2017 EROPA CONFERENCE

Grand International Parnas Hotel Seoul

September 14th, 2017

How People’s Participation is

Realized in the Philippine Local
Governments: An Empirical Study on
the Local Development Council

Kenichi NISHIMURA
Associate Professor, Center for International
Education and Exchange
Osaka University, Osaka, JAPAN
 Introduction
 Post Marcos Era: Enhanced Legal Base for Participatory
Governance at National & Local
1. 1987 Constitution
 Section 23, Article II
 Encouragement of non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral
organizations
 Section 15, Article XIII
 Respect the role of independent people’s organizations
 Section 16, Article XIII
 Facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms
with the people and their organizations
 Section 14, Article X
 Provide for regional development councils or other similar bodies
which include non-governmental organizations as their members to
develop administrative decentralization
 Introduction
 Post Marcos Era: Enhanced Legal Base for
Participatory Governance at National & Local
2. Local Government Code of 1991
i. General Clause to Promote Collaboration with
NGO / PO
 Section 34, Chapter IV
 Promotion of NGO and PO
 Section 35, Chapter IV
 Cooperation between LGU and NGO / PO
 Section 36, Chapter IV
 Provide assistance to NGO / PO
 Introduction
 Post Marcos Era: Enhanced Legal Base for
Participatory Governance at National & Local
2. Local Government Code of 1991
ii. Provisions to Establish Local Special Bodies
 Local Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee
(Section 37)
 Local School Boards (Section 98 ~ Section 101)
 Local Health Boards (Section 102 ~ Section 105)
 Local Development Council (Section 106 ~ Section 115)
 Local Peace and Order Council (Section 116)
 Introduction
 Local Development Council (LDC)
 Pivotal Institution for Participatory
Development Planning in Local Governments
i. To formulate comprehensive development
plans: long term, medium term, short term
ii. To formulate public investment programs:
medium term and short term
iii. To mobilize NGO / PO from the wide range of
sectors
 Introduction
 Issues & Problems of LDC
1. Inactiveness of LDC
i. Many local special bodies have not been convening
regularly (Brillantes 2003)
ii. 75% of LDCs are inactive (Garganera 2004)
iii. One of the factors behind the poor local planning in the
Philippines (Gotis 2008)
2. Issues related to the accreditation of NGO
representatives
i. Diversity of offices involved in the accreditation process
--> negligence of accreditation in some cases
ii. “Intervention” by mayor
 Research Questions
 How Local Development Councils are
operated in the LGUs?

 How Local Development Councils contribute

to the improvement in the performance of
LGUs?
 Data
 2011 Local Government Survey in the Philippines
(Principal investigator is Fumio Nagai, Osaka
City University)
 Population: 1,515 LGUs in 76 provinces
(excepting ARMM)
 135 cities and 1,380 municipalities
 771 in Luzon, 336 in Visayas, 408 in Mindanao
 Representative sample: 300 LGUs
 93 cities, 207 municipalities
 170 in Luzon, 67 in Visayas, 63 in Mindanao
 Data
 Interview survey: mayor as well as
city/municipal planning and development
coordinator (conducted by SWS)
 300 respondents for both mayor and
city/municipal planning and development
coordinator (= response rate: 100%)
 State of Local Development Council
Development Planning
 Mandates of LDC (Sec. 109, LGC 1991)
I. Formulation of Development Plans (Long,
Medium, Annual)
II. Formulation of Public Investment Programs
(Medium, Annual)
 Question:
Do LDCs formulate Development Plans and
Public Investment Programs in accordance
with law?
 State of Local Development Council
Development Planning
Table 1: Number of LDCs Formulating Plans/Programs
Investment
Development Plans
Programs
Medium Long Medium
Annual Annual
term term term
291 273 253 287 247
Formulate
(97.0) (91.9) (84.3) (95.7) (82.3)
Not
9 (3.0) 27 (9.0) 47 (15.7) 13 (4.3) 53 (17.7)
formulate
Total 300 300 300 300 300
Most LDCs have capacity more or less to
formulate development plans and
investment programs.
 State of Local Development Council
General Assembly
 Local development council shall meet at least
once every six (6) months or as often as may
be necessary (Section 110, LGC 1991)
 Question:
How many time a year do LDCs hold
meetings?
 State of Local Development Council
General Assembly
Table 2: Distribution of LDCs by Frequency of Meeting
Frequency of
Meeting No. of LDCs %
1.00 70 23.3
2.00 124 41.3
3.00 106 35.3
Total 300 100.0
 230 (76.7%) of LDCs hold meeting more than twice a year.
 A considerable number of LDCs (106, 35.3%) hold meeting
three times a year.
→ Most LGUs abide by the law
 State of Local Development Council

 LDC is an institution which realizes

participatory local governance.
 General assembly should function as an occasion
for NGOs and other members to propose their
aspirations and idea of projects to local
government.
 Question:
Do the LDC members propose their ideas of
policy & projects?
State of Local Development Council
Table 3: LGU Obtain Ideas of Projects from Members
during General Assembly
Frequency %
YES 292 97.3
NO 8 2.7
Total 300 100.0

Most LDCs functions as occasions for the

members to propose their ideas of
projects to local government.
 State of Local Development Council
 Most LGUs more or less make basic functions
of LDC work or they try to obey the law by
organizing LDC and holding general assembly
in accordance with related provisions of LGC
1991.
 People’s Participation in LDC
 LDC is one of the most important institutions for
people’s participation in the policy process of
local governments.
 Questions for Exploration:
i. How many percent do NGO representatives occupy
the seat of LDC?
ii. Does the executive committee of LDC has extra-
members from NGO?
iii. Who from local government attend the selection
process of the representatives from NGOs?
 Occupation Ratio of NGO
Representatives in LDC
 Representatives of non-governmental organizations
operating in the city or municipality, as the case may be,
who shall constitute not less than one-fourth (1/4) of the
members of the fully organized council. (Section 107 (b) (4),
LGC 1991)
Table 4: NGO Occupation Ratio
Frequency %
Less than one fourth 202 67.3
More than one fourth 83 27.7
Don't know / Outlier 15 5.0
Total 300 100.0
 Most LDCs don’t abide the provision of the law regarding
the ratio of representatives of NGOs.
Distribution of NGO Occupation Ratio
 Composition of the Executive
Committee of LDC
 The executive committee of the city or municipal
development council shall be composed of the mayor as
chairman, the chairman of the committee on appropriations
of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the president of the city
or municipal league of Barangays, and a representative of
nongovernmental organizations that are represented in the
council, as members (Section 111 (2), LGC 1991)
Table 5. Extra-Member from NGOs
Frequency %
No Extra-member 172 57.3
Have Extra-member 128 42.7
Total 300 100.0
 A considerable number of LDCs have extra-members from
NGOs although they do not compose as majority of LDCs.
Relation between NGO Ratio in LDC &
Composition of Executive Committee
Table 6: Results from ANOVA
NGO ratio
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Between Groups .051 1 .051 4.128 .043
Within Groups 3.601 291 .012
Total 3.653 292

Statistically significant correlation between the

LDCs which have relatively large number of
representatives from NGOs and the LDCs which
have executive committee with the extra-
members from NGOs
 Selection procedure of the
representatives from NGOs
 “Nongovernmental organizations shall
choose from among themselves their
representatives” and “the local Sanggunian
concerned shall accredit nongovernmental
organizations” (Section 108, LGC 1991)
= No stipulation on the role of mayor
 There are principles, at the background of this
provision, that NGOs and POs shall be given
their utmost possible autonomy.
 Selection procedure of the
representatives from NGOs
DILG Local Planning Other LGU
Mayor Administrator Sanggunian
Office Office Offices
Freque Freque Freque Freque Freque Freque
% % % % % %
ncy ncy ncy ncy ncy ncy
Attend 270 90.0 276 92.9 177 59.0 284 94.7 231 77.0 268 89.3
Not
25 8.3 17 5.7 103 34.3 12 4 52 17.3 22 7.3
Attend
No
5 1.7 7 2.3 20 6.7 4 1.3 17 5.7 10 3.3
Answer
Total 300 100 300 100 300 100 300 100 300 100 300 100
 In most LGUs mayors show their presence at the selection of the
representatives from NGOs.
 There are some reasons on mayor’s side: concerning about anti-
governmental stance of some NGOs, and fly-by-night NGOs.
 There are concerns from NGOs about unreasonable intervention and
political pressure from mayor.
 Relations between the State of LDC
and the Performance of LGU
 Questions:
I. Does the frequency of general assembly of LDC
have any effects to the performance of LGUs?
II. Does the occupancy ratio of NGO representatives
in LDC have any effects to the performance of
LGUs?
III. Does the mayor’s presence at the selection of NGO
representatives in LDC have any effects to the
performance of LGUs?
 Method of analysis: Multiple linear regression
 Dependent variables &
Control variables
1. Dependent variables: Performance data from Local
Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS)
developed by Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG)
2. Control variables:
i. City/municipality difference: city=1, municipality=0
ii. Level of income class of each LGU: income class 1 and above
=1, income class 2 and below=0
iii. Island groups 1: Visayas=1, others=0
iv. Island groups 2: Mindanao=1, others=0
v. Mayor’s orientation of governing: Participation=1,
Efficiency=0
vi. Mayor’s occupational background: Business=1, Non-
business=0
vii. Mayor’s style of governance: NPM=1, Non-NPM=0
viii. Mayor’s familial background: Political=1, Non-political=0
 LGPMS: Dependent Variables
 Performance indicator based on the self-
appraisal by the LGUs
 All performance indices are shown with five-
point scale; point 5 being the highest
performance and 1 being the lowest.
 Five performance areas, seventeen service
items, three value indicating items
 Set of Performance Data
(from Local Governance Performance Management System)
Administrative Governance Local Legislation
Development Planning
Revenue Generation
Resource Allocation and Utilization
Customer Service - Civil Applications
Human Resource Management & Development
Social Governance Health Services
Support to Education Services
Support to Housing & Basic Utilities
Peace, Security & Disaster Risk Management
Economic Governance Support to Agriculture Sector
Support to Fishery Services
Entrepreneurship, Business & Industry Promotion
Environmental Governance Forest Ecosystems Management
Freshwater Ecosystems Management
Coastal Marine Ecosystems Management
Urban Ecosystems Management
Valuing Fundamentals of Participation
Governance Transparency
Financial Accountability
27
 Frequency of General Assembly and
Performance of LGUs
 Independent Variables: Frequency of General
Assembly from 1 to 3
 Results:
1. “Development Planning”
 Significant regression equation: (F (9, 290) =
5.025, p<.000), with an R2 of .135
 LGU’s performance score on “Development
Planning” increases .063 point when frequency of
general assembly increases once.
 Frequency of General Assembly and
Performance of LGUs
 Results (continued):
2. “Resource Allocation, Utilization”
 Significant regression equation: (F (9, 290) =
8.479, p<.000), with an R2 of .208
 LGU’s performance score on “Resource Allocation,
Utilization” increases .128 point when frequency
of general assembly increases once.
 NGO Occupancy Ratio and
Performance of LGUs
 Independent Variables: NGO Occupancy
Ratio in LDC
 Results:
 No significant relationships between the NGO
occupancy ratio in LDC and the performance
of LGUs.
 Mayor’s Presence at the NGO
Selection and Performance of LGUs
 Independent Variables: Mayor’s presence=1,
No mayor’s presence=0
 Results:
 “Development Planning”
 Significant regression equation: (F (9, 283) = 5.028,
p<.000), with an R2 of .138
 LGU’s performance score on “Development
Planning” increases .297 point if mayors attend
the selection of representatives from NGOs.
 Concluding Remarks
 Critical Perceptions on LDC
1. Inactive LDC
2. Prolonged accreditation of NGO
representatives
3. Mayor’s intervention
 LDC as one of the problems of local
development planning (Gotis 2008)
 Concluding Remarks
 Mandatory functions of LDC
1. Most (around 80 to 90%) LDCs function to perform
their basic mission – formulation of development
plans and public investment programs.
2. Large majority of LDCs (76.7% of them) hold their
general assembly regularly in accordance with law
(twice a year).
3. Almost all LDCs (97.3% of them) provide occasion to
their members including NGO representatives to
propose their idea of projects and policies related to
the development of their community.
 Contrary to the perception of their inactiveness, LDCs
are more or less performing their mandates.
 Concluding Remarks
 LDC as an institution to promote people’s
participation
1. Most LDCs (67.3%) don’t abide the provision of the
law regarding the ratio of representatives of NGOs
(not less than 25% of full LDC members).
2. A considerable number of LDCs (42.7%) have extra-
members of the executive committee from NGOs.
3. In almost all LGUs (92.9%), mayors show their
presence at the selection process of the
representatives from NGOs.
 It is not so clear whether LDCs really perform as an
institution to promote people’s participation in the
development planning process.
 Concluding Remarks
 State of LDC and the performance of LGU
1. The more frequency of general assembly of
LDC, the higher LGU’s performances in the
areas of “Development Planning” and
“Resource Allocation, Utilization”.
 The activeness of LDC matters a lot for
LGUs to improve their performance.
 Concluding Remarks
 State of LDC and the performance of LGU
2. The level of NGO participation in LDC does
not have significant effects to improve
performance of LGUs.
 This result may be related to the competence of
NGOs. Especially in rural area, NGOs and POs
may not have enough capacity to discharge the
assigned duty to them to formulate
development plans and public investment
programs.
 Concluding Remarks
 State of LDC and the performance of LGU
3. Mayor’s presence at the selection of the
representatives from NGOs improves the
performance of LGUs in the area of
“Development Planning”.
 One of the possible explanations on this result is
that the mayors who attend NGO selection have
been established relatively close network with
NGO and their presence at the selection process
does not necessarily mean they are trying to
control NGOs.
 References
 Brillantes, Alex (2003), Innovations and Excellence: Understanding
Local Governments in the Philippines, University of the Philippines-
NCPAG.
 Buendia, Emmanuel E. (2005), Democratizing Governance in the
Philippines, University of the Philippines.
 Bunte, Marco. (2011), ‘Decentralization and Democratic
Governance in Southeast Asia: Theoretical Views, Conceptual
Pitfalls and Empirical Ambiguities’ in Aurel Croissant & Marco
Bunte (eds.), The Crisis of Democratic Governance in Southeast Asia.
Basingstoke / New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Garganera, Jaybee (2004), Strengthening the 3rd “De” of Local
Autonomy: Democratization as a Key Strategy for Local Governance
in the GMA Administration.
 Gotis, Manuel Q. (2008), “Introduction to the Rationalized
Planning System”, presented to the 5th National CBMS Conference.
Thank you for listening