Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Non-Governmental Organization and Philippine Democracy

PALLON, Anna Leah

The essence of democracy is citizen participation in the political process. In the liberal tradition, it means, at a minimum, citizens participation in elections through voting. Elections must be held regularly, and there must be a competitive struggle for peoples vote among contenders. (Silliman and Noble 1998) A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a legally constituted organization created by natural or legal persons with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status insofar as it excludes government representatives from membership in the organization. NGOs exist for a variety of reasons, usually to further the political or social goals of their members or funders. Examples include improving the state of the natural environment, encouraging the observance of human rights, improving the welfare of the disadvantaged, or representing a corporate agenda. However, there are a huge number of such organizations and their goals cover a broad range of political and philosophical positions. NGOs are committed to addressing social needs and improving the human condition. In addition to this broad mandate, many NGOs share a number of other characteristics. They recruit and engage volunteers for many of their activities and are usually led by volunteer boards; they place mission before profits; and they engage in activities, such as grassroots advocacy campaigns that would be difficult or impossible for other organizations. By focusing on a specific mission and drawing on the passionate support of local communities and loyal volunteers, NGOs are able to address issues that organizations in other sectors cannot or will not. Perhaps most important, NGOs enjoy a unique independence in their service to the public. Unlike organizations in the public sector, which are often subject to constant political pressure and regulation, and those in the corporate sector, which are beholden to their owners and shareholders, NGOs are accountable primarily to the public's trust. With the rise of the modern nation state, social development has increasingly been viewed as the responsibility of government. The growth of social democracies and the welfare state during the 20th century clearly reflects this belief. However, despite massive investment in social programs, governments have never been able to address fully the many needs of their citizens, nor are these needs often met by

the corporate sector. NGOs have emerged in large part to bridge the gap between what governments and corporations can do and what society needs or expects. The development of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in both developed and developing countries represents a significant advance for democracy as NGOs are developing new ways of doing politics. NGOs have reshaped the public agenda to reflect the interest of a broader range of people. Furthermore, they have achieved modest success in affecting the outcomes of government decision making. In Philippines, a significant number of studies on the work of NGOs have been published. Most of these studies, however, have concentrated on the role of NGOs as social development agencies. From this perspective, NGOs are seen as mechanisms for promoting economic and social development through the delivery of social services to the poor. From the political science perspective, this emphasis on the socioeconomic roles in contemporary NGO literature has obscured the significant political character of NGOs. (Clarke 1995) while such studies remain significant, the NGO literature has underplayed the explicitly political dimension of NGOs activities in the process of democratizing politics and governance. NGOs represent highly functional cogs in the wheels of the democratic process. They serve to place issues on the political agenda, and to formulate coherent demands for insertion into the legislative process. First used by the United Nations in 1953, the term NGO was used to refer to those non-state organizations that interfere with the UN agencies and serve as their sounding boards.(Serrano 1994) from then on, the term began to be used in many different ways, usually depending on the perspective of the user. Of course, an NGO is by, definition that is not part if the government. Given this definition, the NGO label can refer to a variety of organization-research institutions, foundations, professional associations, labor unions, youth and student citizens organization, and womens organization or is independent of the government. Secondly, NGOs are often seen to men the same as voluntary organizations, the problem with this definition is that it would overlap with membership organizations and that organization which help others like cooperatives, mass organizations, religious, and trade and professional organizations. While all seek to promote government decisions that advance their groups interest, each of these grouping is unique.

A more precise and useful definition of NGOs in the developing world is that NGO is a nonmembership organization formed for providing welfare and development series to the poor. NGOs are generally non-membership organizations. They are private and non-profit, and operate within a legal framework. They are most often established as relatively small organizations, possessing some kind of specialist knowledge, which provide a service to, or act on behalf of, interest-based organizations or subsections of the population.(Putzel 1999) NGO often work on development projects that benefit the poor and other popular sectors. Their commitment to their organizational goals is articulated through their emphasis on peoples participation and through the provision of support and professional services to those popular sectors.(Padron 1987) While most NGOs take a direct role in implementing development programs for the poor, usually through working with groups they help to formed called peoples organizations (POs), others take indirect roles as they help fellow NGOs to improve their implementation of projects through training, technical assistance, research, lobbying, etc. NGOs articulate interests that are not historically represented within the political system. NGOs picket, set up barricades, pressure candidates for elected office, lobby the legislature, and negotiating with executive departments and local governments-all efforts to press the views and agendas of the poor on public officials. Since NGOs apply their energies to the political arena, trying to articulate and aggregate interest of the poor and other popular sectors and to influence policy outputs. NGOs, however, are different from POs. POs are local, non-profit, membership-based associations that organized and mobilized members in support of collective welfare goals. POs are member ship-based organizations, like farmer organizations and cooperatives, womens organizations, community and cooperatives organizations, which are set up primarily to promote the interests of their members. POs are committed to securing benefits for their particular membership though they still articulate their aims and objectives within the more general development discourse. Although the NGO/PO distinction is now accepted in much of the NGO literature, a number of alternative labels are often used. Caroll distinguishes between Grassroots Support Organizations (GSOs) and Membership Support Organizations (MSOs), while Fisher distinguishes between Grass-roots Support Organizations (GRSOs) and Grassroots Organization (GROs). NGOs are also distinct from political organizations, in particular, political issues. Political organizations, unlike NGOs are primarily oriented toward attaining state power and joining the administration. NGOs are also clearly distinct from other societal organizations, such as privately owned firms and corporations that operate on a profit-making basis. One explanation is that NGOs fill up a gap in the function of the government as a stimulating agent for community development while it creates opportunities for the

politically marginalized to become active participants in the socio-political process of society. (Gregorio-Medel 1993) another view is that NGOs fill an institutional vacuum by articulating issue-based platforms and by mobilizing groups and individuals that the political party system has proved unable or unwilling to reach. The emergence of NGOs in areas where government intervention is prevalent can also be seen as recognition of governments inability to deliver basic services due to resource limitations exacerbated by bureaucratic problems including red tape, graft and corruption. (Brillantes 1994) NGOs also play a role in the privatization of policy implementation that benefits both local government and NGOs, and enhances the quality of community life. Collaboration between government and NGOs to implement policy falls within the scope of privatization. In the interest of cost saving and effective policy implementation, government may contract NGOs to carry out services or offer subsidies and grants to them to do so. NGOs on their part, seek out sufficient government funding so that they can fulfill their missions. While much of the privatization of policy implementations initiated by the state to reduce its service provision obligations, local governments also called upon local organizations aid policy implementation. In addition to service provision, Philippines NGOs also play significant roles in policy advocacy, elections, and governance. The phenomenon of NGOs becoming a major political force in the Philippines dates back to the 1960s when the country was in a state of worsening political and economic exploitation by ruling elite. This situation fueled the growth of angry mass movements and started the conflict between the state and large sections of the civil society. This period was characterized by intensifying political unrest and rapid mobilization of revolutionary mass organizations. Alongside the growth of militant social reform movements was the emergence of a parallel movement for grassroots development involving organizations engaged in empowering the local communities for self-reliant development. The shift by the Catholic Church in the late 1960s away from the purely spiritual aspects of Christianity toward an emphasis on social justice was clearly a major factor in development of grassroots organizations. Church organizations played a key role in the conscientization and development of political groups. (PCC-SVC 1962-65) The declaration of Martial Law in 1972 hit the progressive and militant NGOs hard. During this period, torture and arbitrary arrests of their members were widespread. While the state activities posed enormous threat to their existence, the militant organizations continued to organize POs to address socially significant issues such as agrarian reform, land and housing, and human rights. While there were co-operations due to the pressures of continued repression, the political situation allowed for the rebirth of both individual NGOs and united front efforts.

The Marcos dictatorship was a potent force in the development of NGOs apart from its declaration of martial law. Within the context of authoritarian rule, the Marcos administration failed to address the problems of development. Discarding the view that the government functions to promote social welfare and further the public interest, NGO emerged with a radically different approach to development. NGOs, funded by international, largely European donors, became an important base for activist committed to opposing the dictatorship and working with socio-economic groups adversely affected by its economic policies thus, making the NGOs visible in the action of immediate response in the alarming situation of the society. The Ninoy Aquino assassination in 1983 marked the second wave of activism. It led to the politicization of various social sectors and interest group. Broad mass-based organizations were formed for the protection and assertion of human rights and development agenda. This period also marked a new phase in the political involvement of organized groups such as the NGOs. Their opposition to Marcos pushed them or initiate a concerted effort participate in the electoral process and adopt a more directly political stance. It pushes back the people to unify their objectives as the dictatorship is making the rule out of democracy. The People Power Revolution of February 1986 furthered the growing political prominence of NGOs. A democratic space in which NGOs and POs could proliferate was created as democratic rights were restored including the right to organized, to free assembly, to participate in elections, and to a free press. Such state-based changes enabled various sectors to participate more actively in governance. This phase of political environment fostered the general strategy of decentralization, concretized by the 1991 Local Government Code. Through this development, the significant roles of NGOs in re-democratization and decentralization processes were recognized and NGOs took on the challenge brought by the opportunities for participation and partnership in governance. Domestic developments in the Philippines that brought about the proliferation of NGOs were paralleled by developments in the external environment. The most obvious international factor was the global debt crisis of the 1980s and the dramatic increase in poverty that followed in its wake. The debt crisis was exacerbated by famine, wars, and natural disasters. This series of economic, political, and natural crisis triggered international response on a massive scale. International NGOs expanded their levels of operations to cover more countries and more concerns. (Briones 1992)

Another international factor was the increased preference of official aid institution to work directly with NGOs. Political failure on the part of the government led official donors to aid to focus more on NGOs rather than the state to provide services. The need to reduce the role of centralized and monopolistic state structures in production and service provision became a part of these institutions policy thrusts. This move to working with NGOs helped transform NGOs into popular alternative agents of socio-economic changes, both in the eyes of donors and beneficiaries. Thus, in the 1980s, major donors, like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank, turned increasingly to NGOs as flexible and inexpensive instruments for their development activities. The funding of NGO-based development projects increased substantially. This development furthered the growth and social relevance of NGOs. The present Philippine NGO community spawned from those political circumstances is characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity and by conflicting political or strategic orientations. The heterogeneity of Philippine NGOs is a result of this sectors evolution as NGOs responded to changes in the external and internal environment, especially the dramatic shifts in the socio-political and economic situation of the Philippines. Such heterogeneity is also explained in large part by the institutional forces that underpin it and the completing objectives that motivate NGOs. Karina Constatino-David captures much of this heterogeneity and conflict. Constatino-David differentiates membership organizations from institutions and agencies and classifies the different types of institutions and agencies into DJANGOs, TANGOs, FUNDANGOs, MUNGOs, GRINGOs, BONGOs, and COMEN GOs. DJANGOs are more commonly called development NGOs. They perform a mixture of direct and indirect support service functions with POs. Since 1986, POs has become a generic label for a complex range of largely traditional organization structures such as account for only 11.5 % of the total number of NGOs. TANGOs are charitable, welfare and relief organizations that perform valuable services for the poor. While they intersect with POs and DJANGOs, their primary focus remains providing assistance to marginalized individuals and families. FUNDANGOs are foundations and grant-giving organizations that are essentially extensions of the state or personal interests of state actors as they are usually set up by politicians and government functionaries. BONGOs are the groups that are created primarily as tax dodges, vehicles for quelling labor unrest, or means to project a benevolent company image.

Finally, COMENGOs relate to fly-by-night organizations that package proposals to attract outside funding and promptly disappear with the funds. With 1986 and the success of People Power, President Corazon Aquinos reinstatement of formal democracy, her receptiveness toward NGOs, and increase in foreign subsidies, further growth of NGOs was encouraged. Some NGOs pursued agendas that were directly political, urging or opposing particular state actions, supporting electoral candidates, or influencing appointments. Some were, at most, indirectly political aiming at changing socioeconomic conditions. Most were a combination of the two, with a common emphasis on empowerment. The positive policy environment of the Aquino administration explains why NGOs increases geometrically in number during her presidency, as an apparent alternative to institutionalizing a political party in the post 1986 period; President Aquino gave her blessing to NGOs as the vehicles to democratize political power. This policy preference for NGOs was evident in the major policy frameworks of the Aquino administration, especially the 1987 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution acknowledges NGO participation through Article II Section 23, Article X Section 14, Article XIII Section 15 and Section 16. The 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) recognizes NGOs, farmers organizations, cooperatives and rural workers not just for their traditional delivery roles, but also as public interest groups involved in negotiation and mediation of conflict. The 1987-92 and the 1993-98 Medium Term Development Plans of the Philippines (MTPDP) acknowledge NGOs as partners in development work, specifically, in poverty alleviation, environmental protection, delivery of social services, and the promotion of peoples participation in governance. The passage of the Local Government Code in 1991 (RA 7160), and known as popularly as LCG, clearly reaffirmed the role of NGOs as legitimate representatives of popular interests. The enactment of the Code formalized NGO and PO involvement in the structure and processes of local governance. The Code also entitles NGOs and POs to: 1.) Representation on elective bodies at the municipal, provincial, and regional level, including 25% of Development Council seats at each level.

2.) Sectoral representation in the local legislative assemblies (the provincial, city and municipal
assembly). (RA 7160) 3.) Consultation on programs and projects planned or administered by national government agencies.

The Code also empowers local government units (LGUs) to establish NGOs and POs and to jointly undertake projects with NGOs and POs as partners in development and the promotion of the welfare of the communities: Section 34. Role of Peoples and Non- Government Organizations. Section 35. Linkages with People\s and NGO Section 36. Assistance to People and Non- Governmental Organizations A. Building Bases of Democratic Participation This expansion of officially supported political participation represents the main political achievements of the Philippine NGOs. In the realm of individual/group expression and autonomous action, NGOs are touted for their prominent role in the development of civil society. Civil society is the politically active popular sector of society. (Serrano 1993) encompassing masses of citizens engaged in public protest, social movements, and NGOs acting in the public sphere. NGOs help consolidate the social space between the market and state by providing organizational mechanisms through which people come together to pool their energies and resources so as to pursue certain personal interest of the group members, or meet the social service needs of particular sectors, or promote activities they believe are in the communitys general interests and are of interest to people in general. Civil society is enlarged and solidified by virtue of these groups being self-organized autonomous entities that are free of state control and operate outside the marketplace. NGO participation in the political process is a form of mobilization and a struggle for power. NGOs stand between individuals and the large, overpowering market and government bureaucracy by providing the institutional means for mediating between the conflicting interests and social values of the various sectors of the society. As NGOs enable people to achieve success in group endeavors, subsequently, they help build up efficacious attitudes toward participation in government. The area of public policy formulation is probably one of the most in need of NGO intervention as such intervention allows people greater involvement in public policy making. NGOs engage in the policy process to add the voice of the poor and marginalized to the policy equation by assisting POs in the formulation of their policy agendas. They also provide space for people for maneuver given the political and economic context of the country and the specific policy changes aimed at.

Traditional mass-membership institutions such as political parties, trade unions and peasant associations lack the effective ability to mobilize and aggregate political demands. Through protests, lobbying, etc, NGOs are able to aggregate and moderate political demands and provide channels distinct from the state through which disputes can be negotiated and dissipated. By aggregating the interests of those that are socially distant from the centers of power and then articulating those interests, NGOs link society with the state and, in the process, introduce the influence of non-elite groups into the decision- making process.(Silliman and Noble 1998) On its own, the political party system in the Philippines cannot facilitate political participation to the extent that it anchors effective functioning democratic institutions. As in the past, political parties still serve mainly to advance the interest of prominent personalities or clan machines. Political parties had failed to expand membership beyond the ranks of professional politicians, especially at the local level where parties have no permanent infrastructure. Political parties are unable to articulation issues, and mobilize on the basis of ideologically consistent platforms with which the public could identify. Thus, NGOs fill such crucial gaps left by political parties by mobilizing and articulating the political demands of workers, peasants, marginalized sectors and sections of the middle class traditionally estranged from political system. NGOs must participate in elections if they are to become a legitimate force for structural change. According to Temario Rivera, a strategy of building a broad, popular political coalitionmust necessarily emphasize the various legal forms of struggle, with the electoral struggle as a special case. (Rivera 1992) NGOs in the Philippines have become active in different aspects of electoral work since the early 1990s. In January 1991, the caucus of development for NGO workers (CODE-NGO) and the PhilippineCanada Human Resource Development Program sponsored a national conference on the role of NGOs in building democracy. In that conference, Five areas for NGO participation in electoral processes were agreed upon: 1) advocacy for electoral effort. 2) The raising of electoral consciousness among the people, 3) advancement of the peoples platform or agenda in elections, 4) direct participation through the fielding of the campaigning for chosen candidates; and 5) post election activities, such as monitoring and feedback evaluation. In 1992, NGOs launched their first organized and purposive intervention to the electoral arena. Three political blocs, the Movement for Popular Democracy (MPD), BISIG (Bukluran para SA Ikauunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa) and DSK (Demokratiko Sosyalistang Koalisyon), in alliance with supporting

NGOs, formed AKBAYAN to merge tow main NGO electoral conditions: Project 1992, coordinated by MPD, and Project 2001, a DSK initiative with PANDAYAN as its main member. Running no candidates of its own, AKBAYAN supported the Liberal Party-Partido Demokratikong Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (LP-PDPLaban) coalition at the national level including Jovito Salongas candidacy for President and Aqulino Pimentels for Vice- President. Despite expectations, AKBAYAN and LP-PDP-Laban candidates were defeated. Elections are indeed additional venues for NGOs and POs to advance their cause. However, most NGO activists tend to view elections as merely an extension of their advocacy work. Furthermore, because elections in the Philippines still conform to the clientelist model, an issue-oriented approach such as that subscribed to by most of the NGO community, is an insufficient basis for mobilizing voters. Obviously, traditional politicians have more resources than NGOs for mobilizing voters and winning elections. Another important contribution of NGOs is their impact on the policy-making process. Many NGOs view policy advocacy as one of their primary responsibilities. Advocacy refers to the advancement of socalled popular interests and agendas along the general lines of a participatory, equitable, and sustainable development. Policy advocacy encompasses overt political activity of NGOs and POs. Such explicit political action includes efforts to influence and change public policy, challenge the existing structure of political power, make overt demands of policy makers, and affect elections outcome. NGOs in the Philippines are intimately involved in this realm of political activity. Often, they act as pressure groups through which people express opinions and make policy demands, and through which they work with government administrative and policy making bodies to formulate and implement public policy. As pressure groups or collaborators in social movements, NGOS broaden citizens repertoire of political action, enabling them to directly engage political authorities through which street protests and other forms of group action. One striking lesson from the Philippine NGOs is that they help to bring critical development issues and concerns into open public debate and to the attention of policy makers. Examples of such groups include environmental NGOs which lobby government to protect habitats and species, and social welfare organizations that in addition to their service activities press government officials to adopt new programs and allocate more funding for existing projects. NGOs have also launched campaigns for rural and urban land reform, the recognition of human rights, an end to commercial logging, and numerous other policy changes. Through continued advocacy and lobbying efforts, the NGOs gained recognition and impact in the policy making process. NGOs have achieved some success in shaping public policy. At the national level, health NGOs worked with the health department to develop a national drug policy and secure the passage of the

Generics Act in 1988. Over the opposition of the Philippine Medical Association and the drug industry, As a result of Haribons challenge to destructive logging practices in Palawan, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act 7611 in 1989, a legislation that bans commercial logging in all natural forests in the Philippines and mandates the protection of Palawans natural resources base through a Strategic Environmental Plan. In March 1992 The Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) was signed into law by President Aquino. The UDHA is a direct product of lobbying by the urban poor, social development NGOs, and the Catholic Church. In February 1995, President Ramos signed into law the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law which is considered a significant victory for womens NGOs is also another success. B. Building and Enhancing Areas of Governance Participation in governance refers to the broadening of representative democracy through the utilization of venues within the state to actualize genuine peoples participation in the formal structures of government primarily through actual presence in the legislative and executive departments. In the Philippines, the increasing participation of NGOs and POs in the process of governance particularly at the local level has gained increasing recognition over the recent years. This has become more particularly marked since the enactment of the LGC in 1991. NGOs have also been in the fore front of advocacy for local governance. The St. Magdalena Alliance for Community Development (SAMACD) a 10 member network of local NGOs and POs in Bicol- worked to popularize the salient points of LGC of 1991. This alliance participated in the local legislature to bring to the officials attention the problems of the municipality. In the latter part of 1992, the Alliance facilitated the formation of local special bodies among the POs. There are three key areas whereby NGOs and POs can participate in local governance as highlighted in the LGC of 1991. These are: 1) strengthening the local bureaucracy; 2) de-bureaucratizing local governance; and 3) institutionalizing peoples governance. NGOs engage with the government in various ways at the national level. They are active participants in the policy making and implementing bodies and processes. NGOs and POs in the country can influence the executive branch of government through various mechanisms. The most common institutional mechanism for direct influence at the policy level is participation in national councils or inter-agency, cross-sectoral committees, cabinet clusters, etc., responsible for the formulation of policies addressing broad national concerns. These mechanisms give NGOs direct access to members of Cabinet and other senior officials of

the executive branch. NGOs have also become important sources of political leaders for political and other government positions since 1986, and personnel from the NGO/PO community have been recruited to the upper tiers of the bureaucracy. In the legislature, NGO participation is institutionalized in the appointment of sectoral representatives in Congress and in local law-making bodies. Sectors which are represented consist mainly of the marginalizedthe urban poor, women, peasants, indigenous cultural activities, etc. Among NGOs and POs, the most utilized mechanism to intervene in Congress is the indirect area of intervention, particularly mass actions, but these are not necessarily always the most effective. The legislation on the anti-terrorism bills is another area where NGOs and POs have played significant roles. As an expression of their opposition to the anti-terrorism bills, and in order to influence the law-makers to withdraw the bills, the Coalition Against State Terrorism (CAST), a coalition of 24 NGOs and POs from the human rights community, church, peasants, women, health, urban poor, internal refugees, indigenous people, professionals, and small businessmen, and concerned individuals utilized a wide variety of methods, which included, among others, mass mobilizations, lobbying and dialogues with key state actors, education and information drives, propaganda, signature campaigns, international networking and linkages, the issuance of a pastoral letter from the Catholic hierarchy, and consolidation and organizing of the opposition. The campaign against the anti-terrorism bills was largely successful because it pushed government to temporarily withdraw the measures. Their optimism, however, was tempered with caution. The NGOs, indeed, play an essential role in democratizing politics and governance. They have made significant contributions in facilitating meaningful participation of the people in the policy making and execution processes of the government. NGOs used to be involved only in building community and peoples organizations, in protecting human rights violations, and in providing social services to the needy. Before, NGOs were at the margin of political forces in the mainstream, now, they are successfully positioned as a key participant political force. The awakening on the part of NGOs has led them to explore means on how they can broaden their role in enhancing democracy. The NGOs are seen as organizers of communities, advocates of peoples issues, mediators between the dominant sectors of the society and the disadvantaged sectors, and facilitators in provision of basic social services. Over the years, NGOs have become important institutional vehicles for mobilizing, articulating, and aggregating peoples interests and political demands.

The ability of NGOs to influence elites, government agencies, and to advance their political agendas or those of beneficiary POs or communities depends on the particular means by which NGOs participate in politics, NGOs and POs have utilized both parliamentary and non-parliamentary means to intervene in politics. The NGOs and POs have worked to create and strengthen the democratic process through policy advocacy and institutional reforms. They have aimed at building genuine democracies so that; the poor communities and popular grassroots organizations can have access to both economic and political opportunities and thereby, contribute effectively to national development. With the growing recognition of NGOs as vital components of civil society, and numerous spaces for governance, engaging government has emerged as a continuing challenge. While NGOs are seen to be able to influence the formulation of critical policies, they may not be able to influence the implementation of such policies. Whether the NGO sector can sustain its participation is an important question that needs to be addressed. To sum it up: NGOs, do not supplant the responsibility and the obligation of the government to its people and state, thus it is a response that supports the people in reaching out their needs and somehow to conceptualize the power of the people as a democratic state. NGOs may be small time organizations but the impact of their mission to serve and change the perspective of society into a much better form of state is the greatest achievement they could ever have, and it is proven alongside the history of Philippine government over the transition of power and time that they lead the society into the action of a mature and flexible political culture. They inculcate into the minds of the people to work as a one body in times of disaster and for those less fortunate people to have the opportunity to gain access in an equal rights. In a broad sense of analyzing the roles and objectives of NGOs in the Philippine context maybe difficult to define what is the real point outside the reality, many argued that their objectives maybe seen as an instrument of penetrating a new wave of the ruling elite or the power of bureaucracy but to look at the viewpoint, it offers a lot opportunities to the people to develop within themselves the sense of responsibility and urgency in times of lobbying and change within the system.

Aquino, Belinda A. (1999). Politics and Governance: Theory and Practice in Philippine Context. Ateneo De Manila University: Department of Political Science. Brillantes, Alex Jr. B. (1994). Redemocratization and Decentralization in the Philippines: The Increasing Leadership Role of NGOs. De Guzman, Raul P. (1988). Government and Politics of the Philippines. College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines: Oxford University Press.

Green, A. and Matthias, A. (1997). Non-Governmental Organizations and Health in Developing Countries. New York: St. Martin's Press. G. Sidney Silliman and Lela Garner Noble. (1998). Citizen Movements and Philippine Democracy. Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press. G.Sidney Silliman and Lela Garner Noble, citizen Movements and Philippine Democracy, in organizing for Democracy, eds. G. Sidney Silliman and Lela Garner Noble ( Quezon City: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 1998), p. 290. Gerald Clarke, Participation and Protest: Non-Governmental Organizations and Philippine Politics. (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1995), p. 13. Arthur Bentley, The process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 263. Isagani Serrano, Civil Society in the Asia Pacific Region (Washington, D.C.: CIVICUS, 1994), p. 4. James Putzel, NGOs and Rural Poverty. In Silliman and Noble, p. 78. Alex B. Brillantes, Jr., Redemocratization and Decentralization in the Philippines:The Increasing Leadership Role of NGOs, International Review of Administrative Science. Vol. 60, no. 4, December 1994, p. 577. Temario C. Rivera, The New World Order: Problems and Prospects for the Peoples Movements in the Philippines, in Beyond the Cold War: Philippine Perspectives on the Emerging World Order, eds. Carmencita Karagdag and Augusto Miclat, Jr. (Manila: Peoples Diplomacy Training Program for Philippine NGOs et.al., 1992), p. 194.