NGOs and NGO-GO Relationsin the Philippines

Mr. Isagani R. Serrano
Senior Vice President
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)
The Philippines

A word on words
In the Philippines, as elsewhere, NGO used to be the buzzword, now it’s ‘civilsociety’. The use of NGO itself is fairly recent, a post 1986 phenomenon. The
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) still retains the name private
voluntary organization (PVO), an American coinage, used for such pioneering
NGOs like the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), foundeda year before the UN adopted the name NGO in 1953.
Before the 1986 democratic transition from martial law, other labels could
have passed for NGO, such as, for examples, people’s organization, people’s
movement, trade union, cooperative, community organization, coalition,
network, federation, alliance, united front. These names are still current but
are now captured by a new catch-all category ‘civil society organizations’(CSOs) which became fashionable during the UN summits of the 1990s. CSOs
refer to different types of non-corporate private voluntary institutions
promoting a variety of public causes. NGO is only one form of CSO, thoughoften the two are taken to mean the same thing.
The term ‘civil society’ entered the Philippine development discourse in theearly 1990s, following changes in Eastern Europe in the 1980s. The meanings
associated with ‘civil society’ focus or emphasize more on either values andbeliefs or on institutions. In the Philippines, use of ‘civil society’ includes
both.
The notion of civil society, as that section of society that is non-state and noncorporate, derives from Marc Nerfin’s model of three political actors, namely,
prince, merchant and citizen [Korten 1989: 96]. Prince is metaphor for state
and represents public for public good; merchant for the corporate sector andprivate for private good; and, citizen for ‘civil society’ and private for public
good.

Who they are
It is difficult to make a precise count of NGOs or CSOs in the Philippines but
the number is presumed to be large and growing. In December 1996, forexample, the SEC listed over 58,000 nonprofit organizations, a dramaticincrease from an estimated 18,000 in 1989. The list ranges from primaryorganizations of just a few members to supra-tertiary NGO coalitions.
Some CSOs see the need to register with the SEC, many others don’t evenbother. A SEC registration is necessary to qualify as recipient of donations.
But it is not a precondition to the exercise of one’s right to self-organization.
It may be safely assumed that many CSOs do not appear in the SEC list atall. At some point such registration was considered a security liability bymany organizations born before and during martial rule and had links to the
opposition or the underground movement.
This so-called non-profit sector of the Philippines includes self-help groups
and cooperatives; neighborhood associations and community organizations;religious and spiritual societies; professional associations; businessfoundations; local philanthropies; PVOs and NGOs; and a wide variety oforganizations of workers, farmers, fishers, indigenous people, urban poor,
elderly citizens, disabled people, media workers, religious and church people,
men, women, young people, children, and students. The list covers more
sectors than the major groups identified in the Agenda 21 [UNCED 1992].
Primary organizations at the community level, in the workplace, in schools
often band together to form into federations, networks, and coalitions. Thisway they are able to leverage their voice and influence.
CSOs and civic movements have a long tradition in the Philippines. The
traditional practice of bayanihan (mutual exchange) still persists in ruralvillages and some migrant communities in cities despite modernization. Free
associations and societies existed before there was even a Philippine statethat could impose taxes and command allegiance from citizens. They had
existed years before the 1896 revolution that established the first everdemocratic republic in Asia. These cooperative societies and other forms of
citizen associations engaged in a variety of activities promoting group welfare
or the larger common good.

What they do, generally
The scope of civic initiative covers a broad range of activities concerning
human welfare---development, environment, politics and governance, citizen
participation. Some CSOs confine their activities to helping their members intheir common professional or spiritual advancement, others to enhancing thesense of community and extending gifts and services to others.
CSOs are at the cutting edge of social change processes in the Philippines.
Their work in educating, organizing, and mobilizing people around the issuesof human rights, equality, social and economic justice, and environmental
protection have made possible some of the most dramatic events in Philippine
history. Their actions do not always seem "civil," but they are certainly highin civic spirit, motivation, and initiative. What they do impact directly on thelarger society, on public policy and government practice.

More specifically…
Raising ‘money’ for development
CSOs in the Philippines generally rely on donations, direct and indirect
subsidies, membership dues and earned incomes from their own businessactivities. Donations come from both local and foreign sources in cash or inkind.
CSOs are not required to register with government but SEC registration isnecessary for them to be able to accept donations or to participate ingovernment projects. The SEC demands audited annual financial reports
from registered parties. Nonprofit, non-stock organizations are exemptedfrom taxation. CSOs can engage in income-generating activities. They need
not pay income tax as long as they do not issue dividends to their members
and their revenues are used solely for nonprofit activities.
They get a slice of official development assistance (ODA) by way of cofinancing arrangements between donor governments and donor-country
CSOs. Private donations are transferred directly from donor CSOs indeveloped countries to recipient CSOs in the Philippines without passing
through government. Nearly all assistance come in the form of program or
project funding. Strategic funding is hard to come by. Endowment funds fordevelopment CSOs are rare.
Development CSOs are highly dependent on public and private foreignassistance. Competition
for this scarce and dwindling resource has
sharpened over the years, thereby causing relational problems among CSOs.
Activist CSOs associated with the extreme left are normally shut out by
official donor agencies but manage to devise creative ways of financing theiractivities.
The quality of ODA has also been the subject of much debate. Earlier studies
had already warned that “If the appropriate institutions cannot be funded orif they cannot operate freely the poor will generally be served best by no aid
at all. Only when the fixation on the quantity of aid disappears can thequality of aid begin to improve.” [Hellinger, Hellinger & O’Regan 1988:6].
NOVIB (Oxfam Netherlands) and other NGOS in donor countries have beenclosely monitoring ODA flows with a view to improving their quality. They
have been coming out with regular publication on the reality of aid.
Funding trends have been shifting since the 1990s. Despite the overall
decline in ODA flows, there is noticeable increase in the percentage of ODA

monies that find their way into the CSO kitty. Explorations in direct fundingof CSOs from ODA sources have resulted in some pilot programs. Endowment
funds created out of debts swaps fall within this modality.
One pioneering example was the conversion of debt to set up an NGOmanaged fund for the environment, an outcome of negotiations in 1989
involving on one side, US officials and US NGOs, and on the other, Philippine
officials and Philippine NGOs. The Foundation for the Environment (FPE)
was set up in January 1992 to take charge of trusteeship and management of
the fund. The FPE itself was an offshoot of earlier efforts of the Green Forum
Philippines (GFP), a green coalition founded by a group of Philippine NGO
leaders who embarked on a mission on environment policy in the US in 1989
and who themselves were a party to the green fund negotiation.
A variant of grant with recovery provision is the US $20 million Global
Environment Facility (GEF) funding for CSO-managed biodiversity
conservation project. The fund was set up after a long process of negotiation
between the World Bank and the Philippine government and a group ofPhilippine NGOs which formed themselves into a coalition called NGOs for
Integrated Protected Areas (NIPA) in December 1993.
Another example is a debt-for-development swap to set up an NGO-managed
trust fund. This involved the retirement of the entire debt stock of thePhilippines owed to Switzerland, amounting to US$35 million. Since its
creation in September 1995, the fund has been directly managed by theFoundation for a Sustainable Society (FSSI) set up by a consortium of
Philippine NGOs for the purpose. Much in line with other similar processes
and set-ups, this fund was also a product of negotiations between
governments and NGOs in the two countries involved.
A number of CSOs are beginning to plunge into more aggressive businessventures due in part to the decline or withdrawal of external funding support.
The expected economic upturn (before the 1997 Asian crisis) had put thecountry low in priority for official development assistance, especially the ‘soft’kind. Some CSOs have started borrowing from former donor partners, andothers have themselves gone into banking. Two examples of this are the New
Rural Bank of San Leonardo initiated by the Management and Organization
for Development (MODE) and the Lagawe Highland Rural Bank organizedby PRRM.
Floating bonds, already practiced by some local government units (LGUs), isa new thing for CSOs. The CODE-NGO, a supra tertiary coalition of NGOs,
has just ventured into this form of funding using their connection with the
Macapagal-Arroyo government. This particular initiative has been criticized

by other NGO coalitions, like the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), as
another form of increasing public indebtedness for an already debt-burdened
country like the Philippines. Other NGOs have criticized such initiative as
an immoral and impermissible case of ‘rent-seeking’, ‘influence-peddling’, oreven outright ‘plunder’. Whatever, it’s a ‘smart’ way of raising money in thename of poverty, but with a lot of moral hazards.
Corporate foundations are on the rise, as a response to growing popularpressure and demand for corporate social responsibility. From the 1950s
onward, corporate donations have been channeled to organizations like
PRRM. At the height of the resurgence of the revolutionary movement in the
1970s, these corporate donors decided to set up their own outfit, thePhilippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP), to do public relations andsome form of community development. Patterned after a pioneering Brazilian
model, PBSP has been sustained through a fund created out of corporatemember contribution equivalent to one percent of each member’s yearly
profit. Additionally, PBSP has been a major conduit of USAID assistance.
Yet another fairly recent trend, some big corporations have been setting up
their own foundations and have involved themselves in development andenvironment issues. Some of the more notable examples are Ayala
Foundation and Shell Philippines Foundation, both PBSP members. Somecritics pejoratively call this ‘greenwashing’, meaning, a trendy sort ofcorporate initiative to acquire a green image and avoid full accounting of theenvironmental and social costs of corporate practice.
Competition for scarce resources is creating a new dynamic among CSOs in
the Philippines. Jealousies and mistrust have resulted in strained relations
and difficulties in building coalition around common issues. Erosion of social
capital due to the breakdown of mutual trust is a distinct possibility.
There’s also a view questioning why CSOs should dip in the public funds, tobegin with, when what they should be doing is to add more of their own
resources.
Engaging government on governanceAt certain moments in Philippine history, CSOs have demonstrated theirpower to compel government to make a change. They have contributed in a
big way in mounting mass movements that caused the fall of unaccountable
governments, as in the so-called 1986 people power revolution. They havecome a long way to be recognized as an alternative voice in Philippine society.

Years of struggle have caused the enshrining of various social causes into thelaw of the land. The 1935 Philippine Constitution guarantees the freedoms ofspeech, association, and assembly. The 1987 Constitution mandates
government to ensure people's participation at all levels of policy-making.
Exercise of these rights, however, had been suppressed at times, as happenedin the case of the writ suspension in 1971 and subsequent imposition ofmartial law in 1972. Of late there have been some disturbing signs indicating
stricter state regulation of CSO activities. Some such indications include theproposed national ID system, CSO inventory and accreditation, and funding
restrictions targeted at outspoken and critical CSOs.
How do CSOs matter? What has been their impact?
CSOs in the Philippines matter in many ways, but especially in influencing
the course of development in general, mostly just by being an alternative
voice or proxy for ‘conscience’ of the people. They do matter in politics andgovernance, in critiquing the way government runs the economy and society.
They are a significant influence in policy formation and implementation. And
more, they have become partners in implementing government programs andprojects.
But different CSOs make differentiated impact which varies according totheir differing strategic orientation. On this, reference is due to David Korten[1989] who devised a schema of four generations of NGOs. The first
generation is relief and rehabilitation; the second, local self-reliance; thethird, sustainable systems development; and the fourth, mass/social
movements for system change. This may imply that the first generation
CSOs would have mainly local impact while the fourth generation CSOs
would impact on the whole society.
This model may be criticized for being so neat and linear. The reality of CSOs
in the Philippines is more like a mosaic. Some CSOs might easily fit in one orother ‘generational’ category, others might be hard to pigeonhole as such.
Too, the model suggests a kind of progression in consciousness and level ofactivity. Indeed some CSOs might start off with relief and rehabilitation andthen graduate into other orientation through time. Yet some CSOs can havemore than one strategic orientation all at once, sometimes all four strategicorientations rolled into one cohesive strategy. Revolutionary organizations in
the Philippines do all these, and more.
Gerard Clarke [1998] argues that the impact of Philippine NGOs is not in the
micro but in the shaping of macro politics. Which means, for example, that
their direct contribution to poverty alleviation, as in organizing the poor andextending credit, is not what matters most. It is what they do in advocacy forreforms in the way government does its business of governance for national
development.
Clarke cited as evidence the cases of two of the largest primary NGOs in the
country. One is the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), a humanrights organization set up by socially-oriented church people in 1974 during
martial law. The other is the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement(PRRM), considered one of the first rural development NGOs organized 1952
by a group of prominent Filipino leaders in education, industry, business andfinance.
These two organizations are archetypes of CSOs in the Philippines. Although
they had different beginnings, motivation, focus of attention, style of work,
among other differences, the TFDP and PRRM chose to confront in their own
ways the same challenges of human rights and development from theperspective of the oppressed classes and sectors of Philippine society. Manyother CSOs in the Philippines, especially the activist kind, belong in thisclass.
Take PRRM for an illustration. Its roots trace back to what Korten [1990]
described as a legendary development movement organized by Dr. Y. C.
James Yen first in the context of the European war in 1916-1918 and thenlater in China. PRRM is a civic movement that envisions a society of equity
and sustainability. The long future is one where ignorance, poverty, disease,and powerlessness shall have been eradicated and development takes place
within the carrying capacity of the environment. PRRM's basic strategy
addresses the interlocking problems of poverty, environmental degradation,and social conflicts rooted in what it considers a flawed development model.
Like many other CSOs, PRRM is rooted in local action around very specificissues concerning social and environmental justice. Its core field program,called Sustainable Rural District Development Program (SRDDP), seeks toaffect through a coalition of efforts some structural change at a certain scaleof sustainability at the sub-national level. The central element of thisprogram is community empowerment, a long and complex process designed tobring about the eventual shift of power to the people and their communities.
Progress in this process is indicated by the increasing capacity of community
organizations and local governments in self-governance and communitybased management of natural resources. The long view is to set in place amode of local governance that is accountable to the citizens, one that canbring about eradication of poverty on site and sustainable development forall.

Like TFDP and many other CSOs, PRRM also engages in shaping public
policy around the themes of agrarian reform, sustainable agriculture andrural development, foreign debt, trade and ODA, human rights, peace, andenvironment. Through research they are able to fill in information andknowledge gaps between decisionmakers and the local communities. The
targets for advocacy and lobbying are the national government, bilateral andmultilateral agencies, and the corporate sector. PRRM helps build networks
and coalitions within the country, in the Asian region, and at the global level.
The collective impact of CSOs in the Philippines is also indicated by a bundleof policies and legislation (see Attachment listing some of the significant
social and environmental policies and legislations where the influence of
CSOs may be reflected). Discourses and debates on sustainable developmentin the Philippines, though seemingly endless and paralyzing at times, almost
always resolve in some policy or a piece of legislation. This is true from thenational level down to the barangay or village.
But getting your input into the language of policy is just one battle won, thatis, on the level of words. The point now, however, is not so much saying theright thing (policy) as doing it and doing it right (institution,
implementation). And here, you will at once see a whale of difference. In thePhilippines, words come easy and cheap.

Conclusion
No doubt CSOs in the Philippines have been doing their share in nationbuilding and national development even as the impact of their direct poverty
reduction work is relatively limited. They have been more successful inengaging government, through cooperation and opposition, to build a morefair and sustainable society.
CSOs cannot answer or substitute for government failure to deliver on its
development commitment, of which there’s a quite a bundle made locally andin UN summits. Neither should they be content in simply having pressured
government to make such commitments. That they have been able toinfluence policy is commendable but they must find ways to help government
close the pestering word-action gap.
Social watching or report cards are now commonplace. CSOs should carry on
with what they had already started and even intensify it so as to keep
government on its toes, so to speak. Watching is particularly needed in theareas of budgeting, procurement and expenditure, and project
implementation. This is a difficult terrain where strivings to close gaps may
be put to a real test.

More basic, perhaps, is education of the ‘educated’. That is to say, educating
the “highly educated’ or ‘miseducated and miseducating’ officials and big
decisionmakers about how to do development differently. This might sound a
bit condescending, as likewise CSOs themselves need their own education.
Nonetheless, it is necessary to stress that much about the problem of
unsustainability traces back to mindsets. One way to change mindsets isshowing stories of how poverty, environment, and governance issues havebeen addressed successfully, even only in a small way.
CSOs can only do so much. Once government buys in to what otherwise
would simply remain as an alternative idea or practice then small action canbe leveraged to produce better outcomes on larger scales. After all,government is a huge resource base and will continue to be the biggest single
institution that can make or break sustainable development. Government
needs to be ‘convinced’ that ‘development as usual’ is not working, thatpoverty and social inequality are forms of everyday terrorism that cannot beallowed to continue for much longer.
As always, CSOs in the Philippines must and can continue to contribute instrengthening the civic infrastructure of society. Among themselves, though,one big challenge is how the otherwise disparate voices they represent can beas one in advancing the national interest. And combined with a moreenlightened government, a voice of national consensus might just help tofinally deliver a workable sustainability agenda and outcomes for ourcountry's common future.
******REFERENCES
Clarke, Gerard. The Politics of NGOs in South-East Asia: Participation and protest
in the Philippines. London, 1998.
Hellinger, Stephen, Douglas Hellinger, and Fred M. O’Regan. AID for Just
Development: Report on the Future of Foreign Assistance, CO, USA: Lynne Reinner
Publishers. Boulder, 1988.
Korten, D. Getting into the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda.
Hartcourt, Connecticut, USA: Kumarian Press, 1990.

The NGLS Handbook. Third Edition 2000. United Nations Non-Governmental
Liaison Service (NGLS). NGLS. Geneva, Switzerland, May 2000.
Serrano, Isagani R. Civil Society in the Asia-Pacific Region. CIVICUS. Washington,
D.C., USA., 1994.
Serrano, Isagani R. “The Philippines Ten Years From Rio” paper presented at theWorld Forum on Sustainable Development organized by the International Research
Foundation for Development on 27-28 August 2002 in Johannesburg.
The World Bank-Resident Mission Philippines. Environmental Monitor. Manila,
2000.
About the author
Isagani R. Serrano, Gani to friends, is Senior Vice President and a Trustee of the Philippine
Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM). Among his other writings, he did Civil Society in
the Asia-Pacific, 1994; Humanity In Trouble But Hopeful in CITIZENS, 1995;
Profile:Philippines for CIVIC INDEX, 1997; Coming Apart, Coming Together in Civil Society
at the Turn of the Millennium, 1999; A Global Citizens’ Commitment, 1999; Cross-sectoral
Collaboration for Sustainable Change, 2001, all for CIVICUS (World Alliance for Citizen
Participation). Trained in education, community organization and development
management, Gani is a social activist, a political prisoner for seven years during martial law,an occasional poet and band player, a weekend ‘farmer’. He holds a Master of Science inEnvironment & Development Education (MSc in EE/DE) from the South Bank UniversityLondon

ATTACHMENT
A partial listing of social and environmental policies/legislations/programs
where CSOs/NGOs might have been a positive influence
Marcos Era•(1969) Republic Act 4850 - Creation of the Laguna Lake Development Authority•(1975) Presidential Decree 705 - Forestry Code•(1975) Presidential Decree 704 - Fisheries Code
Revised and consolidated all laws and decrees affecting fishing and fisheries in the
country•(1976) Presidential Decree 1067 - Water Code•(1976) Presidential Decree 984 - Pollution Control Law– Provides guidelines for theprevention, abatement and control of pollution of water, air and land•

(1977) Presidential Decree 1219 - Coral Reefs Conservation•(1977) Presidential Decree 1181 - Vehicular Emissions Control Law– Prevention,
control and abatement of air pollution from motor vehicles•(1977) Presidential Decree 1151 - Philippine Environmental Policy– First mention ofconcept of environmental impact system•(1977) Presidential Decree 825 - Philippine Environmental Code - Provides
guidelines on land use, air quality, water quality, waste management, and natural
resources management•(1977) Presidential Decree 856 - Sanitation Code•(1978) Presidential Decree 1586 - Philippine Environmental Impact Statement
System – Mandates EIS for government and private sector projects affecting thequality of the environment•(1979) Presidential Proclamation 2146 - Environmentally critical projects andenvironmentally critical areas•(1980) Presidential Decree 600 - Marine Pollution (1976-as amended by PD 1698)

Post-Marcos Era•(1987) Philippine Constitution – This contains the State’s obligation to protect andadvance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. (Article 2, section
15 and 16)•(1987) Executive Order 192 – Creation of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources•(1987) Republic Act 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform – Exempts lands
devoted to reforestation, wildlife, etc. from land conversion•(1991) Republic Act 7076 – People’s Small Scale Mining Program•(1991) Republic Act 7160 – Local Government Code – Strengthens the role of LGUs
in the country•(1991) Ratification of the Montreal Protocol•(1991) Inter Agency Committee on Climate Change•(1992) Republic Act 7279- Urban Development and Housing Act•(1992) Executive Order 15 - Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)•(1992) Republic Act 6969 - Toxic Substances, Hazardous and Nuclear Waste•(1992) Republic Act 7586 – National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)•(1993) Philippine Population Management Program (PPMP)•(1993) Power Crisis Executive Order•(1994) Ratification of Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC)•(1994) Philippine Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation•(1995) Water Crisis Act•(1995) Republic Act 7942 – Mineral Exploration, Development and Conservation•(1995) Republic Act 8172 – Act for Salt Iodization Nationwide or ASIN•

(1995) Social Reform Agenda•(1995) Gathering for Human and Ecological Security (GHES)•(1995) Executive Order 247 – Bioprospecting•(1995) Executive Order 263 – Community-Based Forestry Management Strategy•(1995) Philippine Action Plan for HABITAT II•(1996) Philippine Agenda 21•(1996) Executive Order 291 – Improving the EIS System established in 1978•

(1997) Republic Act 8371 - Indigenous People’s Rights Act•(1997) Republic Act 8435 – Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization•(1998) Republic Act 8550 – Fisheries Code•(1999) Republic Act 8749 – Comprehensive Air Pollution Control Policy (otherwise
known as the Clean Air Act)•

(2001) Solid Waste Management Act