Balangiga 1901: Did America fumble the bag?

Balangiga 1901: Did America fumble the bag? was also published by The Manila Times. Photo credit: The Manila Times cartoon 25 September 2024.

On Saturday, 28 September 2024, the province of Eastern Samar will commemorate the 123rd anniversary of Balangiga Encounter Day. Balangiga is one of the 22 component towns of the province (Borongan, the provincial capital, is a city). Republic Act No. 6692 immortalizes the significance of the celebration and has proclaimed September 28 as a special non-working holiday in the whole province of Eastern Samar.

The celebration aims to honor the valor and patriotism shown by the people of Balangiga in an uprising against American aggression. Hopefully it may also serve as a guiding light and a beacon of hope for a generation of Filipinos in need of another streak of heroism from their midst.

The Balangiga Encounter Day can be better appreciated with the twin backdrop of the last few years of the Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines as well as the Philippine-American war that raged from 1899 to 1902.

The Spanish colonial occupation started in 1521 when Portuguese Ferdinand Magellan, sailing for the King of Spain, reached the shores of Homonhon Island, which is also part of Eastern Samar. For more than four centuries, Spain controlled and exercised sovereignty over the archipelago that in 1542 another Spanish explorer Ruy López de Villalobos had named “Philippines” after Prince Phillip (who later became King Phillip II of Spain).

It took a while, a long while, but Filipinos, like all peoples and races, had longed to be free. Self-educated Andres Bonifacio co-organized the Katipunan with like-minded Filipinos who believed an armed rebellion against Spain was inevitable. From a resistance movement, the Katipunan eventually became a shadow revolutionary government. Its membership expanded rapidly, with smaller groups established in other parts of Luzon, as well as a few others in the Visayas and Mindanao. When an uprising did happen, starting sometime in August 1896 when the Katipuneros tore their cedula in Caloocan in what would be called “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” or “Cry of Balintawak,” the march for freedom had crossed its Rubicon.

The revolutionaries succeeded in many of the local battles, especially in the province of Cavite where Emilio Aguinaldo showed his military and organizational skills. In 1897, the revolution lost some of its steam, at least temporarily, when partisan conflicts between Aguinaldo’s Magdalo forces and Bonifacio’s Magdiwang troopers led to the latter’s trial for treason, among other trumped-up charges, before a tribunal sanctioned by Aguinaldo. Bonifacio was eventually found guilty and executed. Before his death, Bonifacio (obviously the more radical of the two) also accused Aguinaldo of treason for trying to forge a peace agreement with the Spanish authorities.

In December 1897, Aguinaldo signed the Pact of Biak-na-Bato to end the armed conflict with Spain. Aside from the cessation of hostilities, the peace agreement required Aguinaldo to dissolve his revolutionary government and for Spain to indemnify the revolutionaries in the amount of close to a million Mexican pesos. Aguinaldo and several revolutionary officials went on a voluntary exile to Hong Kong where they nevertheless continued to reorganize the revolutionary government.

The sinking of USS Maine in Cuba (caused by an internal explosion which the US government blamed on Spanish forces) ignited the Spanish-American war in April 1898. Cuba was itself in the middle of a struggle to free itself from the colonial rule of Spain, and the US, helping the cause of Cuba, went into a war against Spain that spilled over across the globe, reaching Spanish territories that included the Philippines.

The enemy of the enemy was a friend. In May 1898, Commodore George Dewey of the US Navy Asiatic Squadron fished Aguinaldo from Hong Kong and sailed for Manila to help the Filipinos crush the remnants of Spanish military forces in the Philippines. Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence a month later in Kawit, Cavite, his hometown, capping centuries of struggle for consensus among Filipinos divided on the means by which to achieve self-rule and the molding of a national identity. Dewey’s troops were among those who witnessed the unfurling of the Philippine flag and public singing of “Lupang Hinirang” (the Philippine National Anthem).

But the deception was yet to unravel. On 13 August 1898, the US and Spain sparred in what came to be known as the mock battle of Manila. Although there were a few casualties (sh*t happened, to borrow the words of then Philippine National Police Chief, now Senator, Ronald De La Rosa, ruing the death of an infant while waging then President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs) it was staged to save Spain from the embarrassment of its surrender to the Filipinos and to preempt Aguinaldo and his men from taking control of the colony’s premier city. A few deaths from the ranks of Spanish forces were attributed to Filipinos who thought the Spaniards were indeed battling the Americans. 

Eight months later, in December 1898, the US and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris to end their armed conflict with zero participation by any Philippine representative during the negotiations. The treaty ushered in the rise of the US as a global player and supplanted Spain as the world’s imperial power. The peace agreement required Spain to relinquish its title and sovereign claim over territories such as the islands of Puerto Rico, Guam, West Indies and the Philippines. The discussion on what to do with the Philippines was contentious. Spain hesitated to part the entire archipelago to the incoming colonizer, but eventually relented when the US offered twenty million dollars to sweeten the deal.

Voting 57-27, the US Senate barely passed the required two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty. Senator Albert Beveridge, who voted in favor of the treaty and one of the loudest American voices calling for the annexation of the Philippines, opened one of his 1900 speeches on the floor of the senate with these words:

“MR. PRESIDENT, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, "territory belonging to the United States," as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient…”

Emilio Aguinaldo was clueless about the Treaty of Paris. He did not know that Spain sold his country to the US like a piece of real estate property. When he did know the whole scheme, the grand imperialist shebang, he had no option but to wage another war. 

Here then was a riveting sight of Aguinaldo fighting the Spaniards one day and the Americans on the next day. This was getting tougher and tougher for him and his valiant men. Superior enemy resources forced Aguinaldo to mount a guerilla war from the fringes against the Americans. Unfortunately for him and the cause of resistance against foreign invaders, the Americans, with the help of Filipino collaborators, tracked him down in March 1901 in Isabela, leading to his capture. A month later, the first president of the Philippine republic took his oath of allegiance to the new colonial master.

And yet, despite Aguinaldo’s arrest, pockets of rebellion persisted in other parts of the country, notably in Samar Island (which Congress in 1965 divided into three provinces—Northern Samar, Samar, and Eastern Samar) and in Mindanao, where the Moro rebellion raged until 1913.

Although minimal in proportion to Filipino losses, the protracted war continued to claim the lives of American soldiers (with estimates of over 4,200 Americans and over 20,000 Filipinos having died in combat).  

The US could not accept belligerence, especially when the American press was giving equal space to anti-annexation sentiments. To quote Beveridge, the champion orator, again:

This war is like all other wars. It needs to be finished before it is stopped. I am prepared to vote either to make our work thorough or even now to abandon it. A lasting peace can be secured only by overwhelming forces in ceaseless action until universal and absolutely final defeat is inflicted on the enemy. To halt before every armed force, every guerrilla band, opposing us is dispersed or exterminated will prolong hostilities and leave alive the seeds of perpetual insurrection.

In August 1901, the American government sent Company C of the 9th U.S. Infantry Regiment to Balangiga as part of a strategy to consolidate its military positions throughout the Philippines. The Americans employed carrot and stick approaches to win the loyalty of their subjects. But the Samareños were hard to please. In fact, they soon resented their being hosts to what turned out to be overbearing guests. A month later, on 28 September 1901, hundreds of able-bodied men of Balangiga and neighboring towns, armed with bolos and a few locally made muskets, swarmed the Americans in a surprise early morning attack. Thirty-six of 74 Americans were killed on the spot, 8 more died days later from the wounds they suffered. This was, according to some historical accounts, the "worst defeat of United States Army soldiers since the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876."

The US Army’s response to the uprising was brutal. American General Jacob H. Smith directed a “six-day killing and burning” spree in Balangiga and neighboring towns that killed some 2,000 civilians on top of over 200 houses that were razed to the ground.

The Americans also carted away three church bells in Balangiga as war mementos. The US kept these relics in its possession until 2018, way much longer than the antagonists had mended their relations, evolving from foe to friend. During World War II, when in 1941 Japan attacked British and US territories in Asia and the Pacific that included the Philippines, Filipino soldiers fought side-by-side with Americans against the new aggressors.

In 1951, five years after the Philippines gained its independence from the US, both countries signed a Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) that required one to support the other in the event a third party militarily attacks either of them. The Philippines was in good shape, at least in economic terms, during much of the time that it enjoyed the initial years of its being an independent and sovereign state. Until its political leaders lost their way, committing their country and people to questionable debts that hardly serve the interest of the public.

If Beveridge were alive today, he must be in for the shock of his life to see how his 1900 vision had played out. Instead of America exploiting the limitless China market, the Asian economy has grown as large as that of his own country. It has now become almost impossible for American companies to compete with their Chinese counter parts on a global scale. Eight of the ten richest individuals in the Philippines and most ASEAN-member countries are either Chinese or of Chinese descent.

In terms of both economic and military expansionism, Beveridge’s America fumbled it. The MDT has not even prevented China from using military and paramilitary means to grab pieces of the territories within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone. Of course, much of the Philippine problem lies within its government—because, sadly, gone are the heroism and patriotic bent exemplified by Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, and the people of Balangiga in 1901.  

Equally responsible for the economic and military decline of the Philippines, in relation to its neighbors, are the voters who keep sending clowns, quislings, and all sorts of misfits to high elective positions. What Beveridge said in 1900 resonates until today:

The most enlightened among them [Filipinos] declare that self-government will succeed because the employers of labor will compel their employees to vote as their employer wills and that this will insure intelligent voting. I was assured that we could depend upon good men always being in office because the officials who constitute the government will nominate their successors.

Let me quickly add that in today’s electoral landscape, political dynasties which often also double as the employers—meaning, the wealthy overlords—are instrumental in shaping how the voting will go.

Beveridge saw through the stuff that Filipinos were made of.

As a race, their general ability is not excellent... in all solid and useful education they are, as a people, dull and stupid. In showy things, like carving and painting or embroidery or music, they have apparent aptitude, but even this is superficial and never thorough… the common people in their stupidity are like their caribou bulls. They will quit work without notice and amuse themselves until the money they have earned is spent. They are like children playing at men's work.

His own race and his descendants are equally bums, of course, if measured from how he saw the world during his time:

“The power that rules the Pacific… is the power that rules the world. And, with the Philippines, that power is and will forever be the American Republic… Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer.”

The way to reaping economic dividends through the hegemony that Beveridge dreamed of just detoured from America to China. And it looks like it will stay that way for a long while.

A quisling in uniform?

 

Photo credit: SVD

"A quisling in uniform" was also published by The Manila Times on 18 September 2024.

Lawyer Wilfredo Garrido rants against General Romeo Brawner, Jr., Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), for allowing "his troops to starve to the point of death when help is available from comrades and allies…"

Garrido was commenting on a media report saying that living on "lugaw" (rice porridge) for weeks forced the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) crew of BRP Teresa Magbanua to depart from Escoda (Sabina) Shoal, where the vessel had previously been anchored for five months (since April 2024), for Palawan.

His social media post on 16 September 2024 (copied verbatim below) reads:

THIS IS ON YOU, GENERAL BRAWNER!

If only you accepted US help to escort Philippine ships, Teresa Magbanua wouldn't have felt alone and abandoned. It wouldn't have been forced to set sail home.

However, you callously proclaimed that help will be forthcoming only "when our troops are already hungry, they don’t have any supplies anymore because our resupply mission have been blocked and they are on the verge of dying".

The effect on morale was devastating, not only on the Navy but on the civilian Coast Guard which has command over Teresa Magbanua. The latter cannot fight the Chinese alone - not with a Navy under express orders not to fight back.

What kind of commander, sitting in the comfort of headquarters, will allow his troops to starve to the point of death when help is available from comrades and allies? Only General Romeo Brawler.

Under these circumstances, the crew were forced to subsist on porridge and rainwater for weeks. With no relief coming except body bags, they set sail for home. They didn't have to obey orders to starve to the point of death. That is illegal, cowardly, against the Articles of War.

We lost Escoda Shoal. Not because of the Chinese. With Brawner as friend who needs enemies."

Escoda Shoal has practically been a combat zone these past several months. Efforts by the Philippine government to feed the Teresa Magbanua crew and replenish essential supplies for their use have been regularly met with often violent response coming from China’s naval forces. Chinese Coast Guard vessels have been deliberately goring Philippine vessels with regularity. At other times Chinese forces have shamed the Philippine flag and Filipino crews with water cannons. Wielding axes and armed with knives and spears, they have forcibly boarded Philippine vessels, puncturing inflatable boats, confiscating Philippine properties, and on one occasion causing a Filipino’s finger cut off.

In 1999, the Philippine government maneuvered the rusting BRP Sierra Madre to run aground at the nearby Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) which then served as a stationary military deployment. A commentary at the Xinhua state news agency charged that the Philippines was trying to replicate Sierra Madre with Teresa Magbanua, warning that "China will never be deceived by the Philippines again."

Aside from violent and aggressive actions directed by China forces at their Philippine counterparts, Magbanua has also attracted the deployment of up to 250 Chinese militias and warships around the area at any given time. For how long the Philippine troops will be able to hold their ground is a question that only the government can competently answer. 

Did the AFP deliberately starve its troops, to the point of emaciating them to death, so it would have the pretext to exit Escoda Shoal without losing face?

With Magbanua out of the way, it would be harder now to conduct re-supply missions for Sierra Madre. Escoda Shoal is located 75 nautical miles from Palawan (630 nautical miles from China), while the Ayungin Shoal is located farther to the west (105 nautical miles from Palawan).

After Bajo De Masinloc (120 nautical miles west of Luzon and about 469 nautical miles from mainland China), are we seeing the last of Escoda, and eventually Ayungin Shoal, as part of Philippine-controlled territory?

Bajo De Masinloc (also called Panatag and/or Scarborough Shoal) where earlier this month Chinese planes shot flares at the path of a Philippine Air Force plane flying over it on a routine maritime patrol, was the same site when, in 2012, a Escoda Shoal-like standoff happened between the Philippine and Chinese governments. We lost the stare down challenge there and left with tails between our legs. Although we continue to assert sovereignty over the shoal as part of our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), China has since then taken control—and exercised possession—of it.

The Philippines took China, which claims territorial jurisdiction over practically the entire South China Sea, to court to establish sovereign rights over its EEZ, in accordance with international law, within the West Philippine Sea. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines, rejecting China’s claims; the latter, however, recognized neither the court’s proceedings nor its ruling.

With a new mandate as president of the country, Mr. Rodrigo Duterte did not press China to respect the PCA ruling. Instead, he profusely expressed his love for China and its leader, Xi Jinping, even to the point of thrash talking his own country’s Constitution (which tasks the government to protect the country’s territorial integrity at all costs, or, figuratively at least, over the president’s dead body) in the defense of a position that rationalizes losing parts of the territory if that is what it would take to avert a shooting war that could not be won.   

Duterte, of course, had shifted his weight depending on which half of his butt was sitting.

In a 2020 speech at the United Nations General Assembly, he said that the 2016 ruling was “beyond compromise” and, for emphasis, added that “we firmly reject attempts to undermine it.” A couple of months before that, he said in a State of the Nation address that he could not afford a war with China over conflicting claims in the WPS. He explained that "China has the arms—we do not have it. So, it's simple as that. They are in possession of a property.... So what can we do? We have to go to war, and I cannot afford it. Maybe some other president can, but I cannot."

Yet again in a nationally televised address, he deemed the Hague ruling as rubbish, despising it as nothing more than a piece of paper that he could easily dump in a waste basket.

And just weeks before his term ended in 2022, he said in a ceremony for the commissioning of BRP Melchora Aquino that “we cannot afford fighting with China. We cannot win and we will lose, and the population will suffer.”

Like his predecessor, the incumbent president has been pretending to be tough in the defense of the country’s territorial integrity. But the pretensions are easy to see. Unlike China that puts its military might where its mouth is—supporting its claims in the disputed waters by swatting away intruders and building new islands—his government could not even show support to those who are performing patriotic duties at the front lines, leaving the Teresa Magbanua crews to fend for themselves even to the point of seeing them dying from hunger.  

Most of our leaders have prudently cited the ominous suffering our people will have to go through in case a violent war erupts against any foreign power. That makes them sound authentic, ever on the lookout for the wellbeing of their people. It is also a convenient cope out; they do not lose face while risking nothing. What is not verbalized in equally graphic statements are the wealth and political power that they risk losing in case of a disruptive war.

Government officials, through their public pronouncements, assure us that we will keep Escoda despite the retreat of Magbanua.

The problem is that we have no shortage of quislings in government, as can be seen from how dismissed Bamban, Tarlac mayor Gou Huaping (alias Alice Guo) and those who created her have thrived. (The word “quisling” originated from Norwegian war-time leader Vidkun Quisling, who helped the Nazi invasion of his country during World War II.)

A quisling badge would normally apply to politicians, but with Garrido’s depiction of Brawner, I struggle not to see shades of it blighting the honor of our men and women in uniform. 

One picture damns a nation

CHEERS! IT’S THE HOMECOMING. From left to right: SILG Benhur Abalos, Guo Huaping (aka Alice Guo), and Philippine National Police Chief Rommel Marbil. Photo credit: Inquirer.net/South China Morning Post. 

The aphorism "a picture is worth a thousand words" attracted a following since 1911 when the members of the Syracuse Advertising Men's Club (New York, USA) met in March of that year to discuss their craft. A copywriter who documented the event quoted New York Evening Journal editor Arthur Brisbane as saying: "Use a picture. It's worth a thousand words." Since then, communicators of all shapes and sizes (e.g. advertising firms, propagandists, public relations agencies, media organizations and, lately, content creators, influencers and trolls, etc.) have leveraged the power of pictures to send compelling messages to their target audiences.

By rationalizing that it was for “documentation purposes only,” Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Benhur Abalos perhaps did not mean to troll himself when questioned about a picture that showed him and Philippine National Police Chief Rommel Marbil flanking fugitive and dismissed Bamban, Tarlac, mayor Guō Huápíng (aka Alice Guo). But there he was, likely forced to explain himself after having surveyed the damage he caused to his own image when that picture ignited an uproar of disapproval from the public.

It is easy to see why a picture—taken on September 5, 2024, or hours after Abalos and Marbil had fished Guo out of her detention in Indonesia—of both gentlemen granting her with such a royal reception, who in turn acknowledged the gesture with a winning smile and the universally understood “peace” sign, is outright distasteful.

Abalos and Marbil are tasked with keeping communities peaceful and orderly, and which necessarily requires that rogue characters on the prowl are in check. Whatever it was that Abalos sought documentation for, nothing could be more damning than a picture that screams how he and his chief cop have performed badly in carrying out their task. Freeriding on the glow that belongs not to you is better left undocumented. The comparison between his cops and those of their counterpart in Indonesia is just too distant in his disfavor.

In June 2024, or a month before she slipped out of the country to evade authorities following an arrest warrant issued by the Philippine Senate, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has confirmed that Chinese National Guō Huápíng and Alice Guo are one and the same. This single fact alone indicts the entire government, notably the present administration and its predecessor. With Abalos in that picture, he has doodled how he fits into the pattern of government agencies being bribed wholesale by Guō to get things done her way.

Except for the billions that the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLAC) has belatedly uncovered as having been credited to her multiple bank accounts, everything about Guo is fake.

Her civil registry record is fake. An NBI Clearance issued before she applied for late registration contained a picture of another person. Her Philippine passport is dubious. Her Commission on Election (COMELEC) files reek of deliberate misrepresentation. Her Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth Statements, required under the law, are grossly devalued. Fraud paved the way for her ascent to being elected as a local chief executive, a position which is under the administrative supervision of Abalos no less. 

Because she is a Chinese citizen and a fake Filipino, she can only serve one country and betray the other. Some sectors, including the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, consider her as a national security concern. Given her record, everything she says is suspect.

Guō Huápíng can be a traitor to a country she falsely claims to be a citizen of. And those who make her exploits worthy of publicity and, with their presence, lend a crown of halos to them, should attract scrutiny. Politicians who ran as Manchurian candidates, like the one who created her, covertly serve the interests of other countries.

Abalos said:

"Nag-request si Alice na kausapin kami ni Chief and sinabi talaga na meron siyang death threats and in-assure ko siya na death threats 'wag niyang alalahanin.”

That should make his photo with Guo even more revolting when juxtaposed with the one that showed a mother lifting her son from a concrete deathbed, blood dripping from his body, murdered by men in uniform who supposedly are disguised as vigilantes. Unlike other suspects and fugitives that have been stopped on their tracks while on the run, both are uncuffed; but one is smiling while the other is stiff. One has death threats; the other is dead. One has an arrest warrant; the other is, at best, a suspect, and, at worst, as snippets of information from an ongoing congressional investigation show, a fodder for padding the numbers to meet a state-sanctioned kill quota. One is messaging by Marcos; the other is justice by Duterte.

A side comment is that while most of the 20,000 or so casualties of Mr. Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs were poor, Guo is super rich.      

President Bongbong Marcos Jr. saw nothing downright damaging in what I prefer to call as the “homecoming” photo, saying “I think that is part of the new culture now that we ask for any photo.” He is correct. To downplay the value of the picture is to slap it with more opacity to better conceal the shortcomings of the executive offices of the government which he heads.

A shadow of this double-speak brings back an image of then President Fidel Ramos who went around chomping an unlit cigar. He wanted to show support for the tobacco farmers in the Ilocos Region while keeping the earth smoke-free. 

Which one did Marcos try to please: Those who are weary of Guo’s antics by suggesting he was on top of the homecoming? Or those who helped create a quisling in Guo, probably of the same cloth as those who did not mean to stop her but were not given any other option by the Indonesian police? 

The country is thus indebted to Senator Risa Hontiveros for leading a Senate investigation on the activities of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) in the country. Her dogged pursuit of facts that give rise to revelations of what seem to be an unending string of irregularities made it embarrassing for the Bureau of Immigration, the NBI, the COMELEC, the DILG, the Ombudsman, the Philippine Statistics Authority, the AMLAC, among many other instrumentalities of government, not to whip themselves into action and perform the tasks that they should have been doing consistently, patriotically, and with integrity, a long time ago. The takeaway is that had even just one of these agencies been true to their calling, neither a Guō Huápíng nor an Alice Guo would have thrived in a country built by the blood of its heroes. It would have been hard for any of her kind to get around to even think of contending for any elective office in the first place.  

In short, with government regulatory agencies performing below expectations, we have reached a point where we put all the burden of electing authentic candidates in the hands of the voter. That, to me, is why the picture of Abalos, Guo and Marbil is worth a thousand words. It damns not only the government that Abalos and Marbil represent, but it also damns Philippine politics. It damns the voters—representing the collective interests of present and future generations—who are captives of a system that is so corrupted it shows symptoms of metastasis not only in Bamban but anywhere in the entire country—especially in areas influenced by political dynasties, drug lords, gambling lords, and, lest we forget, POGOs. That picture of a cheering trio sadly damns the whole nation.

For Maharlika Investment Fund, the pressure is on

For Maharlika (Maharlika Investment Fund, the pressure is on was also published by The Manila Times on 4 September 2024.

The Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) is off to a slow start.

It needs to gain a more solid ground, and at a faster pace, to justify the hype and pitching it got from the proponent, the Marcos administration. It also needs to show results to inspire confidence in it from the ends of both the public that pays its bills and from prospective local and foreign investors in whose buy-in over the long term the sustainability of the fund will depend.

Otherwise, the fund at best remains a promise like how its critics had raised red flags to warn proponents against its creation.

Fourteen months after the law creating it took effect in July 2023 and twelve months after the diversion of public funds—Php50 billion from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and Php25 billion from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)—for its initial capital financing was completed in September 2023, it remains at a stage of trying to figure out where it needs to go and try to make a difference.

The law itself—Republic Act No. 11954—allows the Maharlika Investment Corporation (or MIC, which is the administrator of MIF) to go wide and deep in its search for money making opportunities. It may invest in the capital markets; in joint ventures or co-investments, mergers and acquisitions; in real estate and infrastructure projects; loans and guarantees to, or participation into joint ventures or consortiums with Filipino and foreign investors, whether in the majority or minority position in commercial, industrial, mining, agricultural, housing, energy, and other enterprises, which may be necessary or contributory to the economic development of the country, or important to the public interest; and an unlimited menu of expenditures in support of sustainable development.

The MIF has a grand vision. In seeking inter-loping pathways to get there, there are risks that may well make it easy for anyone who takes the wheel to get lost. As it is, Maharlika seems to struggle in trying to find its niche.

Reports have it that the MIC is ready to invest in the energy sector within the next 60 to 90 days. MIC President and CEO Rafael D. Consing, Jr. has been quoted as saying that up to Php35 billion will be made available this year for its debut investment, which is likely to be in the energy sector. MIC Chair and Department of Finance Secretary Ralph Recto said as much, with about Php12 billion being eyed as possible equity investment in the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines.

By some discomforting coincidence, it was Rafael Recto, Ralph's father, who lawyered for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (or BNPP, a priority energy sector project) on behalf of the government. This investment—worth over Php130 billion when it was completed in 1984—was financed by a loan that took the government 46 years to amortize (until 2022). Two generations of Filipinos got nothing from their taxes.

In 2011, the Philippine government paid the amount of ₱4.2 billion to the National Power Corporation for maintenance cost (an average of Php40 million a year). Elsewhere, in 2012, the Sandiganbayan ordered Herminio Disini, a Marcos relative by affinity, "to repay the Philippine government the amount of Php3 billion for his role in defrauding the country through the BNPP."

And just to fully frame the backdrop of how a rudderless public policy works, a 1979 Letter of Instruction issued by Ferdinand Marcos, President Bongbong Marcos' father, stated that "the continuation of the [BNPP] construction was not possible due to potential hazards to the health and safety of the public"; but the first Marcos administration carried on with the project anyway.

We recall that experts (including economists from the University of the Philippines and Ateneo De Manila University, among many others) have questioned the merits of the fund from a public policy, finance, and economics perspective. But the second Marcos administration got Congress to pass in record time the MIF bill anyway. The milieu which the legislative process went through is hardly different from that of the one-man rule once presided over by Marcos Sr. This time, however, the railroading of that process has been questioned before the Supreme Court.

The traditional view of public administration argues for investments in social development impact sectors where it is not profitable for the private sector to go into. Instead, what is shaping up is a muscle being poised to compete with and box out the private sector. The reign of Marcos Sr. created more than 200 government corporations to address social development issues. They ended up being milking cows instead, rewarding a select few for their partisan support, and being continuously subsidized heavily with taxpayers’ money for operational support. With that record, the government has little to show to disprove the nagging notion that it has no business being in business. From vision to branding, the MIF’s whole shebang suffers from lack of clarity.

The MIF envisions to do both: being in business while trying to work for social leveling. These are parallel yet disparate objectives, never destined for coupling then, now, or in the future. Of its contradictions, perhaps nothing can be more telling than how its technical backers (DoF Sec Benjamin E Diokno, DBM Secretary Amenah F. Pangandaman, NEDA Secretary Arsenio M. Balisacan, and BSP Governor Felipe M. Medalla) phrased their statement of support in December 2022:

“Intergenerational benefits include increased access of future generations to income from investments, such as potential earnings from extracted natural resources such as in mining.”

The dominant worldview suggests that, all things considered, extractive industries like mining and logging hurt rather than benefit the present and future generations.

Marcos Sr. once proposed changing the official name of the country from Philippines to Maharlika. Did Marcos Jr. push the MIF to revive the message of his father’s call even with nothing specific to do in mind?

We note that sovereign wealth funds which the MIF idea took fancy from take their core identities from the name of countries. Examples: Government Pension Fund Global of Norway (which invests oil revenues to secure the welfare of future generations); the Russian National Wealth Fund (which supports the country's pension system and balances the federal budget in times of oil price volatility); the Australian Future Fund (a pension reserve fund); and the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (which invests in sectors that deliver economic and employment benefits to that country).

So why Maharlika Investment Fund and not Philippine Investment Fund?

If it is at all any consolation, Mr. Consing has been heard saying that the MIF has so far earned Php1.5 billion from “placements” which, if done to buy government securities, simply means making money from present and future taxes.

That earning represents a 2-percent increase, if reckoned from the seed fund of Php75 billion. However, this increase is only on paper, because the average inflation rate during that whole time was 4.1 percent, which eroded the true value of MIF’s initial capital by Php3 billion. In real terms, therefore, the MIF just lost Php1.5 billion in 12 months. Moreover, the loses do not yet take into account the operating and overhead cost the MIF must have already incurred, which can be substantial as well.

One wonders how much more could have done if the monies diverted to Maharlika Investment Fund had remained with LBP (which declared an income of Php40 billion last year) and DBP, like funding start-ups, farmers’ associations, and small-scale enterprises.

[THE POWER PI PROJECT: GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE] From The Margins To The Center: The Evolution of Worldviews

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO DOWNLOAD

 

I

n “Engaging Society: Sociologist in a War Zone,” Fr. John J. Carroll, SJ, discusses two contrasting views of society: One view sees society as built on consensus or shared values, and the other regards power and coercion as the predominant realities.

The consensus theory puts forward the idea that the members of society are united by a common set of values and understanding of what the world and society are all about; on this basis, they agree on the goals people should pursue, and establish the institutions in society for the realization of these values and achievement of key goals. Power is held in these institutions to promote and protect the key values of society. In consensus theory, power is the servant of society and its values.

On the other hand, coercion theory sees society and the inequalities it has created as resulting from the power relationships among individuals and sectors that have developed over time. The values in society defend, if not preserve, the interests of the elite, and reinforce systems and structures of inequalities. In contrast to the consensus theory, the coercion theory considers values as the servants of power.

Take, for instance, the issue of work and the incomes derived from working. Consensus theorists support the engagement of people in specialized jobs who logically earn sizable incomes as their competence and skills are employed for the good of society. On the other hand, coercion theorists will argue that the huge incomes by these highly skilled workers result from the scarce and unique talent they possess, and that these specialists would, in fact, limit the entry of others in their field so as to exclusively enjoy high earnings and amass the wealth for themselves.

Father Carroll contends that Philippine society can be better understood in terms of coercion theory rather than consensus theory. “Power has much more to do with who gets what than do society’s values or the common good…” he says.

Local communities, for reasons within and beyond their control, have been increasingly losing command over crucial aspects of their lives. Aggravated by dwindling or plain lack of resources such as land and capital, decision-making and overall control of their lives are often relegated to a few who have the resources from the local to national levels. Unfortunately, the systems and structures at these levels intended to serve the people all the way to the communities, among them electoral processes, education, health, and infrastructure systems, are working more for the service and benefit of those who wield power.

To reduce these inequalities in power and resources, Father Carroll proposes what he calls “the Interest Group Model.” In this model, various local organizations at the lowest strata of society are linked with each other and connected with broader organizations at the provincial and national levels. It is no different from the associations, cooperatives and federations that exist in our country today—e.g., irrigators’ associations, farmers’ cooperatives, labor unions and federations. The essential thing is that they organize and come together to advance their common concerns and interests via policies and programs, and not personal connections or favors.

Approaches to participatory governance

The PowerPI Project aims to bring to life Father Carroll’s “Interest Group Model.” It aims to facilitate the transformation of people and their organizations from being spectators at the margins of society to being the informed actors at the center of political power. The ultimate agenda is the transformation of power politics from one that considers social and individual values as servants of power to one that considers power as servant of society and its values.

From the fringes to the mainstream (or from the margins to the center)

Before the PowerPI Project, there had been strong lobby for institutionalization of people empowerment and participatory governance approaches to development in the conduct of government affairs as well as in the design and implementation of government projects. For example, one of the core legislative processes espoused by the Local Government Code was the involvement of people’s organizations in an LGU’s legislative processes. Assumed to represent the voiceless and powerless, these organizations can theoretically enhance legislation at the lowest levels of government by bringing to the process the issues of the poor and marginalized members of society. 

Community-Driven Development

One of the government’s flagship programs designed to promote people empowerment while at the same time addressing poverty among the country’s poorest municipalities is Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services: Kapangyarihan at Kaunlaran sa Barangay (KALAHI-CIDSS: KKB) Project. This multi-agency funded project is principally implemented by the Department of Social Welfare and Development in partnership with local government units. KALAHI has been in operation since 2003 and has now been renamed as National Community Driven Development Program (NCDDP). Several bills are pending in Congress that seek to institutionalize NCDDP throughout the country.

A World Bank study says that "the key idea behind... CDD... is that because communities participate in choosing projects themselves, the match between what a community needs and the project it receives is much better than in traditional 'top-down' development projects..."  (Rao, 2003)

Rao and Ibanez further say that "the CDD process of applying and obtaining funds, and constructing and managing a facility, will improve the community's capacity for collective action... (which) in turn will result in greater social cohesion, improve the community's ability to manage its own future and set it on a sustainable path towards poverty reduction." The term "capacity for collective action" is also used to mean "social capital" although in a less broad sense, which refers to "features of organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions. It refers to the ability of individuals to build "bonds" within their own group activity are key sources of a community's strength and its ability to work for its own betterment."

In Balangiga where I was the KALAHI Area Coordinator from 2003 to 2006, KALAHI has succeeded in raising awareness that development is everybody's concern. Individuals—young, old, men, women, rich, poor, government, and private organizations—believed that they all need to contribute to advance community goals. They need to link arms and pool resources together to succeed in their community development efforts. Three indicators of capacity for collective action—namely trust levels, willingness to pool resources, and participation in group activities—had shown the relative success of the project in Balangiga.

CDD projects like KALAHI "rely on communities to use their social capital to organize themselves and participate in development processes. Thus, concepts such as participation, community, and social capital are critical to how community participation is conceptualized and implemented.... The cornerstone of CDD initiatives is the active involvement of members of a defined community in at least some aspects of project design and implementation. Although participation can occur at many levels, a key objective is the incorporation of local knowledge into the project's decision-making processes. When potential beneficiaries also make key project decisions, participation becomes self-initiated action—what has come to be known as the exercise of voice and choice or empowerment. Participation is expected to lead to better designed projects, better targeted benefits, more cost-effective and timely delivery of project inputs, and more equitably distributed project benefits with less corruption and other rent-seeking activity" (Mansuri, 2004)

The World Bank's "Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Sourcebook views CDD as a mechanism for enhancing sustainability, improving efficiency and effectiveness, allowing poverty reduction efforts to be taken to scale, making development more inclusive, empowering poor people, building social capital, strengthening governance, and complementing market and public sector activities. CDD is said to achieve all this by reducing information problems (by eliciting development priorities directly from target communities and allowing communities to identify projects and eligible recipients of private benefits), expanding the resources available to the poor (through credit, social funds, capacity building, and occupational training), and strengthening the civic capacities of communities by nurturing organizations that represent them.

An end-of-project report on KALAHI CIDSS in Balangiga, Eastern Samar, makes a case for individual and community transformation[1]:

“The value of KALAHI lies not in things. It lies in people. In the final analysis, KALAHI will not be measured in terms of the number of sub-projects (eg, barangay road, drainage systems, water system, etc.) it has completed and put into operation, nor in terms of the amount of funds it has disbursed. The success of KALAHI will be measured in terms of the number of believers it has transformed from being indifferent to active participants in community building, from not having enough information and skill to having the capacity to build consensus and make informed decisions, from being project beneficiaries to being project managers themselves, or from one who benefits to one who decides.”

The report further draws insights and lessons from project implementation experiences in Balangiga:

1)      Community participation in KALAHI activities has been evident. People not used to being given importance in public discussions and decision making processes found the barangay assemblies and workshops as veritable watersheds for empowerment.

2)      Capacity building is important to sustain the empowerment process. Communities have at varying levels gained awareness, skills, and experience necessary to adopt the KALAHI processes. The challenge is to institutionalize and sustain those processes.

3)      Cooperation between the barangay officials and volunteers is a major determinant of success. To sustain cooperation and the high level of interest, people need to convince themselves of how good the project is. Individual experiences with the project determined their respective perception and of where they stand.

4)      For whatever success the project might have in Balangiga, the LGU support, particularly from its officials, has been major facilitating factor.

From the bottom to the top

Local Government Code (LGC)

The country’s legal framework promotes local autonomy and decentralization, which in turn create conditions for a more meaningful people participation in governance.

Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provide mechanisms to promote the participation of citizens and their organizations in the facilitation of development processes. Articles II, X, and XIII of the 1987 Constitution aim to promote and protect the rights of the people and civil society organizations and platforms for "effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making." The LGC and the annual General Appropriations Act also recognize and support need to provide conditions for people participation and/or citizen engagement in governance at the local level.

Through Local Development Councils (LDCs) and other special bodies in all LGUs (barangay, municipality, city, or province), the LGC facilitates people’s participation in local governance. LDCs plan and prioritize local programs and projects. They are mandated to include as their members NGOs for as much as one-fourth of the entire membership.

There are many ways by which people participate in local governance. At the barangay level, people have direct access to inexpensive and less tedious justice, where conciliation can be facilitated. People gather in general assemblies to discuss issues and approve barangay budgets and reports. They participate in governance through political exercise such as suffrage, sectoral representation, initiatives, and recall. In special bodies, they participate through their accredited organizations. (Tapales, 2003) 

However, despite the establishment of various local, regional, and national structures and mechanisms to promote and mainstream meaningful citizen engagement in governance, recent policy discussions, stakeholder consultations, and several studies in this governance area have identified the following governance gaps between policy issuance and effective policy implementation both at the national and local levels of government  (Independent Review Mechanism, 2019):

1)      There is a weak system in documenting citizens participation in national and local governance.

2)      The use of technology in governance, particularly in the area of citizens engagement, is not fully maximized; and

3)      There is a need for providing more platforms to inform the citizens of the state of local governance in their respective local governments.

The Open Government Partnership has proposed enhancements of the legal framework to address the above-mentioned gaps:

1)      Issuance and implementation of National policy on civil society participation in governance.

2)      Implementation of Civic Technology for Governance Innovations through Citizen Feedback System (Development Live).

3)      Conduct of Town Hall Meetings (Regional, Provincial and Municipal Level)

4)      Oversee local governments in promoting the establishment and operation of people’s and non-governmental organizations.

Bottom-up budgeting (BUB)[2]

The Bottom-up Budgeting process was one of the major reform initiatives of President Benigno S. Aquino III administration. Prior to the introduction of the BUB, the national government budgeting process was primarily driven by the national government agencies that implement the budget although the Regional Development Councils provide LGUs a limited venue to input into the process. The BUB was also viewed as part of the democracy/empowerment reform as it opened another avenue for people’s participation in local planning and budgeting and for generating demand for good governance at the local level. It was further perceived as part of local governance reform in the sense that it provided incentives for good local governance. (Manasan, 2016)

In the three rounds of BUB implementation (2013, 2014, and 2015), the reform initiative appeared to have succeeded in making LGUs aware of the need to involve CSOs in development planning and utilizing empirical data for planning purposes. However, the potential of CSO participation in local planning process has not been realized fully largely because of inadequate capacity of many CSOs to engage in local planning and budgeting processes and lack of sufficient facilitation during the BUB processes.

The BUB offered an additional source of funding for the LGUs. It essentially provided an additional grant from the national government to LGUs computed at equal to PhP700 times the number of poor people in the LGU (based on the 2009 small area estimates of poverty incidence in each LGU area from the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB)). Thus, the BUB allocation for municipalities and cities which have a larger number of poor constituents is larger than that of municipalities and cities which have a smaller number of poor constituents.

However, the grant may not be less than PhP15 million nor more than PhP 50 million per LGU. On the other hand, the BUB required that LGUs provide a cash counterpart to the national government grant in amounts prescribed by the national government. The LGU counterpart fund must be sourced from LGU funds and the allocation of the same must be formalized by its inclusion in the LGU’s Annual Investment Plan (AIP).

How does the BUB work?

Generally, the BUB process includes civil society organization (CSO) assemblies that select their representatives to the Local Poverty Reduction Action Teams (LPRATs). The LPRATs are tasked to identify projects based on the poverty situation analysis of the CSO assemblies. The projects identified by the LPRATs are submitted to the Regional Poverty Reduction Action Team (RPRAT) for review and then forwarded to the concerned national government agencies for inclusion in their proposed budgets, which are submitted to Congress and Senate for inclusion in the GAA. (Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2015)

The BUB process

There are nine main components of the BUB process: (1) CSO assemblies, (2) LPRAP workshops, (3) submission of the list of priority projects  to the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Regional Office, (4) consolidation of the projects by the DILG Regional Office, (5) validation of projects by the RPRAT and the National Poverty Reduction Action Team, (6) submission of the revised list of priority projects together with a Sanggunian resolution to the DILG Regional Office, (7) integration of the LGU projects in the budgets of participating agencies, (8) provision of an LGU counterpart, and (9) project implementation (DBM et al. 2014).

The DILG and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) convene the general assembly of CSOs at the city or municipal level to select their representatives in the LPRAT. A co-chairperson of the LPRAT from the CSOs will be elected as well as three co-signatories for the LPRAP. Not eligible to be elected as CSO representatives are elected local officials and their relatives, and LGU employees.

Under the leadership of the mayor and the elected co-chairperson from the CSO representatives, the LPRAT identifies projects to be included in the LPRAP. Themes that could be used as guide in identifying projects are attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, poverty reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and disaster preparedness. The LPRAP should be properly endorsed by the CSOs and the Sangguniang Bayan through a resolution.

The regional offices of the DILG consolidate the list of priority projects by region, which will be provided to all members of the RPRATs and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The RPRAT is composed of the regional directors of the DILG, DBM, and other national agencies, a CSO representative per province, and representatives from the Department of Energy and National Electrification Administration (DBM et al. 2012). It validates, reviews, and revises the list of projects as needed. It will also identify the appropriate implementing agency for each project.

The DBM consolidates all the plans submitted by the RPRATs and forward it to concerned government agencies, which will allocate a budget for the projects under the BUB.

Meanwhile, the LGUs must provide a cash counterpart for the BUB program equal to a percentage of their current local development fund. Without the LGU’s counterpart, funding from the national government for these projects will not be released.

In addition, only LGUs that pass the Good Financial Housekeeping component of the Seal of Good Local Governance can implement BUB projects. In case an LGU is ineligible to implement a project, the project will be implemented by the concerned government agency.[3]

Prospects of the BUB

The BUB process provides a venue for people to express their needs and, together with the local governments, identify concrete solutions to problems they face. However, for the BUB to become truly inclusive and participatory, meaningful participation of basic sector organizations and CSOs in the process is necessary. These organizations are supposed to represent the interest and needs of the people in order to promote a more holistic perspective on poverty reduction and sustainable development. A policy note by the PIDS on the impact evaluation of the BUB process recommends that an adequate monitoring, evaluation, and feedback system be integrated in its implementation cycle to address constraints affecting every stage. The PIDS policy note also emphasized the need to strengthen CSO’s participation in the process. To encourage genuine participation (and not only compliance), CSOs should be given ample time to consult with their members and prepare for BUB activities. They should also be capacitated on leadership skills, project proposal development, monitoring, and in engaging with the LGUs and other CSOs.

PIDS Senior Research Fellow Rosario Manasan suggested the adoption of the enhanced BUB process in more areas. In her paper on the Assessment of the BUB Process for FY 2015, Manasan observed a more genuine grassroots participation in local planning process among KALAHI-CIDDS areas. She attributed this to the KALAHI-CIDDS Community Empowerment Activity Cycle, which goes all the way down to the sitio level and involves a series of barangay assemblies, poverty situation analysis, as well as capacitation of communities in project development, implementation, and monitoring (Manasan 2015). Transparency is also an important component of participatory budgeting.

Participatory budgeting represents a shift from the culture of patronage that tends to serve a selected few and, at the same time, strengthens accountability in the government’s budgeting mechanism (Goldsmith 1999). In the Philippines, apprehensions have been raised by various sectors that the BUB could be used by the administration to advance its own political interest. However, Manasan pointed out that provisions of the Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 4-2013 gives national government little, if not, zero discretion in the allocation of funds across LGUs. And even if the BUB budget is a lump-sum appropriation, the guidelines under the joint circular appear to be applied uniformly regardless of political affiliation of incumbent local chief executives. Manasan pointed out that funding allocation across cities and municipalities is based on a formula, in which LGUs with more residents living below the poverty line get a higher BUB funding. In addition, the evaluation by regional and national government agencies of the list of projects proposed by LGUs for BUB funding appears to be limited to checking compliance with the guidelines set out in the JMC. Since BUB funding across LGUs is rule based rather than discretionary, Manasan concluded that it is not as vulnerable to patronage politics at both the national and local levels compared with other more discretionary funding sources for LGUs.

The tools

There are several ways of engaging communities in a development process.

The common and traditional way is what we may call set-and-forget formula. Every three years, people elect government officials who then proceed to plan and implement development projects aimed at improving the general welfare of their constituents. People set it once during elections and, bound by an implied “social contract”, leave it all to their elected representatives in government to make things happen for them.

Another way attempts at a more genuine engagement with the people, including those who are at the so-called “margins” of society. This process entails barangay officials calling regular consultative meetings among community members within their respective jurisdictions. Results of these meetings inform the barangay development councils (BDCs), whose membership includes members of the Sangguniang Barangay, representatives of non-governmental organizations operating in the barangay, and a representative of the congressman or congresswoman, among others.

Process documentation for the planning, implementation and monitoring of development projects undertaken by BDCs subsequently informs the municipal or city development council (M/CDC), whose memberships include the Punong Barangay of each city or municipal government’s component barangays. The C/MDC, in turn, enriches the planning and monitoring processes being undertaken at higher levels of government, such as the provincial development councils (PDCs) and regional development councils (RDCs). The RDCs feed the national government, through the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), with their own prioritized sets of public investments.

In theory, all national government projects, including the hyped-up infrastructure programs such as “Build, Build, Build” or “Build Better” or whatever projects, should have been identified, discussed, and prioritized at the community level. This bottom-up process of managing security, social and economic development was in fact sought to have been institutionalized twenty-three years ago with the enactment of the Local Government Code in 1991.

The problem with the LGC-enhanced development process is that it is prone to prostitution, filtering, and pilferage. Many things happen from the time a farmer raises his concern about low returns for his labor (he is not even asking for aid) to the time national government adopts its investment priorities. Often, the dysfunction happens at the national level. Like prostitutes, congresspeople filter the priority projects adopted at the barangay level with their own agenda for personal gains. Worse, some pilfer them as their own and use fake organizations to manage them. Such is the lesson we learned from the Napoles Pork Barrel scam.

Lack of people participation in development planning often results in defective projects from the viewpoint of relevance and impact (such as infrastructure projects, including farm to market roads, that benefit the rich more than the poor), technical and environmental feasibility (such as the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, the Manila Bay Dolomite Beach, mining and logging permits, dams, concrete sea walls or river embankments, etc), and economic and financial returns (eg ZTE National Broadband Network Project).

I was an aide of former Eastern Samar Governor Lutz Barbo when the LGC took into effect. Being a radically new law at the time, many LGUs were at a loss on how to implement the provisions of the Code. They were supposed to be beneficiaries of the law, but many LGU officials complained about the new responsibilities imposed on them and hated its author, Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. for an idea that involved systems that they were not up to it yet. Even now, we doubt it if congresspeople bother, even just for the sake of complying with the LGC, to send their representatives to BDC meetings.

I also had an opportunity to help teams facilitate community processes for projects that aimed to reduce poverty, empower communities, and protect the environment. These projects included the World Bank funded Community-Based Resource Management Project, the Bottom-up Budgeting by the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the KALAHI CIDSS Project by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (also World Bank funded).[4]

These projects apply tools that facilitate and encourage people participation, promote inclusiveness, increase awareness, and engage them in a more meaningful and effective process. These tools include participatory rural appraisal, problems and solutions three analysis, visioning and missioning exercises, strategic planning workshops, situational analysis, logical framework analysis, etc.

Technology of Participation

Developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs, Technology of Participation (ToP) is a popular tool applied by community development facilitators. It consists of customizable structured facilitation methods such as brainstorming, workshop, and action planning. It helps community members to think, talk and work together.

The methods were crafted over 20 years of global action-research efforts exploring group decision-making and collaborative governance, and ToP’s deep philosophical roots go beyond "tips and tricks" to empower profound and lasting transformation. (Participation, 2024)

The approach “enables people to actively create and participate in the changes that affect them—in their own lives, in their groups, teams and organizations, and in their communities and societies.”

ToP workshop methods enhance participation “all the way from the initial brainstorm to the final statement of consensus. They spark creative solutions and breakthrough strategies. Through surfacing of diverse perspectives and using questions to guide an open inquiry, groups are able to form ideas. They engage participants in ways that lead to genuine commitment. When people contribute their own ideas, they make a commitment to them in ways they do not when ideas are handed to them. The emphasis is on realistic plans that ensure the strategies, plans and decisions are implemented.”

Whatever the method, the key is to guide people so that they are able see and accept the development issues around them as their own. That way they are committed to helping the development projects meant to address those issues become sustainable over the long term.

From our experiences in facilitating community workshops, we noted that people from the fringes of society prefer, as a matter of priority, livelihood projects and trainings over infrastructure investments. The proposition is that the less people are involved in development planning, the more desirable infrastructure projects become.

Appreciative Inquiry[5]

Originally proposed by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva in 1987, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a theory, methodology, and process of organizational and social change that has given rise over the past few decades to a global network of researchers, practitioners, trainers, and consultants. AI grew out of the fields of organizational management, development, and action research, but it has since evolved into a process that is widely used and adapted by engagement professionals and facilitators.

Appreciative Inquiry is an approach to organizational change which focuses on strengths rather than on weaknesses—quite different to many approaches to evaluation which focus on deficits and problems. It is about the coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them. In its broadest focus, it involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a living system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. (Cooperrider, 2024)

AI is a group process that inquires into, identifies and further develops the best of “what is” in organizations in order to create a better future. Often used in the organization development field as an approach to large-scale change, it is a means for addressing issues, challenges, changes and concerns of an organization in ways that build on the successful, effective and energizing experiences of its members. Underlying AI is a belief that the questions we ask are critical to the world we create.

AI is an energizing and inclusive process that fosters creativity through the art of positive inquiry. It builds new skills in individuals and groups, develops new leaders, encourages a culture of inquiry, and helps create shared vision and purpose by building on an organization’s core values and strengths. Perhaps, most importantly, are the outcomes that emerge during the process which provoke action, inspire commitment, and lead to results.

Appreciative Inquiry is often presented in terms of a 4-step process (5 in other sources) around an affirmative topic choice:

1)      DISCOVER: What gives life? What is the best?  Appreciating and identifying processes that work well.

2)      DREAM: What might be? What is the world calling for? Envisioning results, and how things might work well in the future.

3)      DESIGN: What should be--the ideal? Co-constructing - planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.

4)      DESTINY (or DELIVER): How to empower, learn and adjust/improvise? Sustaining the change

Affirmative Topic

Once the basic concept of the positive core is understood, the 4-D Cycle can be better explained. The first step in an AI intervention is selecting the affirmative topic choice. This is, in short, the selection of topic(s) that will become the focus of the intervention.

Selecting the affirmative topic choice begins with the constructive discovery and narration of the organization’s “life-giving” story. The topics, in the initial stages, are bold hunches about what gives life to the organization. Most importantly, the topics (usually three to five for an inquiry) represent what people really want to discover or learn more about. The topics will likely evoke conversations about the desired future.

Positive Core

The positive core of organizational life is one of the greatest, yet least recognized, resources in the change management field today. AI has demonstrated that human systems grow in the direction of their persistent inquiries, and this propensity is strongest and most sustainable when the means and ends of inquiry are positively correlated. In the AI process, the future is consciously constructed upon the positive core strengths of the organization. Linking the energy of this core directly to any change agenda suddenly and democratically creates and mobilizes topics never before thought possible.

Discovery

The primary task in the Discovery phase is to identify and appreciate the best of “what is.” The distinguishing factor of AI in this phase is that every carefully crafted question of the topic choice is positive.

This task is accomplished by focusing on peak times of organizational excellence, when people have experienced the organization as most alive and effective. Seeking to understand the unique factors (e.g., leadership, relationships, technologies, core processes, structures, values, learning processes, external relationships, planning methods, and so on) that made the high points possible, people deliberately “let go” of analyses of deficits and systematically seek to isolate and learn from even the smallest wins.

Dream

Once an organization “discovers” its positive core, the next step is to imagine and envision its future. The Dream phase of the AI 4-D Cycle accomplishes this step. One aspect that differentiates AI from other visioning or planning methodologies is that images of the future emerge out of grounded examples from its positive past. These images are compelling possibilities precisely because they are based on extraordinary moments from an organization’s history. For many organization stakeholders, this is the first time to think “great” thoughts and create “great” possibilities for their organization. The process is both personally and organizationally invigorating.

Design

The Dream phase articulated the strategic focus, such as a vision of sustainability, a powerful purpose, and a compelling statement of strategic intent. In the Design phase, attention turns to creating the ideal organization in order to achieve its dream. Future images emerge through grounded examples from an organization’s positive past. Good-news stories are used to craft provocative propositions that bridge the best of “what gives life” with a collective aspiration of “what might be.”

The Design phase of the 4-D process is key to sustaining positive change and responding to the organization’s most positive past and highest potential. The positive core identified and expounded in the first two phases begins to take form.

Destiny

The Destiny phase represents both the conclusion of the Discovery, Dream, and Design phases and the beginning of an ongoing creation of an “appreciative learning culture.”

The Destiny phase delivers on the new images of the future and is sustained by nurturing a collective sense of purpose. It is a time of continuous learning, adjustment, and improvisation (like a jazz group) — all in the service of shared ideals. The momentum and potential for innovation are extremely high by this stage in the process. Because of the shared positive image of the future, everyone is invited to align his or her interactions in co-creating the future.

Stakeholders are invited into an open-space planning and commitment session during this phase. Individuals and groups discuss what they can and will do to contribute to the realization of the organizational dream as articulated in the provocative propositions. Action commitments then serve as the basis for ongoing activities.

---

[1] From “Balangiga Completion Report” by Hermilando Aberia, 2006.

[2] Sources: Economic Issue of the Day, 2015: Bottom-up Budgeting: People’s participation at work, Philippine Institute for Development Studies; Rosario Manasan, 2016: Assessment of the Bottom-Up Budgeting Process for FY 2016, Discussion Paper Series No. 2016-23, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

[3] Funding for BUB projects in a city or municipality shall only be released if the LGU achieves the following: (1) Pass the Good Financial Housekeeping component of the Seal of Good Local Governance under the most recent assessment; (2) Substantial accomplishment in the implementation of the Public Financial Management  Improvement Plan as determined by the DBM; (3) Required BUB counterpart has been provided in the LGU Annual Budget; and (4) Submission of proper financial and physical accomplishment reports to the concerned national government agencies for BUB projects in previous years.

[4] As mentioned earlier, bills are now pending in congress that seek to institutionalize and scale up KALAHI CIDSS, now rebranded as the National Community-Driven Development Program.

[5] Source: David Cooperrider: https://www.davidcooperrider.com/