of
organizations.
Inspite of this high
number of accredited organizations, they
are still in the stage of infancy and hence unable to adequately respond or
assume whatever significant duties and responsibilities delegated to it. At present,
the NGO’s accredited by the City of Legazpi confines its activities to
cooperativism, capability building, livelihood projects, sectoral financial
assistance, and serves as consultative bodies on current vital issues (Source :
Planning and Development Office, City of Legazpi; Mr. Norberto G. Meneses, City Government
Assistant Development Head I; Mr. Roleo Battung, City Administrator).
Except for NGOs like
the Simon of Cyrene that had been long
existing for their own agenda and does not concern so much in LGU
collaborations, local post R.A. 7160
NGOs are still to be weaned from the basic orientations to be able to take the
challenges coupled with responsibilities that an LGU may delegate or the
responsibilities of serious multi-sectoral collaboration.
Perhaps the only
“capable” Non-Government Organization that had been tapped by both the Albay
Provincial and Legazpi City governments is the Albay-Legazpi Emergency Rescue
Team (ALERT). The LGUs coordinate with
this group in undertaking emergency rescue and disaster management. ALERT, which has shown a “high level of
volunteerism” during many disaster like the 1993 eruptions of Mayon
Volcano, is composed of volunteer
members from the Philippine National Red Cross, the PNP, the Bureau of Fire Protection, the local media,
and from a number of amateur radio groups.
It has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the governments of the City
of Legazpi and Albay Province on disaster preparedness, trainings, and rescue operations.
With the
“unpreparedness” of local non-profit NGOs,
the City of Legazpi has opted to tap the private profit-oriented entities to
make more efficient the delivery of some public services at the least costs to
the government.
Legazpi’s pilot
project was the Satellite Market and Integrated Bus Terminal built on a four hectare government
property. The project costing about 70 million pesos was loaned with the
LGU putting up a counterpart of more
than 40 million pesos.
Through a public
bidding, the operation of the complex was awarded to Ibalong Management
Services, Inc. at its bid of 2.8 million
pesos per annum, inclusive of insurance premiums, for a 25 year lease.
The LGUs
participation in the operation of the market is limited to the provision of
support services for the general development of the complex. New jitney and tricycle routes were introduced, and street lighting was improved. An extension office of the City
Administrator is however maintained at the complex to serve as a public
assistance center.
The advantages of
this arrangement are that maintenance is better, and fixed income for the LGU
is assured without additional costs as the latter is spared from the cost
of maintenance & operating expenses
and hiring of additional personnel. The
only setback noted was the consequent higher rental rates of stalls compared to
the socialized rates in government owned and operated markets.
From the above
endeavors, the trend of the city government is towards privatization of public
services and concentrate itself to the affairs of local governance. Perhaps the thrusts of LGUs in the
“debureaucratization” process should also be anchored on the balance of social
needs and government aims, which if the
“debureaucratization” will be delegated to a large extent to the private profit
oriented groups the balance would tilt more on one side and defeat the very
purpose for which the government was created.
In the Legazpi City
Satellite Market and Integrated Bus Terminal experience, market vendors and other tenants of the
complex are left at the mercy of the
grantee of the lease contract. An NGO,
much better a Big Non-Government
Organization (BINGO), will operate differently which will redound to the
public’s benefits. For one, the high
rental rates asked from the tenants by Ibalong Management Services, Inc.
is expected from a corporation whose aim is a high return of
investments. In contrast, a
non-profit/non-stock corporation such as an NGO will not be primarily concerned
with profit and will strive only to break even with expenses.
END NOTES
The Local Government
Code of 1991 encourages the existence and LGU-NGO collaborations and makes them “ active partners in the
pursuit of local autonomy (Article 62, Rule XIII, Implementing Rules, Republic Act 7160).” which shall be directly involved, among
others, in the planning, project
implementation on issues concerning the delivery of basic services and
facilities.
The issue that
concerns the public will be then the credibility of NGOs. The main consideration is their nature of
being non-profit and non-stock corporations which runs counter to normal human
behavior. The assumption that NGOs were
organized primarily for service and not for profit cannot in reality be totally
admitted. What are the safeguards in
LGU-NGO collaborations particularly if it involves government fundings, when the Implementing Rules of the Local
Government Code does not provide for a system of checks and balances and
loopholes may be encountered in a project’s memoranda of agreement.
If graft and
corruption is a major concern in a bureaucracy provided with safeguards through
an independent and internal audit and a legal system for the prosecution of
offenders, what more in a non-government entity.
LGU-NGO collaboration
may be subject to all kinds of abuse and there is no uniform and a particular
law enacted to safeguard the interests of the government. To illustrate, if this writer is a
Congressman or a Senator, he could
create a dummy Non-Government Organization to be the “exclusive” receiver,
beneficiary, or implementor of the latter’s
CDF funded projects. In effect,
this NGO will be nothing but a personal net created at the other end of the
bureaucracy to catch and haul profits for the distinguished member of the
Philippine Congress.
From published
reports and interviews with local beneficiaries of foreign assisted programs like the “Lingap
Pangkabataan”, “Bagong Paglaom”, or the “Foster Parents Program”, the
experiences from these church based NGOs were not also very encouraging.
