Bottom-up Planning in Mandaue City

[You can download this report in PDF format here.]

Focus Group Discussion with the Mandaue Poverty Reduction Action Team

Contents

1)      Project Description. 2

2)      FGD Description. 4

3)      Profile of Respondents. 4

4)      Results of the FGD Discussion. 5

a)      General Feedback on BUP. 5

b)     Level and Depth of Collaboration. 5

c)      Facilitating and Hindering Factors. 6

d)     Effects of the BUP. 7

5)      Discussion Analysis. 7

6)      Conclusion. 8

7)      Annexes. 8

a)      Focused Group Discussion Registration Sheet/Respondents’ Profile. 9

b)     BUP Assessment – Focus Group Discussion Transcription. 10

c)      Memo on conduct of LPRA planning workshop. 30

d)     Executive Order No. 11, series of 2012. 31

e)     List of Priority Projects 33

 

List of Tables

Table 1. Amount Earmarked by NGAs for BUP. 3

Table 2. Summary of List of Priority Projects. 4

Table 3. Basic Profile of Respondents. 4

1)   Project Description

 

Background

In 2011, the Philippine government through the Office of the President, organized its national agencies into clusters with the aim of focusing government response to, or strategies on, specific issues of poverty, security, governance, etc.

The organized clusters included the Human Development and Poverty Reduction Cluster (HDPRC) and the Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Cluster (GGACC). Both clusters, together with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), piloted the bottom-up approach to planning and budgeting (BUP from hereon in).

On March 8, 2012, the DBM, DILG, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, series of 2012 (JMC), which set the guidelines for participating government agencies in the implementation of the BUP in time for the FY 2013 national budget preparation.

Aside from the DBM, DILG, DSWD and NAPC, the participating national government agencies (NGAs) included the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Natural Resources (DENR), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of Health (DOH)/Philippine Health Insurance Commission (PhilHealth), the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Electrification Administration (NEA).

The JMC likewise selected 609 participating local government units (LGUs). For the 2013 budget, the JMC targeted at least 300 of the 609 focus LGUs.

Part of the BUP implementation procedure required the targeted LGUs to organize their respective Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRATs).[1] The LPRATs had been tasked, among other things, with identifying and prioritizing specific, budgeted, and time-bound projects for possible financing by the participating NGAs. They would—through workshops—identify, analyze, and prioritize community issues and the corresponding activities and projects that were meant to address them.

The LPRATs would then submit their prioritized list of projects to the concerned agencies for inclusion in the latter’s 2013 budgets. The JMC required the participating NGAs to allocate at least 10 percent of their 2013 budget for funding of LPRAT-prioritized projects. The allocated amounts, by agency, are indicated below:

 

Table 1. Amount Earmarked by NGAs for BUP

NGAs

Earmarked Amount

(in million Php)

Department of Agriculture

2,839

Department of Agrarian Reform

508

Department of Energy

12

National Electrification Administration

993

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

351

Department of Social Welfare and Development

494

Department of Health/Philippine Health Insurance Corporation

1,110

Department of Education

2,599

Department of the Interior and Local Government

83

Department of Labor and Employment

35

Total

9,024

Source: JMC 01-2012

BUP Objectives

The BUP aimed, among other things, to foster and promote participation of grassroots organizations/ civil society organizations (CSOs) and the rest of the community members in the formulation of government plans and budgets.

The BUP also provided the mechanism by which the inclusion of funding requirements for the development needs of the focus LGUs, as analyzed and prioritized through LRAP workshops, would be ensured.

The City of Mandaue

Mandaue, a highly-urbanized city (HUC) located in the Province of Cebu, is one of the 609 focus LGUs that have been selected to participate in the BUP.

Pursuant to the JMC, the LGU of Mandaue issued Executive Order No. 11, series of 2012, creating the Mandaue Poverty Reduction Action Team (MPRAT) and authorizing the team to formulate a Local Poverty Reduction Action Plan (LPRAP) through a LPRA planning workshop. (Copy of the EO is attached as Annex 7-d.)

The MPRAT conducted the LPRAP workshop on April 3, 2012. The workshop produced a list of prioritized projects (copy attached as Annex 7-e) and submitted it to the participating NGAs following the JMC-prescribed protocol.

The table below summarizes the list of priority projects adopted during the workshop and submitted by the MPRAT to the NGAs.

 

Table 2. Summary of List of Priority Projects

List of Projects (in order or priority) Reason for prioritization

Total Budget (in million Php)

Funding Sources

(in million Php)

LGU

NGA

1)      Patubig sa Katawhan To provide residents of Brgy Mantuyong access to potable water

.300

.090

.210

2)      Singko singko sa pansayan To promote sanitation by providing public toilets in 6 barangays

5.000

1.500

3.500

3)      Purchase of textbooks To improve textbook-pupil ratio

7.114

2.100

4.980

4)      Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program To address health and education needs of poor HHs

3.400

1.000

2.400

5)      I-care Program To upgrade barangay health center

.300

.90

.210

Total

16.114

5.590

11.300

Source: Annex 7-e

2)   FGD Description

The FGD was conducted 08/01/2012 in the Conference Room of the City Social Welfare Development Office, Manadaue City. The FGD lasted for 1 hour and 45 minutes, from 9:00 AM to 10:45 AM. A total number of 12 respondents participated in this FGD. Hermilando Aberia facilitated the FGD. Karen Lapitan documented the whole proceedings.

3)   Profile of Respondents

The respondents comprised the membership of the Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT). Of the 12 respondents, 6 were males and another 6 were females. They had an average age of 40, with 62 being the oldest and 30 being the youngest. The table below summarizes the respondents’ profiles:

Table 3. Basic Profile of Respondents

Distribution by Gender Composition of E-LPRAT
Gender

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Male

6

50

Government

10

83

Female

6

50

Non-Government

2

17

Distribution by Age
Below 20

0

.0

21-30

1

.8

31-40

6

50

41-50

1

.8

51-60

3

25

Above 60

1

.8

Source: Annex 7-a

4)   Results of the FGD Discussion

a)    General Feedback on BUP

Majority of respondents said that the concept or idea of participatory processes was new to them. They also were not familiar with the BUP as described in JMC 01-2012.

Those in the minority who said they have heard about the idea of participatory processes, cited as an example their experiences in the ELA[2] (CSWS and CPDO), and community health development programs (CHO). However, they went on to elaborate that participation by CSOs and community representatives has not been as broad as in the BUP.

There was one respondent—ironically the City Budget Officer—who showed not only scant knowledge about the JMC and about the list of priority projects which the MPRAT had submitted to the NGAs, but also little appreciation of participatory processes being promoted by the BUP.

b)    Level and Depth of Collaboration

The MPRAT conducted the LPRAP workshop pursuant to the mandate of JMC. Conducted on April 3, 2012 in Mandaue City, attendance by MPRAT members in the workshop was perfect. However, the FGD showed that not all MPRAT members stayed throughout the entire proceedings.

The main output of the workshop—namely the list of prioritized projects—went through the process of review, endorsement and approval by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue within the timeframe set by the JMC.

During the workshop, the participants divided themselves into sub-groups to tackle community development issues by sector. NAPC facilitators managed the whole-day activity.

Discussion of issues, as well as the prioritization of projects that were proposed to address those issues, greatly benefited from information brought to the workshop by CSO representatives. The CSOs mobilized their respective constituencies prior to the conduct of the workshop. They held meetings and consultations to ensure that the proposals they would be elevating to the LPRAP workshop truly represented the sentiments of their members and related publics.

Thus genuine community participation could be considered as one of the verifiable contributions of the LPRA planning process to local governance.

However, beyond the roles of what the CSOs played in the workshop and its preparatory activities, the kind of participation by the rest of MPRAT members could be described at best as either “functional,” or “interactive.” They contributed to the workshop outcome by participating both in sub-groups and plenary discussions of priority issues, community needs and proposed projects. During prioritization of projects, they participated in the casting of votes for each of the projects being proposed by MPRAT members.

The FGD respondents noted that skillful facilitation by NAPC staff enabled the workshop participants to actively participate in the discussion and thereby contribute to the quality of workshop outputs. This meant the workshop was able to come out with a list of priority projects which the MPTRAT recognized as the product of their collaboration. Ownership of the entire activity and its results was evident.

c)     Facilitating and Hindering Factors

For the LPRA planning workshop and the entire BUP process, the FGD respondents identified the following as facilitating factors:

  • Active CSO Participation

With some guidance from the LGU, the CSOs have proven to be capable of mobilizing their members to gather, analyze and prioritize information that could serve as inputs for the planning workshops that were conducted at the city-wide level.

  • NAPC Technical Support

Technical inputs by NAPC representatives enabled the MPRAT to discuss and consider the issues brought up by community members at the grassroots level, as represented by the CSOs.

  • LGU Support

All BUP activities had the full backing of the LGU hierarchy, along with provision of financial and logistical support.

On the other hand, the FGD showed that the following factors hindered the MPRAT from carrying out its functions to the fullest:

  • Time constraints

The FGD participants conceded that there was little time to prepare for the workshops as well as time to review the outputs prior to submission of prioritized projects to the NGAs.

  • Incomplete CBMS

The LGU of Mandaue had yet to complete its Community Based Monitoring System (CBMS) and other related, up-to-date, and comprehensive socio-economic data to provide empirical support to the MPRAT’s discussion on community issues and prioritization of projects.

However, except for the above issues, the FGD participants did not recall having encountered any problem that was related to BUP implementation.

On the question of what changes the FGD participants would like to happen to improve BUP implementation, none except the DILG representative offered any idea or suggestion. The DILG participant suggested that the LPRAT structure be broadened further to ensure participation by sitio representatives.

d)    Effects of the BUP

A month or so after having submitted the list of priority projects to the NGAs, the MPRAT members met and consulted among themselves to review, among other things, the status of their projects with NGAs. In one of these meetings, the DepEd representative brought up the issue of a previously-unknown Department Circular which discouraged LGUs from buying textbooks for public schools. The circular reportedly said that buying textbooks in bulk was less costly for the government, and therefore the DepEd, rather than the LGUs procuring them individually, was in a better position to buy them.

The FGD respondents recalled that the MPRAT arrived at the decision to prioritize the buying of textbooks for public elementary schools in Mandaue on the basis of feedback from CSO representatives, notably the parent-leaders, saying that many elementary pupils were unable to cope with their lessons due to unavailability of textbooks. At the time, the FGD discussion showed, the DepEd representatives were not aware their agency had issued a circular that advised LGUs to keep from buying textbooks.

During the FGD, the DepEd participants explained that textbooks for Mandaue had been procured by the department’s central office. However, delivery of the items was taking time due to sheer volume of inventories that need to be delivered to different regions throughout the country.

With respect to the status of textbooks being part of the list of priority projects, the discussion among FGD participants showed that the LGU was now leaning towards buying workbooks instead of textbooks. They further explained that they needed to consult or discuss the issue with concerned agencies.

5)   Discussion Analysis

A recurring contention by FGD respondents centered on how the BUP was able to promote inclusiveness among, and participation by, stakeholders of development in Mandaue. They also attributed to the effectiveness of the BUP process their ability to gather realistic data from the ground and generate consensus among MPRAT members whose development priorities sometimes clashed or competed against each other. By voting individually in a fair and transparent manner on the list of priority projects, each MPRAT member ended up satisfied with the process, although some felt frustrated when their proposed projects did not make it to the final list.

The FGD further noted that the CSO representatives stood out as the ones who shared most of the positive experiences with the BUP. “It was a liberating process,” one of them said. It was not ordinary for them to be able to take part in an exercise that the leaders of the LGU, and indeed of the national government itself, recognized.

Being part of the process alone was something that made the BUP innovative, and for which the CSOs appreciated. That there is hope their issues would be addressed by the projects they proposed, and endorsed by the LGU, was even more satisfying insofar as the CSOs are concerned. This upbeat mood was likewise shared by the rest of the FGD participants.

On the negative side, the FGD discussion noted that there was lack of time to prepare for the workshop as well as in meeting the deadlines imposed by the JMC.

6)   Conclusion

Almost all respondents believe that the BUP is effective in bringing to the higher levels of government the issues felt at the community level. There was consensus among respondents in the view that “the needs of the poor have been discussed by community members at their level and, through representation, brought to the attention of government at the higher levels.” Through the BUP, the process of identifying and analyzing the problems of the disadvantaged members of the community had been conducted by and for those who are affected by the problems themselves.

Nevertheless, the FGD also showed that participation in all stages of the BUP implementation was uneven among MPRAT members. Participation appeared to be more inter-active and self-mobilizing at the community level, as facilitated by the CSOs, than at the higher levels of the LGU.

The BUP also appeared to be limited by the seeming inability of the LGU to complement the information brought to the process by the individual consultations conducted by the CSOs. The LGU could have buttress the process even more with updated information such as what the CBMS provides. The CBMS of Mandaue at present still needs to be updated and completed.

7)   Annexes

 

 

 

 

 

 

a)    Focused Group Discussion Registration Sheet/Respondents’ Profile

Mandaue City, Cebu

Region VII

August 1, 2012

 

Name

Gov

Non-gov

Institution/Organization Position

Age

Gender

M

F

1. Michael Allan O. Pielago

X

PWD President/Social Worker

37

1

0

2. Lamberto Marababol

X

LGU – CBO CBO

62

1

0

3. Rolcuedo Teo

X

LGU – CAO CAO

52

1

0

4. Violeta Cavada

X

CSWS OIC

58

0

1

5. May Ann Gerundio

X

DSWD City Link

30

0

1

6. Reynaldo Sosmena

X

DILG LGOO II

48

1

0

7. Grenil Gardoais

X

DSWD City Link

36

0

1

8. Edna Seno

X

CHO CHO II

58

0

1

9. Bryan Samson

X

DepEd Supply Officer

37

1

0

10. Ivy Godinez

X

DepEd PO II

36

0

1

11. Menchu Llesis

X

Pantawid Pamilya Parent Leader

35

0

1

12. Dexter Paul Fotuna

X

CPDO Statistician

37

1

0

40.46

6

6

 

 

b)    BUP Assessment – Focus Group Discussion Transcription

Mandaue City, Cebu

Date: August 1, 2012

Venue: CSWS Office

Facilitator: Department of Health, Department of Agriculture, from these agencies, 10 percent of their annual budget will be allocated. Kagaya ng nasabi ko nga, malaking bagay siya. They are sources of funds na kelangang kelangan ng mga LGUs  so it satisfies your need for extra funding and at the same time it also satisfies the need of the national government agencies na masharpen ‘yong kanilang  focus on addressing the poverty group. Kung baga sa ano.. hindi siya ‘yong bahala na kung etong mga projects natin ay makaka-address dun sa needs ng poverty groups. Kasi talagang tinatarget nya ‘yong poverty groups through this process.

Ngayon, ang objective po ng ating gagawin ngayon. This will run for 1 ½ hours ay para ang pinagdaanan nating proseso. The assessment will inform the next round ‘yong budget call for 2014. Ibig sabihin kung makita nating maganda, talagang na-involve ang mga poverty groups, ang mga communities, two things can happen. One of these will be possible increase dun sa 10 percent mandatory allocation. Good news, di ba? Pangalawa, i-maintain ‘yong other or i-ensure na lang allocation. Ang mag-identify ng mga projects ay mga LGUs with collaboration of the CSOs. Top to bottom approach.

Kung makita sa evaluation na gagawin natin na hindi talaga effective ‘yong collaboration, meaning hindi talaga na-involve ‘yong CSOs at ating targeted groups, there might be a need to improve ‘yong proseso. So sa pamamagitan ng inyong pakikipagpalitan ng mga views, ideas tsaka inyong observations, comments na ido-document ni Karen, ito ay mapaparating natin sa DILG, DSWD, DBM. By the way pala, sinasabi dito sa ating JMC na kung halimbawa, hindi makapag-allocate ang mga national government agencies ng 10 percent.

CSWS: Counterpart?

Facilitator: Iyong kanilang mandated na budgetary allocation, unilaterally ‘yong DBM ang magbabawas sa national budget.

CSWS: Sa IRA ‘yon?

Facilitator: Hindi po to IRA kasi national government ang tasked na mag allocate ng budget.

CSWS: So sa IRA ‘yon?

Facilitator: Hindi sa IRA. National government agencies. Wala namang IRA ang national government agencies, di ba.

CSWS: Under budget allocation?

Facilitator: Oo. ‘Yong tinatawag.. ‘yong sinasabi kong 10 percent. Halimbawa isa-submit ‘yong project sa taas. Bottom-up eh. Tapos iko-consolidate nila doon sa taas. Halimbawa ako ang DSWD, tinanggap ko ang iyong listed project, ito sakin pala ito. So sila din ang mag-a-allocate. So millions of pesos will be allocated to this LGU. In the event na hindi nila magawa ‘yon, tapos dun sa budget process di ba? Lahat naman ng mga agencies ay pina-process sa DBM. ‘Pag nakita ng DBM na walang binawas ‘yong DSWD for this or for that LGU, unilaterally magbabawas sila. Kasi may list din ang DBM eh.

City Budget Officer (CBO): Kasi sabi niyo the national will provide us 10 percent. 10 percent galing sa national. So 10 percent galing agencies let’s say Department of Agriculture. 10 percent will be given sa LGUs, ishe-share na lang ‘yon?

Facilitator: Dun sa LGUs na involved dito sa BUP.

CBO: So ‘yong involved lang? At least 10 percent? Every local government unit will receive 10 percent of that?

Facilitator: Hindi po. Meron kanya-kanyang allocation.. In the case of Mandaue I think 11 million for 2013.

CSWS: So kinuha ‘yon sa different offices ng government?

Facilitator: Yes. National government. At kung ano ang popondohan, depende ‘yon sa list of projects niyo.

CBO: So ‘yon na lang? ‘Yong ma-receive naming 11 million. Ang sinasabi niyo kanina pag hindi na-grant ‘yong 11 million, kukunin nila saan?

Facilitator: 11 million ang allocation para sa inyo. Ang inyong total project ay worth 12 million? So may excess kayong 1 million. ‘Yong 11 million sa national ‘yon pero you will provide counterpart worth 30 percent. There will be other means to source funds for projects not covered by your allocation.

CBO: So ‘yong 11 million talaga pag hindi natanggap ‘yong sa local government, pano ‘yon? If the total amount of 11 million will not be granted as expected.

Facilitator: Hindi po natin ano concern ‘yan. As far as the JMC is concerned, ‘yan po ay obligasyon ng tatlong agencies.  Pamilyar kayo dun sa JMC? Joint Memorandum Circular?

CBO: Pag hindi na-grant ang DBM, anong gagawin ng DBM as far as the national (government) is concerned? Where in the local government will be providing the 30 percent as counterpart? ‘Pag ang 11 million na ‘yon hindi niyo naibigay, ano ba talaga ang ano? Hindi ko maintindihan.

Facilitator: Ganito po. ‘Di ba DBM naman ang nagre-release ng funds sa lahat, whether LGU tsaka NGA. Ang pinaka.. kung baga sa proseso, ang quality check is DBM. So lahat po ng mga budget ng national government agencies pina-process sa DBM. Kaya ang sinusunod natin na dates ‘yong sa budget process ng national government. Ngayon ang ginagawa nila, gagawin nila for 2014. ‘Yong 2013, done na ‘yon. Ibig sabihin ‘yong 11 million, nasa GAA na ‘yan nan a prepare ng DBM for congressional approval.

CSWS: Saan na ngayon ‘yong funding?

Facilitator: Nasa GAA.

CBO: Approved na ‘yon sa Congress. ‘Yong pera talaga ang.. nasan ba ngayon? Kailan ba dadating? Ang hinihintay namin, kalian?

Facilitator: Sorry po. Pero hindi yan kasama sa mga tanong na kaya naming sagutin. Hindi na po samin ‘yan ang concern na yan.

CBO: ‘Yon na nga. Minsan marami kayong ganyan sa national pero ‘yong sa allocation, wala pa.

Facilitator: Hindi po natin alam ‘yan.

CBO: That’s why I am asking it to you, to bring to the higher..

CSWS: He knows everything about budget.

CBO: ‘Yan lang ang ano ko. Marami naman tayong budget kaya lang mag counterpart tayo…based dun sa memorandum…sabi mo kasi 11 million. Pero estimate pa ‘yan.

Facilitator: Ang pinagbabasehan ko lang ay kung papano na susubmit at na aaprove ang GAA.

CSWS: I think they are serious about this because the MDG will end by 2015. So kailangan talagang i-alleviate. May report tayo sa international.

CBO: Ano ba ito national funded?

CSWS: National. Malaki ang percentage. Ang goal ngayon sa national is from 26 percent na poverty rate..is to make it 16 percent.

CBO: Sige, magdagdag tayo. I just raised my question.

Facilitator: Sige ma’am. Ang ano po natin, we will be recording your responses. Palakas na lang po ng boses para ma-record. So proceed na tayo.

Facilitator: Pwede bang malaman ang inyong sa ginanap na ano.. sa pinagdaanang proseso ng planning?

Anong impression niyo tungkol sa BUP?

CSWS: Actually ‘yong planning, it was time pressured no? I think as far as I can recall, the first orientation was held in a hotel in Cebu City. I think DILG was there, but we were not included.

(During) the first orientation, we were not included. I learned about it when the 4Ps inquired about it. I don’t know about it. We received a communication from the mayor, the executive order, that we are members of the LPRAT, that’s the first time we know. And immediately we had a meeting, we had a planning, bottom-up planning sa Day’s Hotel. I was calling Dexter since he is the one who attended the conference in Cebu City. The other one from the planning office. He is not here yet.

CAO:  Before dito sa  Day’s Hotel there is also..(inaudible)

CSWS: That was day before the orientation in Day’s Hotel. Two days. One day orientation, one day planning.

Facilitator (PWD rep): Kayo po ano po ang natatandaan niyo sa LRAP?

PWD Rep: As Ma’am Viol said a while ago, ‘yong time. Merong constraints sa time. But of course, we had this orientation and planning held at Day’s Hotel. Kasali na ‘yong iba’t ibang NGOs, ‘yong sa government offices dito sa Mandaue. We made deliberation. Actually, marami ngang mga proposal. Maraming mga proposed program. We were able to scrutinize ano ‘yong mga pinaka-importante. Tsaka ‘yong programa na magbibigay ng major effect or weight sa poverty alleviation.

CSWS OIC: Actually, in spite of the time pressure, the DILG ensure that the plan was really conducted. I think that was already the deadline for submission to the national. That was April 3. That was the community program. Because after the plan should be submitted first to the city council for submission to the national.

Facilitator (To CAO Rep): Sir, kayo anong comment niyo sa BUP?

CAO: We, the Department of Agriculture, we prepared some programs. We prioritized programs that can alleviate poverty.

Facilitator: ‘Yong idea po ng LPRAP, bago po ba para sa inyo or dati nang ginagawa?

CSWS: You mean the bottom-up planning?

Facilitator: Yes as operationalized by the LPRAP.

CSWS: Bago ba? Kami sa social welfare noon, when I was still at the national that’s what we did. Planning from the grassroots to be submit to the national. But later on, naging up to down (ang approach).

Facilitator: What do you mean sa later on? You mean national government na?

CSWS: National, they are the ones, the higher ups who plan and then bring it down. For example, the 4Ps. National ang nag-plan. That is coming from the national. It’s not conceived in the grassroots level.

Facilitator: LGU na ngayon?

CSWS: No, it’s national. It’s their project.

Facilitator: Pero sa ngayon, you are part of the LGU?

CSWS: Yes.

Facilitator:  Noong nasa LGU na kayo, meron po bang processes na ganito? Na na-experience niyo as part of the LGU?

CSWS: No, because we continue to implement the project of the DSWD. The programs of the national. The was devolved to the local government.

Facilitator (to CHO): Kayo Doc, bago ba ang idea ng LPRAP? Bottom-up? Or dating nang ginagawa?

CHO Officer: Hindi namin ginagawa sa DOH yan.. (inaudible). Although we receive (inaudible). If you know DHO, we have a lot of programs to be done or to be implemented. Presumably, that’s the end result of the LPRAP. This time, we have to join the others. There was already a circular last year. I was looking for an EO, but I only heard about it in Cebu City. I was asking about it, but tere is no way that I can pick it up. But there have been plans when I asked. There is a plan for a committee. But we do not have the EO for the membership. Then, there was a change in admin.

Facilitator: So ngayon lang nagkaron ng katuparan ang LPRAT?

CHO: For the specific purpose of the DILG, yes. But more or less, the programs have been implemented before the EO was done. Specific lang siya ngayon.

Facilitator: So you are saying na as CHO, CHO po ba?

CHO: Yes, CHO.

Facilitator: Parang usual na sa iyo ‘yong ganitong proseso?

Facilitator  (to DepEd reps): Kayo, anong experience niyo sa planning and budgeting?

CSWS: Sa budgeting.

Facilitator: Bottom-up planning and budgeting.

CSWS: Is it based on the grassroots problem and then up? Going up ba ang project niyo or up-down?

DepEd (PO II): Sa ngayon, bottom-up na kami sa DepEd. Na introduce na before pero ngayon lang nagkatotoo.

CSWS: Reality is, planning is sa national.

Deped PO II: Implementation kami pero sa taas ang planning. Kaya ang tendency may mga needs na hindi na-a-address.

Facilitator: So sinasabi natin na improvement itong proseso?

DepEd POII: Yes.

Facilitator: Andoon po ba kayo sa workshop?

CSWS: It was Dr. Zapanta (City Superintendent).

Facilitator (to 4Ps City Links): Kayo Ma’am?

4Ps City Link (Gernil): First time kong malaman nung workshop. Maiksi ang time pero successful. Well-planned. Naplano  ang problem na needed to be resolved… (inaudible).

Facilitator: Ewan ko kung pinangungunahan kita pero ang ibig sabihin ba, ang pinakaproblema sa society ay naarticulate dun sa proseso?

4Ps City Link (Gernil): Yes, ‘yong mga problem.

Facilitator: Anong problem?

4Ps City Link (Gernil): For instance, patubig. The group decided on the solution.

Facilitator: So nakasama siya ditto sa list of projects?

4Ps City Link (Gernil): Yes, pati ‘yong sa textbook.

Facilitator: Sa textbook, anong issue dun?

4Ps City Link (Gernil): Su supply. Pati sa water.

CSWS: They are the best example that plans comes from upstairs. When Pantawid came about, they were hired by the regional office.

Facilitator: Kung ikukumpara mo ang Pantawid with Kalahi?

CSWS: I think they do not have any idea on Kalahi.

Facilitator: Agree po ba tayo sa sinasabi na ‘yong mga issues or problema ng mga poor communities ay talagang nadiscuss at naparating sa.. through the workshop naproseso ba ‘yong mga problema ng poor communities?

PWD: Ideally effective pero ang sa atin lang hopefully.. kasi marami kasing sectors eh. Hopefully ma-implement.

Facilitator:  So ‘yong sa planning? Actually planning lang to, wala tayo sa implementation. Budgeting tsaka planning. In your view, doon sa proseso, lumabas ba talaga ang mga kailangan. Ganito po ‘yon. Ang targeting ng programa natin ay para sa mahihirap na LGUs. Pero ang Mandaue, hindi naman mahirap kumpara sa iba.

CSWS: No, mahirap.

Facilitator: Kaya lang meron kayong segments of the population na talagang mahirap.

CSWS: Plenty. Marami.

Facilitator: ‘Yon po ang ating pinag-uusapan dito. Talagang ‘yong issues at concerns ba ng mahirap ay nadiscuss in terms of the projects na na-identify ng LGUs?

PWD: For example lang sa Mantuyong (?) ang problem nila ay..

Facilitator: Sa inyo?

PWD: No, iba. Kagaya niya sa water supply. It was deliberated and discussed. Hopefully, if the project will be implemented, it would be a great help sa kanila.

Facilitator: Kasama naya dito sa list of projects?

PWD: Oo.

Facilitator: Ano pong organization niyo?

Pantawid Pamilya PL: Pantawid. I represent the Pantawid Pamilya program.

CSWS: Parent leader.

Pantawid Pamilya PL: Ako ang representative sa CSO.

PWD: Sa kanila nga eh, if this project will push through, then we can replicate it to other barangays. ‘Yong potable water nila.

Pantawid Pamilya PL: Malaki din ang tulong nito sa aming barangay, especially kasi maliit lang an gaming barangay. So hindi lahat ito nabibigyan ng pag-asa na maimplement ang mga project. So nadi-discuss sa council tsaka sa aming kapitan. Talagang lumabas ito doon sa ano sa last year, DILG planning sa aming barangay shortage din sa zones sa aming barangay. May contamination of water because of.. dahil wala kaming potable water supply. Isa ‘yon sa ginawa namin, i-dig up naming ito para mabigyan ng pondo. At the same time, nakakatulong ito sa aming barangay to source out external fund.

Facilitator: So dun sa proseso nalaman ni Doc ang problema?

Pantawid Pamilya PL: Yes, Sir.

4Ps City Link (May Ann):  Para po sakin ‘yong BUP, nape-present ang mga problema. Dapat naman ang mga issues at concerns galing sa community dapat. Para sakin ang planning is just a way to lessen ang mga problema ng community.

Facilitator: So kayo ma’am ang nagdraft ng Executive Order?

CSWS: No. The city administrator with the DILG.

Facilitator: Pano po ang proseso na inapply para sa pagpili ng mga CSO?

DILG: Based sa guidelines sa JMC. Ang members at participants ‘yong ang nasa circular.

Facilitator: Anong comment niyo sa representation ng CSO sa LPRAT? Adequate ba siya tsaka nagpa-participate?

4Ps City Link (May Ann): They serve as the check and balance…in prioritizing the ‘yong mga plano. nagpaparticipate din sila.

Facilitator: Pagkatapos ng workshop sa Day’s Hotel, ano po ang mga succeeding activities related sa BUP? Kung meron.

CSWS: There was a conference called by the national in Cebu City. I attended the first day. In the second day it was Ms Jam, another. They just reviewed the plans submitted to the national

Facilitator: Mga anong month ‘yon?

CSWS:  I think mga two months ago. That was the first activity that we attended connected to this bottom-up.

Facilitator: Ano pong agency ang nag-organize?

CSWS: I think it’s NAPC.

Facilitator: Ma’am doon sa activities leading to the workshop bago ginagawa ‘yong workshop, meron bang mga ginawang consultations?

Parent Leader:  Kaming mga participants..we dig up kung ano ‘yong mga issues and concerns. For example, first na-brought up ang mga issues and concerns. Ako mismo doon sa community nakatira, so I have seen kung ano ‘yong mga vulnerable kung ano ‘yong mga dapat i-prioritize. Mga problema, mga issues and concerns. Doon na-brought-up tapos ginawan ng consensus. Tapos, may nakalatag. Marami kasi ‘yon. Mga 14 ata na issues ang concerns tapos nilagyan naming ng ranking. That’s why lumabas ‘yong 5 na priorities.

Facilitator: So doon sa priority ninyo, may naprioritize sa kabuuan?

Parent Leader: Yes. So nilabas naming Sir as number one ‘yong potable water supply, ranked as 2 ‘yong singko-singko, ‘yong sa communal toilet. Then 3 ‘yong sa Pantawid. And then 4 and the rest 5 ang top priorities.

Facilitator: Doon po sa ranking, ano ang ginagawa? May vote?

CSWS: Voting.

Facilitator: Wala bang mga violent reactions?

CSWS: Wala.

Facilitator: Halimbawa ako, from ibang barangay tapos may nagre-present sa basic sector tapos hindi ako na-prioritize walang ganong nangyari?

4Ps City Link (May Ann): Kasi open naman po lahat kung hindi maprioritize. Marami pa namang programa na pwedeng ma-address.

Facilitator: I-check ko lang ang inyong mga respective roles doon sa pag-implement ng BUP sa pamamagitan doon sa workshop. Basically, ano po ang inyong mga role. And of course, bago kayo pumunta sa workshop, meron kayong mga dalang information, di ba? In addition to that, meron pa kayong maku-kwento? Mga acitivity? O mga role para sa BUP?

4Ps City Link (May Ann): May point na may issue na di related sa BUP. ‘Yong sa textbooks?

CSWS: Oo, ‘yong issue sa DepEd.

Parent Leader: May mga clashing of issues na lumabas direct or indirect, harap-harapan. Sa books, lumalabas kasi na apektado na kami as community.

Facilitator: Ano pong ginawa?

CSWS: That’s the problem sa textbooks.

4Ps City Link (May Ann): During the planning, that was the venue na  doon nadiscuss ang issue ng parents sa textbooks. Naging consultation.

Facilitator: So naging okasyon para madiscuss ang related issues?

PWD: Actually, we have council meetings..4Ps and PWDs and senior citizens. These concerns were already raised even before sa orientation. During the orientation, it was submitted  and deliberated, especially sa books, school buildings.

Facilitator: Pakishare ng nakita niyong mga hindering at tsaka facilitating factors.

4Ps City Link (May Ann): Time pressure lang po. Kasi kung may time pa, mas mapapaganda pa.

Facilitator: Sa pagpa-faciliate, nakatulong ba para maging effective?

4Ps City Link (May An): Maayos naman po, lahat nagparticipate.

Facilitator: Ibig sabihin lahat may pagkakaisa?

4Ps City Link (May An):  Opo. Sa process, may mga exchange of ideas. ‘Yong mga priority talaga ay na-prioritize. Tapos may consensus sa lahat.

Facilitator: ‘Yong sa exchange of ideas, anong ideas?

CSWS: Marami ‘yon.

4Ps City Link (May Ann): Isa na po ‘yong sa textbooks.  Consensus naman po na nag-agree.

Facilitator: Walang appeals for motion… motion for.

Facilitator: Ano pong facilitating or hindering factors?

4Ps City Link (Grenil): ‘Yon lang pos a time.

CSWS: Kahit naman ‘yong mga planners sa Mandaue. We came, nagpunta kami doon without knowledge. Pagdating doon nag-come out na kami.

Facilitator: By the way, kagaya ng nasabi natin sa umpisa ng FGD, the results of the FGD will inform the the 2014 budget. Anyway, habang hindi na nare-resolve ang issue ni Sir wag muna nating pag-usapan.

CBO: Kailangan talagang ma-resolve ‘yan.

CHO: (Inaudible, based on notes) This time, we are trying to look into the other aspects. There are guidelines. Now we are looking into the social aspects. Naging open. We still have to contribute to the plan. So we are trying to look into the other aspects. As far as we are concerned, there was an opening on the planning. Naging broader.

Facilitator: So parang sinasabi natin na the workshop provided us opportunities to broaden our perspective? At tsaka na-enrich ang ating analysis ng problema at possible solutions.

CHO: Yes, because if we look into the possible responses the target will be achieved. We can also consider the demand or supply side of the projects to be implemented based on needs of the community. If there are more children or less children who need a service in one area or in another, that is just an example.

Facilitator: Sa 4Ps, demand side ang inyong ina-address? Demand side or supply side?

4Ps City Link (May Ann): Supply side po. Sa Pantawid.

Facilitator: Kung baga ang (inaudible) sa regional level ng organization?

CHO: For the region coming from the national budget, but for Mandaue City (inaudible) As far as the accomplishment is concerned. That is why we intensify our efforts now. By second quarter medyo nag improve na kami malapit sa target. That is why I said why I am seeing why this is happening. Dahil sa population, sa indigenous. Participatory, we are more open now.

Facilitator (to DILG rep): Kayo sir, anong mashe-share niyong observations? Sa pinagdaanang proseso?

DILG: Si Director…as far as I know meron silang series of planning.

Facilitator: When you say sila? Sa DILG?

DILG: Sa City Hall.

Facilitator: DILG at LGU?

DILG: Yes, meron silang pre-planning. Sa ELA.

Facilitator: Sa ELA? Ano ‘yong integral part ng BUP ang ELA?

CSWS: Every city or municipality is required to undergo this planning.

Facilitator: Paran unti-unting meron na talagang pinagdaanan?

CSWS: Yes, it is really bottom-up because the barangays are going their own plans or the cities with the different departments. As Michael said, we have different committees on our programs. For example, for PWD we conducted planning with the council. For children, we have also our plans—coming from the grassroots level. But mostly, our plans are from the national. It is really crafted by the higher ups. But here, we also have our bottom-up plans for different sectors. Like for PWD, we have plans for PWDs, for senior citizens, we have plans for children, we have plans for gender. And we were the ones who prepared these plans. For the national we have them, but we also have our own.

Facilitator: So ibig sabihin, maski doon sa ELA pa lang.

CSWS: Sa ELA pa lang, may mga plan na.

Facilitator: So hindi natin masasabing bagong-bago ‘yong idea ng BUP?

CSWS: Hindi bago kasi matagal na kaming nagbottom-up. Kasi nagplano na kami. Sa DSWD, nag-survey kami and then identified their problems, assist them. So really, it is not a new thing.

Facilitator: Ma’am sa inyo, bago ba ang BUP?

Parent Leader: Ang naririnig ko lang sa barangay. Dinala ako ng kilala ko sa planning. ‘Yong bottom-up nadiscuss. Tinext ko ‘yong kilala ko, nadiscuss na daw ‘yong bottom-up. Sa ganito talaga, tagos talaga. Participatory. Kami ma-brought up ang issues at concerns. During my first, isa ako sa tumayo sa women’s sector.

CSWS: He (City Planning Office rep) was involved in the planning. During the orientation at the Day’s Hotel.

Facilitator (To CAO rep): In your view, ano ang facilitating and hindering factors ng bottom-up planning?

CAO: We had strengthened ‘yong mga program sa national. Halimbawa ‘yong mga special programs natin na tutulong sa mahihirap o ‘yong sa mga bata, para makapagtapos ng eskwela.

Facilitator: Dito po mismo sa BUP? I assume andun kayo sa workshop?

CAO: Oo

Facilitator: Nakasali po kayo sa workshop? Sabi natin ditto effective naman at successful ‘yong proseso—gathering information, analyzing the pros and cons. Sa pag-identify ng mga projects, sinasabi natin na effective ‘yon, sa tingin niyo ano po ang mga dahilan ang nakatulong. O kung sa tingin niyo hindi naman ganon naging effective, ano po ang naging problema?

CAO: Siguro na-identify naman ‘yong mga concerns.

Facilitator: Meron po kayong nakita na  mga factors na nakatulong kung bakit na-identify effectively? Or efficiently na rin dahil mabilisan. Ano pong mga factors?

CAO: Siguro na-introduce ‘yong different ideas. Lahat nag-contribute.

Facilitator: How about sa hindering factors? Ok naman ‘yong time?

CSWS: Mas ok na walang time kasi madali. Magmadali ka kasi may deadline.

Facilitator: Pag pinag-isipan ng husto, matagal. Isang factor din ‘yong kasi magaling ang mga facilitator. ‘Yong DILG tsaka ‘yong from regional office. Magaling sila.

Facilitator: DILG, tsaka DSWD magaling din sila.

CSWS: Wala sa national. Wala DSWD. Only the DILG facilitated, from their regional office also.

Facilitator: Pero ang pinakaboss dito, ang contact sa BUP ay DBM.

CBO: It will start with planning. Kung ano ang plano ng national, it will follow to the bottom. You start a vision with a strategy. That’s the way it is. I think these people are contributing ideas in behalf of their national lines. These are to be included in the plan to be implemented in the given year.

With regards to the time, it is not a problem. Planning is a day-to-day process.  So I think this is not a problem as far as BUP is concerned. The fixed problem is the amount. Where do we get that?

Facilitator: Hindi naman natin yan sasagutin dito di ba?

CBO: Hindi naman. The magic word is priority. At least hat is important is that there is a plan already. The implementation is another story. To prioritize, I think that is the idea. You have to prioritize what is important. Hindi naman kailangan lahat. Even how you are rich, you still have needs.

Facilitator: Paki comment po kung tama ang aking interpretation. Are we saying na whether it is bottom-up or top-down ang  planning, parehas lang ‘yon?

CBO: Ganon din ‘yon. The local government is covered by the guidelines.

Facilitator: Basta ang may importante may funds?

CBO: Sa implementation naman, ang problema naming ‘yong mga hindrance, ‘yong mga guidelines. We have to follow the guidelines given to us with regard to this particular project. That is the only hindrance. Probably, we may implement it the way we interpret it, but they may implement it the other way. That’s how I see it.

Facilitator: Kayak o lang po naitanong para siguradong hindi tayo magkamali doon sa ating documentation.

CSWS: In relation to the budget, this is also timely because.. in preparation for the planning we have already prepared our plans. But we  forgot about the 30 percent. The problem now is the only.. for doktora, it is clear, but how about this? The patubigan? The community toilet? Sinong department ang maglagay ng 30 percent? May 30 percent tayon being highly urbanized. May 30 percent counterpart.

CBO: Sa DGS na lang.

CHO: There are things to be followed. Dapat meron din siyang contribution from like the community concerned, the people concerned. There has to be a document.

Pantawid Pamilya PL: Dun sa nadiscuss ni Attorney James, if ever ma-approve ang potable water supply, ang counterpart as a community ay pa-trabaho, labor work at maintenance.

CBO: City government ang magprovide ng materials.

CHO: ‘Yong ownership of the facility ay sa community. We give them the right to own it, but they also need to maintain. Because it is for their own use. Make the ownership in black and white.

CBO: ‘Yong sa DepEd, kinu-question naming sila why they are buying workbooks? Di ba kinu-question kayo on why you buy workbooks instead of textbooks? There are guidelines coming from DepEd national that they will be the one to provide textbooks, di ba?

CSWS: But the city superintendent gave a report, and it was also found out on the findings of the 4P, the supply side. Kulang talaga ang textbooks.

CBO: But there are also guidelines that the national will provide textbooks. So that’s why during our meeting with the BAC, we questioned them because they are workbooks. Then, we presented the circular. There might be a contradiction between agencies.

Facilitator: So probably, through this mechanism, mai-air ang mga problema, mga issues and concerns.

CSWS:  That’s the problem, in our plan, we have to purchase the books. This was the problem raised by Dr. Zapanta, the lack of books. In fact, she has the report na may percent na kulang talaga ng textbooks.

4Ps City Link (May Ann): May circular na di pwedeng magpurchase.

CSWS: According to that memorandum, their textbook is enough. In fact, they project another ten percent every year. So there is no problem with textbooks as far as the memorandum is concerned, but as far sa reality is concerned, there is really lack of textbooks.

CBO: If we buy textbooks, are we not violating  the circular?

CSWS: ‘Yon ang problema?

4PS City Link (May Ann): During the profit-driven committee, we will raise that issue. Kasi nga LGU is willing to buy textbooks kaso nga lang po ‘yong circular.

CBO: But we only based on the circular.

CSWS: That’s based on the circular, but the reality is kulang ‘yon.

CBO: Reality against violation.

DepEd Supply Officer: May shortage. We reported it already to the central office. The problem is they cannot provide the exact time when the books will be provided.

4Ps City Link (May Ann): Buffer is not enough.

DepEd Supply Officer: Plus 10 percent on the buffer, we do our part to gather information to provide the cental on the exact needs.

CBO: There is no question on but, the question is on the reality.

CSWS: Based on your findings, one child.. one textbook is for four children.

DepEd Supply Officer: We will purchase the textbook through the city,  per madodoble ang delivery.

CBO: There is a guidelines from agency to another

CSWS: So we have to change this plan? The purchase of books?

4Ps City Link (May Ann): Baka ‘yong higher level.

CBO: This is a national project, intervene the local then what will happen?

Facilitator: So as of now, yan pa rin ang..

CBO: Yan pa rin.

CSWS: During the planning, we did not know anything about that memorandum. It was later that we saw the memorandum that we cannot purchase because it was being taken care of the national.

4Ps City Link (May Ann): By the time na lumabas ‘yong circular na ‘yon, tapos na ‘yong planning.

Facilitator: Ano nga ‘yong sa allocation ng textbooks?

CSWS: Malaki ‘yon 7 million?

CBO: Ganito na lang siguro gawin, we still purchase the books but coming from the national ang funds kais may counterpart sila eh.

Facilitator: Taga-facilitate lang kami.

CBO: It can be amended, instead of textbook, workbook pwede rin.

Facilitator: Given the information that we have, ano nga ang plano niyo as Mandaue?

CBO:  Kung ako ang tatanong mo, sasagutin na yan sa national. Kais may 11 million kayong ibigay ganon. Are you amenable with that? We do not violate the circular with that? Kasi national.

4Ps City Link (May Ann): Ang gagawin namin is to report sa committee, sa grievance committee I-address nila sa national.

Facilitator: Kailan niyo gagawin yan?

CBO: Time frame na naman ang problema diyan.

CSWS: Kasi may advisory committee ang Pantawid. That came about because of the findings of the Pantawid, because of the supply aspect.

Facilitator: Specifically, meron na kayong plano kung kailan niyo gagawin?

4Ps City Link (May Ann): ‘Yong second step po namin is to write ‘yong problems to be address kasi may committee po kasi kami.

Facilitator: Kaya ko inaassess yan kasi gaya ng sabi niyo Ma’am may procurement issue yan. Matagal yan. So kung magkakaron na tayo ng funds sabihin nating next month.

CBO: Hindi, 60 days eh. Alam mo naman ang procurement process.

Facilitator: Assuming may funds ngayong 2012, ico-convert mo ba siya into something legally binding sa inyo? It takes time.

CBO: Realignment lang in terms of expenditures sa appropriation, wala namang problema. Madali lang. One meeting lang.

CSWS:  Anyway, the way I understand it as presented by the DILG, this plan will go to the DepEd, so they will be the one to approve?

Facilitator: Yes.

CSWS: They will approve before giving us the funds? This will approve pa dito sa national level?

Facilitator: So sa level ng DepEd makikita if ok sila. Otherwise, if hindi sila ok magsa-suggest sila.

CBO: During the meeting with BAC nandoon ako kasi, tinatanong kami bakit magprocess ng workbook? Bakit hindi textbook? Sabi nila, hindi pwede ‘yun kasi merong guidelines.

CSWS: But it was the city superintendent who prepared this plan. So she was not aware that there is that memorandum that we cannot purchase?

4Ps City Link (May Ann):  I guess it was late…Late na ‘yong circular.

Facilitator: Si Dr. Zapanta ang city superintendent?

CSWS: City superintendent.

4Ps City Link (May Ann):  ‘Yong circular lumabas lang noong hiningi sa BAC.

CSWS: So bago pa lang ‘yong circular?

CBO: Kami ang humingi, kasi kinu-question naming ang purchase. Hiningi naming ‘yon kasi I was attending the (meeting).  We asked them (DepEd) to prove that they do not need the textbooks, they presented it. In reality that is true, we really need textbooks.

CSWS: If makita ito sa national that this is not in accordance with their guidelines, maybe they will cancel this project.

CBO: Pero if we will go around with this, ‘yong another project is ‘yong Pantubig.

CSWS: Patubig.

Facilitator: Sir, hindi ka nagparticipate sa workshop?

CBO: I was not there. I was there in the morning. Kasi I am concern about this problem right now because this is part of the budgeting. We’d like to align the with the proper budget process. Kung tubig lang ang problema, let there be some cure or precaution like mineral water.

CSWS: Sa utility…(bisaya)

Facilitator: Ok tapusin na natin ang round ng hindering tsaka facilitating factors para tayo ay lumipat sa ibang tanong. May dagdag pa kayo sa hindering at facilitating?

DSWS: Sa hindering? Sa time. Pero mas mabuti nga na walang time para ma-pressure tayong mag-come sa mga plan di ba? Kasi may deadline.

CBO: Per ‘yong effective talaga.

CSWS: Eto hindi masyadong na-plan kasi may problem pala sa textbooks. Yan lang.

PWD: Magaling ang facilitator. Meron ngang groupings eh. Workshop talaga. Napaga-usapan ang mga issues ang mga concerns.

Facilitator: Anong mechanics sa small groups? By sector?

CSWS: By sector. By project. For example if it is related to health, si Doctor with Civil Society.

Facilitator: Familiar kayo sa ELA? Nakakaparticipate kayo dun sa ELA?

PWD: Parang si Ma’am Violy. Mga department head ang ano.

CSWS: Only the department heads ang ano sa ELA.

Facilitator: Sir kayo marami kayong.. kasi hindi kayo nakasali sa mga tanong kanina.

City Planning and Dev. Office: I have nothing to say.

Facilitator: Sa inyo ito eh, BUP. Ano pong masasabi niyo tungkol sa BUP?

City Planning and Dev. Office: The planning is only to coordinate. Our work is to coordinate their plans. We listen to the plans and we integrate it. That’s why during the first meeting in Sarosa, andun ako with the DILG and Budget pero ito (CSWS) wala sila. The primary concerns actually could be well addressed by the CWS. That is my concern. I was wondering why the planning office, the DILG, and the budget office was present. Although budget is very important, but the focal office is CSWS. The probram about anti-poverty plan could be addressed actually by the CSWS office. In coordination with our office, as mostly as the coordinating office of the city. Outlines should start with concerned agencies, that is why we are concerned about the problem of anti-poverty plan. I was wondering why do we have this national anti-poverty plan, and we also have the 4Ps, MDGs. Parang may.. there is duplication. Duplication in helping the indigents.

Facilitator: So natanong niyo sa workshop kung bakit ganyan?

City Planning and Dev. Office:  Hindi ko natanong, tatanong ko sayo. Why were not they involved? The CSWS is working with the poor. They know the real problems of the poor. And they also know who are the real stakeholders that would fit in this program. But they were not involved. We had a meeting at Day’s Hotel, which the planning and the DILG attended cause we have to come up with this plan. The DILG instead of the CSWS that could have been the focal office for the.. Etong DILG in coordination with our office who did the Day’s Hotel program.  I think it is Ms. Lucy who would be able to answer that concern.

Facilitator: Who is Ms. Lucy?

DILG: Si Director.

Facilitator: Why was it sir?

CSWS: We are the implementors, but the DILG are the facilitators because they do not have programs, we have. Kami na ang mag-implement, kami pa ang magfacilitate? That is why this is a coordinated project.

Planning: Yes, but why is your office not involved?

CSWS: During the first time? During the first orientation, we were not involved. Sa city, only the planning, the budget and the DILG.

Planning: It was not there, it was the national anti-poverty office.

CSWS: The communication was not yet provided by the mayor.

Planning: All the PDs, MPDs, all the NGs and all the budget officers are involved.

CSWS: In a way, we were involved during the actual BUP. It was translated very well by DILG that’s why we really grasped it even though we’re not involved in the first orientation.

Facilitator: Hindi na-involve?

CSWS: During the first orientation.

Facilitator: Tanong ko rin po ‘yan.

Planning: That’s why during the meeting at Day’s Hotel, we involved the proper stakeholders. There is plenty actually.

Facilitator: I think in every activity the Planning Office should be involved.

CSWS: Yes, planning should be there. You are the one who will inform us that we are supposed to be involved.

Planning: Yes, I agree with that. It should have been four, not only three (agencies). Sabihin natin sa national office.

Facilitator: Wala ka pa kasi kanina doon sa backgrounder ko eh. Nag-assess lang po kami. Dun sa JMC, third party.

CSWS: Third party sila, nag-assess lang sila how we did our bottom-up planning.

Facilitator: Kung baga external.

Planning: External editor.

CSWS: Para klaro lang, he said why do we have some sort of duplication because we have the MDG and then we have this bottom-up. Actually this is in response to.. the BUP is in response to the MDG which will expire by 2015. Tapos ma-reduce ang poverty from 25 percent to 16 percent. Kaya nga nag-allocate ang different national government agencies na 10 percent budget to be given to the local government through the projects para sa poverty alleviation.

Planning: Our counterpart is 30 percent?

CSWS: 30 percent.

Planning: The counterpart of the national is 70 percent?

CBO: Tanong ko lang sir, if you are giving the allocation to the local government, is it in the form of trust or is it subject to budgeting?

Facilitator: Ano ba ang nangyayari pag nasa GAA na?

CBO: ‘Yon sa national talaga, they provide all the purpose itself. The purpose should be properly indicated so we can do other things.

Facilitator: I think trust yan kasi identified na naman. Pero hindi ako authority diyan sa mga questions na ‘yan.

CBO: Sa 30 percent pa pala ‘yan papasok.

CSWS: Oo, doon sa 30 percent.

Facilitator: ‘Yan naman ay nangyayari lang dahil ang Mandaue ay HUC. Kung hindi kayo HUC, 10 percent lang. Fair naman yan dahil mayaman ang LGU.

CBO: Hindi naman siguro. Kung mayaman siguro tataas ang sahod naming ngayon.

Facilitator: Di ba sayo din ang pagpapataas ng sahod?

CBO:  Pero may guidelines naman tayo. Depende ‘yon.

Facilitator: So kayo po sir noong andun kayo sa workshop at sa mga activities ng BUP, anong masasabi niyo, effective ba siya para ma-elicit ang problema ng disadvantaged? In relation sa nakasanayan nating proseso? May value addition ba ang BUP as a process?

CAO: Yes, I think we had.. we (inaudible). We focused our programs on poverty (alleviation). I think this program  works for our department.

Facilitator: Kung tatanungin tayong lahat dito, anong improvements ang gusto natin para sa BUP? May mga naiisip ba kayong paraan para ma-enhance halimbawa ang participation ng community o CSO? Meron ba kayong suggestions?

CBO: Can we go beyond on what has been mandated by the circulars?

Facilitator: Depende yan. Kasi lahat naman yan mga evolving guidelines.

4Ps City Link (May Ann):  Number of participants na community based. Sila kasi ‘yong may alam sa mga issues. Dapat well represented I guess ang mga barangays kasi.

Facilitator: Meron pa po? Meron pang gustong magshare ng mga ideas? Kasi more or less ‘yon lang ang mga tanong natin.

DILG:  About getting the information, reach the sitio level.. the data program.. in knowing their issues and concerns and priorities in planning. There will be means to suggest. Customized na to Sir.

Facilitator: May nakikita kang mechanism kung pano ito magagawa?

DILG: Oo, it is some sort based on the registrant’s data.

Facilitator: Meron bang structure diyan? Lalo na ‘yong mga remote? Structure na halimbawa naka-attach doon sa barangay development council?

DILG: Depende kasi sa barangay. May naka-attach sitio to barangay.

Facilitator: So parang sinasabi natin na pagaganahin natin ito sa sitio level?

CHO: He was talking about the data.

Facilitator: Effective ‘yang CBMS pag na..

DILG: Yes, sa CBMS.

Facilitator: Mga kalian? Anong taon matatapos?

DILG: Matagal ‘yon.

Planning: The ones making it have not been able to publish.

Facilitator: Pero community naman gumagawa di  ba?

Planning: Yes, sir.

Planning: Community.

Parent Leader: CBMS, community.

CHO: ..What has been stipulated, to survey the communities listed in Mandaue City. But that is only pockets of poverty. The one who commissioned this is the national office. I think DSWD? Presumably that’s 10 percent—lowest segment of the population in terms of economic status? But we are trying to verify now because there are families listed na that are not really that poor. So we validate. Given the budget, the allocation to sort out these families. That’s what we have been doing since the start of 2012. We told not to disregard the needs of those families who are not listed in the NHCS. That is already a databank itself—the 10 percent. I think we need to prepare for the next few years. There are four MDGs that we need to answer sa DOH.

Facilitator: Kayo ma’am covered niyo lahat ng barangays?

4Ps City Link (May Ann):  Hindi, 16 lang samin.

Facilitator: May gaps nga.

Unless may gusto niyo pang i-share. That’s about it for the FGD. Gusto naming magpasalamat sa time na binigay niyo samin para sa study.

c)     Memo on conduct of LPRA planning workshop

 

d)    Executive Order No. 11, series of 2012

 

 

 

e)    List of Priority Projects

 

 

 


[1] The LPRAP (along with the creation of the LPRAT) was first introduced in 2003 by the DILG through DILG MC 2003-92.

[2] The Executive-Legislative Agenda, or ELA, seeks to promote participatory planning processes in local governance as well as greater collaboration between the executive and legislative arms of LGUs. Its implementation is mandated by DILG Memorandum Circular No. 64, series of 2004.

Share

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

WordPress SEO