Official Statement from CODE-NGO
We are flattered that Cong. Ridon thinks that CODE-NGO, with its 12 national and regional CSO networks and 2,000 civil society organizations (CSOs) nationwide can “monopolize” the GPB which will now be implemented in all our 1,600 municipalities and cities. In support of this allegation, Cong. Ridon said that 300 CSOs belonging to CODE-NGO have a monopoly on seats in the Local Poverty Reduction Action Teams (LPRATs) in 1,233 cities and municipalities where GPB is being implemented this year. We do not know the basis of Ridon for this figure, but even assuming that it is true, how can 300 CSOs monopolize the GPB in 1,200 localities? We would like to inform Cong. Ridon that there are at least 3 and as many as 10 or more CSOs in each of the 1,200 LPRATs, so there would be at least 3,600 CSOs in these LPRATs. And he claims that 300 CSOs is a monopoly?
Moreover, CODE-NGO or any other national organization does not have control over the selection of CSO representatives in the LPRATs, the body composed of local government officials and CSOs tasked with identifying the GPB projects. The GPB guidelines require the selection process to be inclusive and autonomous. CODE-NGO or any other CSO cannot prohibit a local NGO or peoples’ organization (PO) from joining the CSO Assembly in each municipality and city that elects the CSO representatives to the LPRAT.
CODE-NGO and other CSO networks support GPB but we do not and cannot determine or control the composition of the LPRATs or the project identification process in GPB, as this is done only by the LPRAT – composed of both CSO representatives and LGU officials – in each locality. There is no monopoly over participation in GPB, and no effort to exclude marginalized sectors. In fact, CODE-NGO and other CSO networks supporting GPB have exerted efforts to make the CSO assemblies more open and democratic and also to make the CSO representatives in the LPRATs more accountable to the CSOs in the area.
As our explanations above clearly show, Cong. Ridon’s claims that GPB is a lump-sum item that is prone to corruption and patronage politics are also unfounded.
In an apparent effort to bolster his unfounded and illogical allegations, Cong. Ridon dredges up the tired and old issue of the 2001 PEACe Bonds against us, and ropes in Sec. Dinky Soliman and Sec. Ging Deles. Sec. Deles was never an officer or member of CODE-NGO. Sec. Soliman used to be the Chairperson of CODE-NGO but she resigned in January 2001 when she was appointed to government and had no involvement in the PEACe Bonds. More importantly, it has already been shown in various investigations and forums in the past 13 years that the PEACe Bonds was a legal, moral and beneficial fund-raising initiative which established an endowment fund that from 2001 up to now supports various poverty reduction projects of CSOs all over the country.
We in CODE-NGO have been consistent advocates for transparency and accountability in both government and civil society, and we condemn corruption and patronage politics.
While we hold the Philippine STAR in high regard for including the GPB program in public discourse, we cannot understand the failure of its news reporter to even attempt to get the side of CODE-NGO while reporting wholesale the baseless accusations of Cong. Ridon. We hope that the STAR will continue to provide space to discuss the GPB further, and inform the public about this process that allows local communities to have unprecedented empowerment in the government budgeting process.
The abovementioned article from Philippine Star may be accessed from this link: