The Caucus of Development NGO Networks, in cooperation with the Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy of the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG), organized the forum at the university to share about the results of the 2018 CSO Sustainability Index – Philippines last 28 January 2020. Fifty-six (56) leaders from CSOs, people’s organizations, government, academe, donors and student groups participated in the discussions.

2018 CSOSI PHILIPPINES – HIGHLIGHTS

CODE-NGO Executive Director Roselle Rasay presented the highlights of the 2018 CSOSI Philippines. She started with giving a history of the CSOSI, describing the methodology and the 7 dimensions by which the sustainability of the CSO sector is being measured, and the Philippines’ ratings viz the Asia statistics. She summarized that the CSOSI Philippines overall ratings have been declining since 2016, particularly on the dimensions of Legal Environment, Advocacy, and Public Image. She went through each of the dimension scores versus the previous year’s ratings and cited key positive and negative developments/events that happened in 2018 to explain the scores.

REACTIONS ON THE REPORT

Columnist for the Philippine Daily Inquirer (the national broadsheet with the widest circulation in the country) Dr. Doy Romero and UP NCPAG Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy Director Prof. Herisadel Flores, gave their reactions or analysis on the 2018 CSOSI report in terms of the methodology, content, and recommended action points or use of the report. Both acknowledged the importance of researches like the CSOSI – “if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”

In terms of methodology:

• Broaden and segmentize consultations to cover as much perspectives as possible. The team can perhaps gather sectoral data from a bigger group of CSOs, then consolidate and have the experts’ panel analyze the consolidated data.
• Improve data-gathering. Not all information is available from government statistics. Academics can participate here, with CSO sector sustainability as a topic for research. Universities would also like to know more of CSO innovations, NGO leadership development and strategic planning processes for benchmarking. (Prof. Flores then said they will invite key CSOs to help look at their Voluntary Management degree course, which is currently ongoing a review).
• Before recalibration of scores, disclose and review how the methodology was originally applied.
• Perhaps other groups or universities can be trained on the methodology so they can help expand the coverage of the research.

In terms of findings / content:

• On Legal Environment, government appears to have a more regulatory versus promotive role with CSOs. Nevertheless, the ‘damages’ or declines in Legal Environment, Advocacy and Public Image appears to be skin-deep, since these are the ‘soft’ dimensions of sustainability. The ‘hard’ dimensions such as Organizational Capacity, Service Provision and Sectoral Infrastructure are still strong. We also remain highest in Asia in terms of overall sustainability.
• Consider orientational continuum in assessing the dimensions and find the balance. For example, compare and find the sectoral balance between Legal Environment and Sectoral Infrastructure; operational balance between Advocacy and Service Provision (balancing the pursuit of the profane versus heart projects); resource balance between Organizational Capacity and Financial Viability; stakeholder balance between Public Image from the perspective of the intellectuals viz the bottom of the pyramid; and granularity balance – is the CSO sector moving as one, or are we a concatenation of CSOs with various interests?
• There was little discussion in the report on how CSOs can work with government and cited more of constraints. CSOs should be able to set its agenda with government.
• Consider the contributions and perspectives of the academia to the sector; they are even bigger than the homeowners’ associations.
• 70,000 decline in registry of CSOs is alarming. Understand the reasons for this better.
• The report cites little support from philanthropists and individual donors. Consider monetizing contributions of volunteers.

In terms of recommended action points or use of the report:

• From a value chain analysis framework, which dimension is more important to make the sector sustainable in the long run? The sector should discuss this and act on it.
• Public attacks on CSOs should give the sector an opportunity to reflect and handle criticisms better. The sector can use this to find a common ground and to unite. How to find a common ground – by convening summits or dialogues, and to involve other sectors as well so they will know how to support the CSOs.
• The country is also approaching middle income status and donors are moving out. CSOs should start looking inward for financial sustainability.
• Target young people as supporters of our advocacies. In UP and other universities, student activism is decreasing; lesser students are willing to be socially involved. Since they are largely adept in ICT and are active in social media, expand our use of these technologies and platform to attract the young people.
• On the increasingly burdensome accreditation requirements for CSOs to participate in governance processes, look at this in a positive light as well, as a means to demonstrate our own good governance and transparency practice. Let’s comply, but claim the space and advocate more leeway to work with government.

RESPONSE FROM EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS

Three (3) of the members of the expert panel for the 2018 CSOSI Philippines joined the forum to respond to feedback and recommendations from our invited resource persons and the participants. They are Ms. Rory Tolentino, Independent Consultant and editor of the Philippine report, Dr. Nymia Simbulan, Chairperson of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) and Director Richard Villacorte, head of the Support for Local Governance Program (SLGP) of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).

Below are the highlights of their responses:

• Villacorte suggested presenting the CSOSI results in toto to the government’s Participatory Governance Cluster (PGC). The PGC may pick up on the index and strive to support the improvement of the Philippine CSO ratings, similar to the desire of the Department of Budget and Management to maintain or improve the Open Budget Index rating that they have. On the recommendation to expand the consultations with CSOs, he suggested taking advantage of the government’s Dagyaw regional (subnational) events – the roadshow/information sessions on national government’s flagship programs and projects – to consult with CSOs. He suggested reviewing the Volunteer Act of 2017, so that CSOs engaging in the local development councils will be automatically recognized as volunteers and access volunteer support from government. For data gaps about CSOs, the sector can inform DILG SLGP of these research requirements and they can support the same.
• Simbulan focused on the concerns of human rights (HR) groups and how shrinking civic space has particularly affected this sector. A specific example she cited was the effect of the SEC Memo 15 related to assessing money laundering/terrorism financing risks of NGOs, where government has specifically vilified HR groups. From 2016 to present, HR organizations and defenders have been the targets of attacks and vilification campaigns of the government. CSOs have not been remiss in building partnerships with government. Their group, for example, had partnerships in the past with the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, especially in upholding human rights in the operations of these agencies. In 2018, however, these agencies have closed their doors to HR groups. Further, the enactment of RA 10973 in March 2018 giving subpoena powers to the Philippine National Police Chief and the Director and Deputy Director of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), which used to be given to courts only, is a concerning development that has not been mentioned in the report yet. Because of shrinking civic space, HR groups have adjusted their ways of working; e.g. now with increasing personal safety trainings, online security protocols. A positive development, on the other hand, is the increasing knowledge and capacities of HR groups and increasing links with other NGOs, specifically born out of war on drugs and shrinking civic space. Nevertheless, Dr. Simbulan expresses hope for the millennials’ social involvement, given their energy and creativity. CSOs indeed need to involve younger people and develop second liners because current CSO leaders are ageing. She further agreed with the suggestion to broaden and segment consultations for the study and to particularly draw in greater participation from the grassroots level.
• Rory Tolentino observed that CSOs at these times constantly struggle with visibility and resilience – some keep themselves “below the radar” so as not to be attacked or harassed by government or its supporters. But while this resilience allows CSOs to work through obstacles, it also makes them lowkey – others perceive CSOs as being silent on specific issues and sending a message that they are losing relevance. How will CSOs balance advocacy and service delivery – to be visible and relevant still, while not losing to state harassment? It’s like a pendulum swinging back and forth from populism to democracy. What can the CSOs do to help the pendulum swing back to democracy? We have to do something in terms of our constituency building for this not to happen much longer. She agrees with Dr. Romero’s recommendation to look at the tensions of different dimensions to develop more actionable plans. She further agrees with greater academe involvement as a source of intellectual community; they can perhaps facilitate the neutral space for finding the common ground for various CSOs to unite.