The Bottom-up Budgeting program of the national government has been and continues to be a welcome reform initiative to the citizens of the poorest municipalities, especially to the citizens belonging to the organized sector, the civil society organizations (CSOs).

Based on the model of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre in Brazil, this reform in the public fiscal budget preparation engages, for the first time, the community members through CSOs to take an active part in preparing the budget side-by-side with the local government officials. This approach seeks to allocate scarce resources to the identified needs of the community and hopefully will result in poverty reduction.

The process involves the mayor, heads of offices in the local government such as the planning officer, agriculturalist and others, and an equal number of CSO representatives taking part in a planning workshop. It is here that the group agrees on their priority poverty reduction projects (inter alia access to water, distribution of fishing boats, farm-to-market roads). The output, called the Local Poverty Reduction Action Plan or LPRAP, will be approved by the mayor and the CSO representatives and will then be submitted to the national government to be included in the budget of respective national government agencies (NGAs). Once the national budget is approved by Congress, the concerned NGA or local government may now implement the approved projects from their LPRAPs.

The BUB started in 2012 with over 500 municipalities and cities, and the coverage increased to 1,223 in 2013 and in the following year, 2014, it covered all municipalities and cities. The guidelines of the BUB are covered by Joint Memorandum Circulars issued by four lead NGAs for BUB, namely the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC). They issue the circulars annually to all NGAs involved and to all local governments for compliance, with revisions after each issuance based on assessments of local governments’ and CSOs’ experiences and feedback regarding the planning process and its related activities.

Now on heading to its 5th run, the BUB faces challenges as to whether it will be continued in the next government leadership, among others. In the course of planning and implementing the BUB, there are success and challenges in varying degrees and many lessons learned, especially for the CSOs.

During the National Conference on Participatory and Decentralized Governance, a conference held by the Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) last July 2014, we had the good opportunity to meet up with five CSO network leaders. We asked them about their experience in the engagement of the BUB planning for FY 2014, or BUB 2014.

What worked well with the BUB in your municipality? What facilitated it?

Leo Laurio Lupangco, president of the Anini-y Environmental Protection Association and Anini-y Alliance of CSOs, and Gerelito Ermina, president of the CSO Alliance of Tobias Fornier, both in Antique:

In our municipalities, things worked well because we have open-minded and approachable local government unit (LGU) officials. CSO alliances were formed; its CSO members were active, dedicated, and equipped with tools for engaging LGUs. Those were made possible through the help of the Western Visayas Network of Social Development NGOs (WEVNet).

The Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT) meetings were constant, democratic, and harmonious because we had an energetic Municipal Local Government Operations Officer (MLGOO) and Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator who facilitated these meetings.

Joel L. Pantaleon, president of the CSO Network of Barobo, Surigao Del Sur:

The engagement among the CSOs, national government agencies, and LGU worked well from the Local Poverty Reduction Agenda Plan (LPRAP) formulation to its submission to the LPRAT. The KASILAK Foundation facilitated the whole process. We also appreciated the DSWD and DTI for the implementation of BUB 2013 and 2014 projects. Our local chief executive also issued an Executive Order creating the BUB Monitoring Team.

Ali E. Bandera, municipal coordinator of the Pioneers and Christians and Muslims Alliance Network of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental:

What worked well were the organization of our CSO network and the presence of volunteers and active CSO leaders.

Estrella M. Ballete, corporate secretary of the Senior Citizens of Oras, Inc. in Eastern Samar:

The BUB orientation seminar, which Efren Hipe of the Eastern Samar Social Development Organization and MLGOO Necrito Balase facilitated, was helpful.

Sioly S. Robles, 4Ps parent leader, barangay health worker, and president of the Salvacion Elementary School PTA in Prosperidad, Agusan Del Sur:

Bilang isang signatory, ang masasabi ko lang sa aming municipality talagang supportive ang aming mayor, kaso pagdating sa mga projects, matagal ang iba’t ibang agency makapasa ng mga proposal. Ako naman, bilang signatory, pag sinabi na magpunta ako para mag sign sa mga project proposals na ipapasa nila, pumupunta ako agad. (As a signatory, I can say that our Mayor is supportive. Although when it comes to projects, it takes time for different agencies to pass proposals. As a signatory, when they ask me to come and sign project proposals passed, I immediately go.)

What did not work? Why not?

Leo and Gerelito: The 2014 BUB LPRAP was done in haste just to cope with the schedule of the RPRAT. There was limited time.

Joel: We were looking for the approved priority projects from DepEd and DENR. We did not sense their cooperation in this program. Baka masayang ang budget ng aming locality. (The budget of our municipality may be put to waste.)

Ali: Our CSO network still needs to strengthen its engagement with the LGU.

Estrella: To me, what did not work was the formulation/preparation of the PRDA which was monopolized by one of the municipal Mayor’s personnel. He plainly told us, those who were in his group, to just “stay put” as we will all be benefited in his work. The result didn’t satisfy us. Also, all project proposals were prepared by the Mayor’s office and not by the CSOs. This disappointed us.

Example: Our CSO, the Senior Citizen of Oras, Inc. (SENCAO) prepared/submitted our project “Botika para kay Lolo at Lola” which was approved for Php 1.2 M budget during BUB 2014. We were surprised to discover from the Regional DSWD manager on livelihood projects, Ms. Russel Alzate Gariando, during her visit that our project proposal was prepared by the Mayor’s office and the beneficiaries (4Ps, women folks, and senior citizens) would be determined by the MSWDO. The SENCAO was not favored by the Mayor. She goes with what they call party affiliates. It appears that the project is being controlled again by the LGU.

What recommendations do you want to propose for the success of the engagement?

Leo and Gerelito: We propose capability building for CSOs on monitoring and evaluation, resource development, disaster risk reduction and management, and constructive engagement. More CSOs also need to be registered and accredited. Clean government policies and guidelines would be important.

Joel: Develop local and regional poverty reduction and development agenda to complement this engagement.

Ali: We recommend that CSO networks be strengthened; good relationship with the LGU be sustained; and approved projects be implemented as soon as possible.

Estrella: We recommend that government allow CSOs to prepare their own project proposal. Functional monitoring and evaluation body is important not just in the municipality, but at the provincial, regional and national levels as well.

Sioly: I recommend that our municipal LGU submits the project proposals faster.

As a whole, is the BUB useful or not? Why or why not?

Leo and Gerelito: BUB is very helpful especially to municipalities with low internal revenue allotment (IRA) because it supplements the LGU funds for services. It caters to the genuine needs of the masses from the grassroots. It also opens the door wide for CSOs to partner with LGU and to understand and learn the basics of good governance. It may curb corruption in government because of CSO presence as watchdogs. Finally, it allows CSOs to grow and sustain its association.

Joel: BUB is very useful to us since it addresses the priority needs at the grassroots.

Ali: Ang BUB ay nakatulong. Nakadeliver baya ang projects para sa mga sector, hinuon may mga problema. Delay pananglitan sa budget ug implementation pero klaro pud baya nga waay projects, Nakatubag gaway sa panginahanglan sa basic sector. (BUB helped. It delivered projects despite problems. There are delays due to budget and implementation, but it is clear that the projects developed were responsive to the needs of the basic sectors.)

Sioly: As a whole, ang BUB ay malaki talaga ang maitulong sa aming lugar dahil mabuti at maayos po ang pagpapalakad ng aming Mayor. (As a whole, the BUB helped a lot in our municipality because of the good implementation of our Mayor.)