Civic Enagement in Local Budget Planning (PH0034)

There is an existing gap between local and national budget and development plans.
BuB aims to contribute to making governance responsive to local needs and making public resources allocation more efficient and effective through citizen participation. This in turn will contribute to poverty reduction and inclusive growth.
Status Quo: Currently, 1,514 cities and municipalities have submitted Local Poverty Reduction Action Plans. The main objective is to increase citizen’s access to local service delivery through demand-driven budget planning process, and to strengthen government accountability in local public service provision. Relevance - The BUB program is relevant in advancing citizen engagement as it provides a mechanism for citizens to directly participate in the national budgeting process through the Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT).
BuB also seeks to establish supportive policies and create mechanisms that enable citizens and grassroots organizations to increase their demand for improved local service delivery and a more accountable government. Ambition - The intended result is more responsive government plans and budget through the bottom-up process. The aim is to
institutionalize participation of grassroots organizations in developing local poverty reduction action plans and identifying projects to be implemented in their areas. BuB is also expected to improve service delivery, benefiting especially the poor households and marginalized sectors.

For Commitment details, see https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/philippines-mid-term-progress-report-2015-2017.

6. CSO participation in local poverty reduction budget planning

Commitment Text:

There is an existing gap between local and national budget and development plans. Bottom-up-Budgeting (BuB) aims to contribute to making governance responsive to local needs and making public resources allocation more efficient and effective through citizen participation. This in turn will contribute to poverty reduction and inclusive growth.

Status Quo: Currently, 1,514 cities and municipalities have submitted Local Poverty Reduction Action Plans. The main objective is to increase citizen’s access to local service delivery through demand-driven budget planning process, and to strengthen government accountability in local public service provision.

Relevance - The BUB program is relevant in advancing citizen engagement as it provides a mechanism for citizens to directly participate in the national budgeting process through the Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT). BuB also seeks to establish supportive policies and create mechanisms that enable citizens and grassroots organizations to increase their demand for improved local service delivery and a more accountable government.

Ambition - The intended result is more responsive government plans and budget through the bottom-up process. The aim is to institutionalize participation of grassroots organizations in developing local poverty reduction action plans and identifying projects to be implemented in their areas. BuB is also expected to improve service delivery, benefiting especially the poor households and marginalized sectors.

Responsible institution: Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Supporting institutions: Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC); Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP); Budget Advocacy Group, Task Force Participatory Local Governance.

Start date: 1 January 2015

End date: 31 December 2017

Commitment Aim

The commitment aimed to strengthen the participation of CSOs in planning the budgets for local poverty reduction through Bottom-up Budgeting (BuB). Grassroots organizations and local government units (LGUs) would be supported to identify poverty reduction projects to be funded by national government agencies. It also aimed to ensure cities and municipalities comply with the submission of their Local Poverty Reduction Action Plan (LPRAP) following participatory processes and increase the allocation of performance-based funds to high-performing LGUs as an incentive. This commitment also included delivering a system to monitor progress of BuB projects and generate feedback from stakeholders. CSO deliverables were advocating for legislation and holding dialogues on citizen participation and BuB case studies with stakeholders from government and civil society.

Status

Midterm: Substantial

Substantial progress was made toward completing this commitment at the midterm. The number of LPRAPs passed in 2016 exceeded the target, falling only two short of the target for 2017. The allocated amount for performance-based downloads through the Local Government Support Fund (LGSF), which is a direct download, also exceeded the target. It increased from 2.5B in 2015 to 11.7B in 2016, and 15.8B in 2017. A dialogue on BuB took place at the House of Representatives and CSOs conducted two studies relevant to the commitment. The feedback and monitoring system and the BuB case studies which, at the time of writing the progress report, had not yet been started.

End of term: Complete

All the deliverables for this commitment have been accomplished. Despite the Citizen Participation bill not being prioritized by the government, INCITEGov has convened dialogues on the issue. The National Economic and Development Authority (LEDAC) has supported the Budget Reform Bill, championed by the Department of Budget and Management.[Note: INCITEGov, response to the questionnaire of the IRM Researcher for the End of Term Report. Sent on October 13, 2017.] BuB included a citizen-led monitoring system implemented by NAPC and civil society groups. This involved on-the-ground monitoring by civil society and sessions for gathering feedback and solving problems. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) created the OpenBuB online portal, which has information on the status of BuB projects. DILG also established a hotline and posted information about it in local government offices. XX[Note: Political Democracy and Reforms and Government Watch (PODER/ G-Watch). 2016. Understanding Governance Reforms in 'Fragile' Societies: The Case of Bottom-Up Budgeting in ARMM. Oxfam and Ateneo School of Government; Cayadong, Perigine M, Jude Esguerra, Marie Labajo, Joel Rocamora. 2016. Rearranging Local-Central Government Relations: The “Bottom Up Budgeting” (BUB) program. Draft.]XX The Jesse Robredo Institute of Governance, the CSO co-commitment holder, published two relevant studies, one looked at two municipalities and one city in Region VI, the other looked at one municipality and one city in Region X.[Note: Case studies are available at https://www.dlsu-jrig.org/learning-materials/. ]

Did It Open Government?

Access to Information: Marginal

Civic Participation: Major

Ordinary citizens have been provided with too few opportunities to input into planning and budgeting in the Philippines. Despite both the Constitution and the 1991 Local Government Code requiring CSO participation, budgeting has remained overly centralized. This commitment provided space for CSOs to influence budget priorities, which have previously been unresponsive to the needs of citizens. CSOs have also been given the opportunity to monitor budget performance. Several studies assessing the BuB[Note: According to BuB staff that participated in the FGD, there are several studies by Philippine Institute for Development Studies. One is accessible online: Manasan, Rosario. “Assessment of the Bottom-Up-Budgeting Process for FY 2015. Discussion Paper Series No. 2015-25. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. April 2015.] program found that the commitment has opened the budgeting process to citizens and enabled civil society to meaningfully engage their local government officials. However, different local government units (LGUs) have recorded different results and the lengthy time period for completing projects has been a common problem.

CSO stakeholders have pointed out that the capacity of the citizens and civil society groups to engage government effectively has been a major strategic concern. Looking at past OGP experience, the participatory initiatives that have been relatively successful are those that supported citizen and community organizations to mobilize. However, the challenge is how the government will support civil society engagement without compromising civil society independence and autonomy, which was also established as key to claim-making of rights and accountability efforts of civil society.[Note: Documentation Report. Roundtable discussion on ‘Did it Open Government’ organized by Government Watch. October 12, 2017.] Melissa Navarra and Vince Eugenio of Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) have both affirmed the need for community organization. Luningning Bendoy and Gigile Saguran of Damayan ng Maralitang Pilipinong Api (DAMPA), an urban poor women’s group, have highlighted the importance of community organizers that have the capacity to navigate the dynamic and highly politicized processes of local governance. Better engagement of community organizers is a major opportunity for expansion and improvement for BuB and other participatory programs. XX[Note: Ibid.]XX

This commitment has marginally opened government with respect to access for information through the OpenBuB portal. While data on BuB performance was available was not used much by civil society and the public.[Note: Ibid.] This suggests that the “demand-side” of open government data and mechanisms needs to be improved; citizens, based on their context and needs, need to be able to use available information to hold officials to account for their words and actions.’[Note: Jesse Robredo Institute of Governance (JRIG), response to questionnaire for the End of Term IRM Report. October 9, 2017.]

Carried Forward?

The Department of Budget of Management, under the administration of President Duterte, decided to drop BuB in 2016.[Note: “DBM junks Aquino admin’s bottom-up budgeting, calls it ‘political’ tool”, Inquirer.net. 15 July 2016 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/796143/dbm-junks-aquino-admins-bottom-up-budgeting-calls-it-political-tool. ] This was despite calls from CSOs to retain it.[Note: CSOs across the nation call for the continuation of Bottom-Up Budgeting Sandino Soliman. CODE-NGO. 17 October 2016, http://code-ngo.org/2016/10/csos-across-nation-call-continuation-bottom-budgeting/. ] The earlier Php 35 Billion proposed budget for the project was cut from the General Appropriations Act. The government asserts that the Assistance to Disadvantaged Municipalities (ADM) will replace BuB in the next action plan. Unlike BuB, which eventually grew to cover all localities and included a detailed process of CSO participation, ADM[Note: DILG-DBM Joint Memorandum Circular 1: Policies and Guidelines for the Assistance to Disadvantaged Municipalities Program. September 16, 2016.] only supports municipalities with projects that they have pre-selected. CSO representatives from the Local Development Council (LDC) Executive Committee are required to sign the list of projects proposed by the local government. INCITEGov describes it as a “simpler but limited platform for participation.”[Note: INCITEGov, response to the questionnaire of the IRM Researcher for the End of Term Report. Sent on October 13, 2017.] The government’s end-of-term self-assessment says the ADM intends to “strengthen the voices of the CSOs in the Local Development Councils where annual investment projects are approved for inclusion in the LGU budget.”[Note: PH-OGP End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report. October 9, 2017. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Philippines_End-of_Term_Self-Assessment_2015-2017.pdf. ] This has not yet been reflected in a new ADM guideline.[Note: Both the September 16, 2016 (DBM-DILG JMC 1) and May 23, 2017 Guidelines (DBM-DILG JMC 2017-3) have yet to present the process for CSO participation in the ADM. ]