Philippine Civil Society
Cultural
movements and civil society organizations (CSOs) have a long tradition in
the Philippines. There was a free association of Filipinos before there
was even a Philippine government. Years before the 1896 revolution that
ended nearly 400 years of Spanish colonialism and produced the first
democratic republic in Asia, there were cooperative societies and other
forms of citizen associations engaging in a variety of culture-based
initiatives. This tradition has manifested itself in different ways
throughout the last century, and was especially important during crucial
periods such as the 1896 and 1986 revolutions. CSOs are just beginning to
realize the potential of cultural power in contradistinction to the
political power held by the state and the economic power held by the
private sector.
Since the 1986 revolution which ended 20 years of authoritarian rule under Ferdinand Marcos, the space for citizen participation has expanded greatly. This reclaiming of cultural space is due partly to civic initiative and vigilance, and partly to the government's sensitization to popular demand and pressure. The 1986 Constitution, which replaced martial law, has enshrined popular participation. The Local Government Code of 1991 opened the door for greater involvement of CSOs in governance issues and concerns. The adoption of Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21) as the country’s blueprint for sustainable development in 1996 has further advanced the position of civil society as a key social actor. PA21, one of the most highly consultative policy documents in Philippine history, embraces a new, dynamic image of society where the key social actors are: civil society in the cultural realm, business in the economic realm and government in the political realm (see Figure 1).
Current Climate
The Philippines has been recovering from a long period of economic stagnation since the 1983 foreign debt crisis and the economic mismanagement of the Marcos dictatorship. The sustained development of the economy in recent years is expected to relieve the country from the recurrent boom-bust cycle that has characterized development in the Philippines since World War II.
There has been a progressive decline in social spending in the Philippines since the beginning of structural adjustment in the early 1980s. While debt repayment enjoys automatic allocation from the national budget, basic services rank lower as funding, priorities. The new administration, however, has made poverty eradication the number one priority. Education, health, housing, water and sanitation, and infrastructure are fast being privatized. Land reform, once declared as a centerpiece program, has been somewhat rnarginalized, and remains unfinished. Graft and corruption in government are common but rarely punished. Crime and violence are widespread and rising. Citizens are generally cynical of politicians and public servants and have very low regard for the latter's capacity and integrity to deliver on their promises.
On a positive note, the country was the first to establish a national council for sustainable development in the wake of the 1992 Earth Summit. The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) chaired by the National Economic Development Authority brings civil society, business/labor and government to the same table in trying to align the country’s development plans with Philippine Agenda 21’s vision of sustainable development. In this context, sustainable development moves beyond the narrow realm of environmental conservation to embrace development at seven levels: human, spiritual, social, cultural, political, economic and ecological.
Finding the “correct” policy language is one thing, delivering on those promises is quite another. The Philippines remains a divided society: the gap between the rich and the poorest poor seems to be widening even as the economy has improved. A continued focus on rapid economic growth has tended to produce several forms of undesirable growth, in essence undermining what little progress had been made in pursuit of sustainable development since the 1992 Earth Summit. Only now is the process of bringing sustainable development to the local level becoming operational. With this new development, it is hoped that on-the-ground initiatives can begin to make a real impact on the lives of the poor majority.
Size and Scope
The precise number of CSOs in the Philippines is difficult to ascertain, but the number of organizations is presumed to be large and increasing. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) estimates that there were about 58,000 non-stock, nonprofit organizations as of December, 1996, a dramatic increase from only about 18,000 in 1989, although not all may be considered as part of civil society. These figures cover only those organizations that made the effort to register with the SEC, and they are only a fraction of a much larger movement. Civil society includes self-help groups; neighborhood associations and community organizations; religious and spiritual societies; professional associations; business foundations; local philanthropies; private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and NGOs; and a wide variety of organizations 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 scope of cultural initiative covers a broad range of activities concerning human welfare and development. The traditional practice of bayanihan (mutual exchange) still persists in rural villages and some migrant communities in cities despite the pervasive influence of the cash economy. The majority of CSOs are involved in helping their membership, enhancing the sense of community, extending gifts and services to others, education and training, advocating the public interest, facilitating the process of gaining clarity/coherence of values or to promoting common professional or spiritual enhancement.
Initiative organizations such as development CSOs and people's organizations are on the cutting edge of social change processes as they engage in activities that impact directly on the larger society. They usually band together into larger social coalitions and movements to leverage their influence on public policy and government practice. One of the largest of these networks in the Philippines has over 3000 member organizations and sub-networks. Their world in educating, organizing, and mobilizing the public around the issues of 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 high in spirit, motivation, and initiative. Initiative CSOs can compel government to make a change as in the case of revising government positions in trade negotiations or, if necessary, even help bring down unaccountable governments as in the 1986 revolution. They are the alternative voice in Philippine society given the perceived closeness of government and business interests.
Legal, Regulatory, and Tax Issues
CSOs are not required to register with the government. But an SEC registration is needed to accept donations or to participate in government projects. The SEC demands audited annual financial reports from registered parties.
The Philippine Constitution guarantees the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly. The government is under mandate to ensure people's participation at all levels of policymaking. However, all these rights have been suppressed at times; as happened in the case of the writ suspension in 1971 and subsequent martial law in 1972. There are some disturbing signs indicating stricter regulation in the future. These included the proposed national ID system, CSO Inventorization and accreditation, and restriction of fund flows to outspoken and critical CSOs, among other things.
Nonprofit, non-stock organizations are exempted from taxation. Requests for tax exemption have to be filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue on a regular basis, usually every year. CSOs can engage in income-generating activities. They are not required to pay income tax as long as they do not issue dividends to their members and their revenues are used solely for nonprofit activities.
Funding Base and Support
CSOs in the Philippines generally rely on membership dues, donations, direct and indirect subsidies, and incomes from their own business activities. Donations come from both local and foreign sources in cash or in kind.
Development CSOs are highly dependent on public and private foreign assistance. They receive official development assistance (ODA) by way of co-financing arrangements between donor governments and donor-country CSOs. These grants are usually project-oriented. Donors do not ordinarily provide funds for institution-building of recipient CSOs.
Endowment funds for development CSOs are rare. There are a few examples of endowment funds being created through debt conversions, sales of land assets, and large corporate donations.
Earned income from business ventures is a major source of funds for some enterprising CSOs, although this presents a dilemma of sorts given their basis as institutions of culture. This is usually the domain of CSOs whose activities are focused more on income generation and the creation of livelihood opportunities. Cooperatives are considered to part of the economic sphere of society although many of the values embraced by cooperative members emanate from the sphere of culture
New Trends and Challenges
Despite the overall decline in ODA flows, there is a noticeable increase in the percentage of ODA monies which find their way to CSOs. Explorations in direct funding of CSOs from ODA sources have resulted in some pilot programs. One example is the Global Environment Facility grant of US$20 million for a CSO-managed biodiversity conservation project. New endowment funds created out of debt swaps fall within the same context.
In anticipation of a withdrawal of external CSO funding support in reaction to the Philippines expected economic upturn, some CSOs are beginning to seek out internal opportunities for resource generation, including entry into different economic ventures. Some of them have started borrowing from former donor partners and others have themselves gone into banking.
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 coalitions around common issues. Less money is a problem, but obsession with moneymaking may erode the core values that CSOs hold dear, such as volunteerism, caring and sharing, and the like.
The dramatic increase in the size of the cultural sector suggests the spread of volunteerism. There is a downside, however, to this phenomenon. A good number of new CSOs are fly-by-night organizations expecting short-term benefits from the windfall of available gift money and public contracts.
The challenge remains to further reinforce and institutionalize civil society through its own self-empowerment and self-accreditation activities and through appropriate support from all spheres of society. It is a slow process to educate larger society to recognize the contributions of social and cultural capital generated by the activities of CSOs to the creation of surplus wealth by the economic sphere. Once this is sufficiently recognized, it is hoped that innovative forms can be found to channel surplus wealth back to the cultural sphere for the further development and sustainability of the other important forms of human, social, cultural, spiritual, institutional and ecological capital. Then perhaps the economic sphere will willingly give gift money in appreciation and the cultural sphere can receive it in freedom towards achieving the common vision of sustainable development for the country.
LINKS:
Civicus -- a global alliance dedicated to strengthening citizen participation and civil society throughout the world.
