financing the rh needs of filipinos

1The Human Development Legislator

2 Financing the reproductive health needs of Filipinos

The Human Development Legislator is a quarterly publication of the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD) with support from The David & Lucile

Packard Foundation.

Copyright © 2001by the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and

Development Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior

written permission of the publisher.

The Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation,

Inc. (PLCPD) evolved out of the Philippine Parliamentarians’ Conference on Human Sur-vival: Population and Development Plan of Action (PARLCON) convened in 1988.

PLCPD was formally established in Decem-ber 1989 as a non-stock, non-profi t founda-tion dedicated to the formulation of viable public policies on population and human development.

MAIN OFFICE:2/F AVECSS Building #90 Kamias Road. cor. K-J Street, East Ka-mias, Quezon City, 1102Tel. nos.: (+632)925-1800 • (+632)436-2373 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.plcpd.org.ph

CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES:RM 611 Northwing Bldg., House of RepresentativesBatasan Complex, Quezon City, 1126Tel. Nos.: (+632)931-5354 (+632)931-5001 loc. 7430

Mezzanine, Senate CommissaryGSIS Compound, Financial CenterRoxas Boulevard, Pasay CityTel. No.:(+632)552-6601 loc. 1208

PLCPD

Co-Chairpersons

Editor-in-Chief

Managing Editor

Editor

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Contributors

Layout/Graphics

Design

Sen. Rodolfo BiazonRep. Nerissa Corazon Soon-Ruiz, M.D.

Ramon San Pascual

Romeo C. Dongeto

Ma. Cecilia de los Reyes

Elenor de Leon

Abigail Acuba-CaingletChristopher EstalloShelley FranciscoRene LlorinEthel MendiolaVincent HermogenoMarlou Abaja (ECOP)Nora Oliveros (DBM)Ed Tamayo (DKT)

Dodie Lucas

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The Human Development

LEGISLATOR

CONTENTS4 Straight Shot

5 Consistently Inconsistent: Financing Reproductive Health and Family PLanning in the Philippines

18 DOH Budget Execution Guidelines for the Family Planning Budget in the 2007 GAA

23 Facts and Figures: Budget Lingo (1)

24 Securing Budget for Reproductive Health Commodities and Services

Lagman talks about how the 2007 and 2008 GAAs came to include budget for RH

29 Facts and Figures: Budget Lingo (2)

30 HDL Forum

32 The Budget Process

36 The Local Promise Success stories in local reproductive health advocacy in the

Philippines

43 Facts and Figures: RH Financing

44 Governor Maximo Dalog: The “Max-Champion” of Reproductive Health in Mountain Province

48 Pushing Development by Investing in Reproductive Health

51 Facts and Figures: Government Spending for 2007

52 Financing Reproductive Health and Family Planning Programs in the Workplace: A Corporate Social Responsibility Program for Sustainability

56 Annex A: Cagayan de Oro Chamber of Commerce and Industry Foundation, Inc.

— Workplace Family Health Program Policy*

58 Annex B: Chiquita Unifrutti Philippines – Bukidnon Family Planning Program Policy


By Ramon San Pascual, MPH Executive Director, PLCPD

When it comes to showing genuine commitment, actually allocating money is usually the hardest part.

But based on the experience of the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), allocating money seems to come second to installing a policy. After all, the latter speaks of clear, outright commitment whereas the former can still seek refuge in ambiguity.

Although the efforts of champions in Congress to insert allocations for the procurement of reproductive health commodities and provision of family planning services in the 2007 and 2008 General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) have been victorious, they are aware that they cannot just sit pat and perpetually bask in their achievement. Much work is still needed. It is not enough that money has been made available now; that would still leave us wondering and worrying about the future. A clear, comprehensive national policy on population management, reproductive health and family planning is what is badly needed in the Philippines.

It helps that the advocacy at the local level is fast gaining ground. Already, there are 21 local ordinances on reproductive health all over the Philippines. In the end however, everything still boils down to the need for a comprehensive national policy, the tie that will strongly bind all efforts at managing the population and empowering the people to make informed choices related to their reproductive health.

This issue of the Human Development Legislator attempts to shed some light on how the budget allocation in the 2007 and 2008 GAAs came to be and how other actors from the public sphere, private sector, and civil society, like DKT Philippines, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), as well as the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), signifi cantly contributed in our advocacy effort. PLCPD is also fi nally reaping the fruits of its engagement at the local level, relating comprehensively for the fi rst time its victories at installing local policies nationwide.

With our engagement in budget advocacy, PLCPD is maximizing yet another advocacy access point. With our champions’ continuing involvement in the budget process, making sure that it truly responds to the reproductive health needs of Filipinos, and unwavering commitment to the passage of a comprehensive national policy, the Philippines’ allegiance to international instruments such as CEDAW and the ICPD — which, until now has remained mere lip service — will soon be for real.



ConsistentlyConsistently

Financing Reproductive Health and

Family Planning in the Philippines

By Ethel Mendiola, Christopher Estallo, Abigail Cainglet, and Elenor de Leon

Such is how the Philip-pines has come to look in light of the continuing struggle for a national comprehensive policy on population manage-ment and reproductive health. With the seemingly never-end-ing battle between progres-sive and enlightened legisla-tors acting primarily on the needs of the people and of the country on the one hand, and regressive, ultraconservative groups led by the Catholic hi-erarchy on the other hand, it is mostly the poor and unedu-cated who stand to lose.

Struggling from its tag, “sick man of Asia,” the Philippines has aimed itself toward economic prosperity but largely, if not totally, neglected its rapidly ballooning population growth rate.

The overall demand for family planning in the Philippines remains high at 69 percent.1 Use of contraceptives increased from 40 percent in 1998 to 49 percent in 2003 but still, about half of married women

remain non-users of any contraceptive at all.2 There remains an urgent need to ensure that the country’s total unmet need, or the percentage of currently married women who either do not want any more children or want to wait before having their next birth but are not using any method of family planning,3 will be continuously reduced. While total unmet need has decreased from 20 percent in 1998 to 17 percent in 2003,4 the rate of improvement in meeting this unmet need has

INCONSISTENTINCONSISTENT

A republic torn between democracy and theocracy, a developing nation trapped in the darkness of the Middle Ages, the only Catholic nation in Asia that claims to uphold Christian values but remains deaf and blind to the deplorable plight of the poor.


been excruciatingly slow. And with the USAID’s phase-out of contraceptive donations to the Philippines coupled with government’s insistence on a program that focuses solely on national family planning, there is a huge possibility that even these small improvements may be negated unless a comprehensive national policy on population management and reproductive health, including family planning, is legislated with budget allocations for commodities and services.

The USAID, or the United States Agency for International Development, has been the largest donor of contraceptives in the Philippines for more than 30 years, providing 80 percent of the contraceptive supply for public sector use in the Philippines.5

But after US President George W. Bush recommended a huge cut in their international family planning fund,6 USAID was forced to gradually reduce

its commodity support to the Philippines.7 Condoms were the fi rst to be phased out in March 2003, followed by pills and injectables in 2007.8

The phase-out was gradual and designed in such a way as to give enough time for adjustments and policy changes. But despite its early announcement, no sincere efforts were seen from the national government to cover the gap left in the public sector.

Table 1. DOH’s Schedule for Phasing out Hormonal Commodities

Oral Contraceptives Injectables

Year Donations% Market

CoveredDonations

% Market Covered

2004 10,552,000 93 Full supply 100

2005 6,632,000 59 1,169,000 82

2006 2,609,000 23 845,000 59

2007 689,000 6 330,000 23

2008 0 0 67,000 5

2009 0 0 0 0

Source: Connell, Peter, Cindi Cisek, and Joan Robertson. June 2005. Support to Contraceptive Social Marketing in the Philippines, Performance and Prospects. Bethesda, MD: Private Sector Partnerships-One project, AbT Associates Inc.


Instead of dealing with it, the national government distanced itself to the responsibility of providing for the reproductive health care and family planning needs of the people.

As early as 2001, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has made her position on family planning very clear by saying that “the government needs to adopt policies that will take into consideration population and reproductive health approaches that respect our culture and values …”

In the 4th World Meeting of Families the following year, she laid down the four pillars of her administration’s population policy, claiming that her stand is based on Christian formation and constitution. These four pillars are responsible parenthood, respect for life, birth spacing, and informed choice, making it very clear to all that her administration will favor natural family planning (NFP) methods.10

It was evident that the Executive was swaying to the interpositions of the Catholic hierarchy.

In 2001, the Department of Health (DOH) formally announced its national family planning policy through Administrative Order No. 50-A, which primarily views family planning as a health intervention as opposed to a

way of reducing fertility and population growth.11

The following year, the DOH issued its National Natural Family Planning (NFP) Strategic Plan Year 2002-2006 to mainstream natural family planning as one of the modern methods of family planning.12 In 2003, then DOH Secretary Manuel Dayrit forged a questionable 50-million peso deal with the lay Catholic group Couples for Christ for trainings and seminars on natural family planning methods.13

Without letup in efforts to please the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the President’s reach has come to include the Commission on Population (POPCOM), which fi nally bent to pressure with the launch of the Responsible Parenthood Movement in December 2006. Said to be designed “to achieve a population size that is conducive to national

development,” the Movement’s main activity is the conduct of classes on Responsible Parenting and NFP at the barangay level.

Surprisingly, and somewhat dissonantly, the Philippines’ Medium-Term Development Plan (MTPDP) for 2004-2010 made strong statements on the crucial relationship between sound population management and development efforts, setting a targeted 1.9-percent slow down in the country’s population growth rate.14

Almost immediately, a group of UP economists came out with a paper claiming that such target is simply not feasible given the government’s current stance on the population issue.15 According to them, achieving such target would mean increasing contraceptive use by 0.48 percent yearly and would require a drastic shift in contraceptive method mix from predominantly

Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Former Health Secretary Manuel Dayrit


traditional to predominantly modern.16 Moreover, the 30-million allocation for artifi cial family planning in 2006 under the DOH only included capability building, policy development, policy standards and guidelines development, advocacy and IEC, monitoring and evaluation, and distribution costs to the local areas.17 It did not include the procurement of contraceptive commodities since these have always been donated. 18

In 2004, President Arroyo was quoted as saying that the implementation of family planning programs is the main responsibility of local government units (LGUs).19 According to the President, LGUs have been given the authority to decide on the methods that they will promote in their localities.

In the same year, the national government launched its Contraceptive

Self-Reliance (CSR) policy, a program primarily designed to assist local government units (LGUs) in coping with the phase-out of contraceptive donations.20 It aims to “diversify sources of both family planning services and commodities to the market and shift those who can afford to pay out of the public sector market while continuously protecting those who need access to free commodities.”21

However, the CSR policy has been unable to respond to the unmet needs of the country. It has not yet led to at least one LGU providing 100 percent of the FP needs of its constituency, especially with its implementation that is highly dependent on the leanings of local chief executives, as strongly illustrated by Manila’s experience under then Mayor Joselito “Lito” Atienza.

Also serving as President of Pro-Life Philippines, Former Mayor Atienza imposed his religious beliefs on the residents of Manila by issuing Executive Order No. 003 in February 2000. Said EO directed hospitals and health centers to discourage the use of artifi cial methods of contraception.22 It also prohibited the selling of modern FP commodities in the city.

Moreover, rather than having one national entity forecasting the need for,

procuring and distributing contraceptives through established systems, the CSR policy will result to hundreds of LGUs, many without assistance, attempting to carry this out.23 This would mean lost opportunities for more favorable pricing for large quantities of commodities and may also lead to some LGUs being unable to obtain and provide contraceptives.24

FILIPINOS WANT GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FAMILY PLANNING

Various studies have shown the Filipino people’s preference for contraceptives in planning their families. Results of the National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), a series of surveys conducted every fi ve years since 1968 by the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO), showed that “contraceptive use among currently married women in the Philippines has more than tripled over the past 35 years.”25 From 15 percent in 1968, it rose to 49 percent in 2003, mainly due to the rise in the use of modern contraceptive methods from 25 percent in 1993 to 33 percent in 2003.26

Similarly, results of the Family Planning Survey (FPS), a nationwide survey of women of reproductive ages conducted annually by the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) starting in 1995, have consistently

Former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza


shown a high contraceptive prevalence rate, with the pill as the most preferred contraceptive method among married women.27

Moreover, surveys conducted before the elections in 2000, 2004, and 2007 by the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO), Social Weather Stations (SWS) and Pulse Asia have consistently shown the Filipino people’s clamor for family planning and population programs and policies.28

In 1993, a survey conducted by the SWS showed that a great majority of Filipinos believe that the government should promote family planning more vigorously.29 In 1994, 78 percent of respondents said that the government should intervene in slowing the country’s population growth for development interventions to take effect.30 In 2000, 70 percent of SWS survey respondents said that they agree with the government’s program that allows married couples the freedom to choose the method they would use.31

Pulse Asia also conducted its own surveys in 2000, 2004, and 2007. Data for 2000 showed 94 percent of Catholic respondents favoring candidates who are supportive of family planning.32 In 2004, Pulse Asia found 71 percent of Filipinos agreeing that a

fast increasing population impedes development, while 82 percent said they would support candidates who are in favor of a law or measure on family planning.33

In Pulse Asia’s 2007 Ulat ng Bayan Survey, 92 percent of Filipinos said they consider family planning important while 76 percent believed it should be included in a candidate’s program of action.34

HARNESSING THE BUDGET PROCESS

Realizing the diffi culty of enacting a comprehensive national policy on family planning, reproductive health and population management, champions inside the halls of Congress saw the possibility of harnessing the potentials of the budget process and utilize it to further elevate the advocacy. After all, it is Congress that drafts and approves the General Appropriations Act (GAA), its most important piece of legislation.

Each year, Congress is required to deliberate and submit a proposed national budget to the Executive. Seeing this opportunity, champion-legislators saw the need to ensure that there is allocation on the item of family planning, particularly the procurement of contraceptives, while waiting for the passage of a comprehensive national

policy on family planning, reproductive health and population management. In this way, it is guaranteed that services on these will still be available and delivered even without a national policy.

Thus, with the leadership of Reps. Edcel Lagman (1st District-Albay and PLCPD Board Member) and Rodante Marcoleta (ALAGAD Party List and PLCPD Member) in the deliberations for the 2007 General Appropriations Act (GAA), champion-legislators lobbied for an increase to the 30-million peso original allocation for family planning to 180 million pesos. The additional 150 million in congressional initiative would then be sub-allocated by the DOH to LGUs that will express intent to use said fund for the purchase of reproductive health commodities and

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman


for the conduct of family planning seminars in local communities. The original 30-million allocation, on the other hand, will be spent for the regular functions of the DOH in support of family planning.35

The President, in her veto message, made instructions to the DOH to draft a guideline on how the fund can be accessed by the LGUs before the release of the actual budget.36 However, the guidelines took months before it was approved and set extremely diffi cult

criteria for LGUs that would want to access it. Suffi cient information dissemination among LGUs about the fund and the guidelines is also extremely lacking.

2007 GUIDELINESThe allocation in the form

of grant facility was designed to be released by the DOH through their Centers for Health Development (CHD) and/or regional offi ces to LGUs as additional funds for their budget on the procurement of contraceptive commodities. Accordingly, the CHDs should inform the

provinces and cities that they can access a specifi c amount of grant from the DOH.

The 150-million allocation would be managed by the National Center for Disease Prevention and Control (NCDPC) and the 16 Centers of Health Development (CHDs) of the DOH37 while the remaining 30 million would be used to augment the maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) of the NCDPC and the 16 CHDs. LGUs, including the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), may obtain grants from this facility to partly cover the costs of their purchase of RH commodities and conduct of FP seminars in local communities in relation to providing said services as part of their devolved functions.38

The 150 million would be divided among the 17 regions based on their estimated number of women of reproductive age (WRA) who are poor (please refer to attached DOH Budget Execution Guidelines on page 18). The NCDPC, in consultation with the 16 CHDs, would then assess the eligibility of clusters of LGUs to access their portions in their region’s share of the grant subject to two rules.

Rule 1 states that the allocated grant will only be accessible when the cluster


of LGUs meets the minimum standards on local availability and access to NFP. Suffi cient display of effort in making NFP generally available is the DOH’s prerequisite in provid-ing grant for artifi cial FP.

Rule 2, on the one hand, stipulates that the grant released to the cluster that meets Rule 1 shall be based on additional evidence on the levels of effort and costs already shouldered by the LGUs concerned in making a range of FP services available to poor clients.

Upon meeting the specifi ed requirements, each group of LGUs shall then be given access to 0 percent, 30 percent, 60 percent or 100 percent of the grant amount allocated to it depending on its overall rating on levels of evidence about the extent of effort and costs the group has collectively borne in ensuring safe motherhood, including the provision of free FP services to poor clients. A set of criteria has been drafted to rate each group of LGUs (please refer to Annex A of DOH’s Budget Execution Guidelines on page 21).

REPEAT EFFORT IN 2008In the 14th Congress,

champion-legislators continued their initial success in 2007. With much assistance from Rep. Lagman, the new Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, allocation for family planning in the

2008 GAA ballooned to 2 billion pesos. Of this amount, 1.2 billion pesos would be devoted to the procurement of contraceptive commodities by LGUs, while 800 million pesos would be spent for awareness and capacity-building on family planning.

Almost a year after the approval of the 2007 GAA, the supposed 150-million allocation for the procurement of contraceptive commodities and seminars on family planning remains unutilized. If this remains unspent by December 2009, the money will be sent back to the National Treasury. On the one hand, the 2008 allocation has remained unused because of the delay in the formulation of the implementing rules and guidelines by the DOH.

LOCAL FLAVORPutting your money

where your mouth is may be too old a political cliché for some, but in reality, it is what measures political will among local government executives and local legislative councils.

Often, local offi cials are faced with overwhelming social services obligations on the one hand, and a constricting resource base on the other. As a result, local governments are pushed to limit priorities in resource allocation to the most urgent and most politically practical.

This brings us to question how LGUs value reproductive health (RH) as one of the ‘must haves’ of their constituents. By looking at how they spend for reproductive health information and services, we can gauge their resolve to act and respond to a seemingly unpopular and politically intangible budgetary concern.

Since the national government refuses and continues to deny the need to purchase contraceptive supplies and commodities because of its bias for natural family planning (NFP) methods, LGUs must bear the burden of providing much needed supplies of RH commodities at the local level. This is further compounded by the pull-out of major international donors of RH commodities and supplies. With little to no support coming from the national government for the purchase of contraceptives, the LGUs have to take on the responsibility of purchasing supplies for their constituents.

Because of this, resource mobilization for population and development has become one of the cornerstones of the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development’s (PLCPD) policy advocacy efforts both at the national and local levels. The organization’s local initiatives resulted to a number of LGUs


showing increased budgetary allocations for reproductive health, family planning, and gender and development. The following are stories of three local government units that showed exemplary interventions on resource generation for RH commodities and supplies.

QUEZON CITY SHOWS THE WAY

While efforts to institutionalize a comprehensive national policy on population management go under way at the national level, the country’s richest local government unit39 silently goes about its RH and FP programs.

Quezon City is one of the highly urbanized cities in the Philippines and also one of the largest in terms of population size, comprising 21.9 percent of the 9.9 million population of the National Capital

Region.40 In 2000, it registered a 2,173,831 population.41 In 2007, after just seven years, its population ballooned to 2.68 million.42

But in spite of this, the local government of Quezon City has been demonstrating to all how effective governance should also translate to sound population management.

Quezon City’s family planning and reproductive health programs are localized in its barangays.43 Pills, IUDs, condoms, tubal ligation, and counseling on both natural and artifi cial family planning methods have been given for free to 141, 691 residents, 99,585 of whom are regular users of such family planning methods prescribed by the City Health Department through its 59 health centers all over the City.44 Likewise, information and education

materials on family planning, responsible parenthood, and safe motherhood as well as pre-marriage counseling are provided in all barangay centers.45

To help families achieve their desired family size, the City government has more than doubled its family planning budget from PhP 3 million in 2006 to PhP 6.9 million in 2007.46 For 2008, the City doubled this budget to PhP 12 million47 to further intensify its initial success of reducing the number of births by almost 17 percent in just two years. Quezon City’s PhP12 million family planning budget is the fi rst and the highest budget allocation made for family planning among LGUs in the country.

However, the need to institutionalize the City’s population management and reproductive health care program remained. So on February 23, 2008, despite much criticism and

Quezon City Mayor Sonny Belmonte

Quezon City Vice Mayor Herbert Bautista


harassment from conservative groups led by the Catholic Church, Mayor Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte approved Sangguniang Panglunsod (City Council) Ordinance No. 1829, Series of 2008, otherwise known as the Ordinance Establishing a Quezon City Population and Reproductive Health Management Policy. This local measure fi nally institutionalized the City’s long time executive programs and services on reproductive health, specifi cally on family planning. Its main sponsor, Councilor Joseph Juico, and co-sponsors, Councilors Bernadette Herrera-Dy and Lala Sotto, stood their ground and prioritized their constituents’ needs over political considerations.

With this ordinance, Quezon City now joins the ranks of the cities of Olongapo, San Fernando (La Union), Angeles, Marikina, and Naga that have all institutionalized

their commitment to better serve their people through a reproductive health care, responsible parenthood, and family planning policy.

The Quezon City Reproductive Health Ordinance mandates the implementation of a holistic reproductive health program that will not only help people make informed choices, but also afford them access to vital reproductive health and family planning services such as ligation and vasectomy for indigents, and free family planning commodities located in health centers. It seeks to avoid maternal and infant deaths caused by unplanned pregnancies and related complications –- problems that are more common among the poor because of malnutrition, ignorance and lack of funds for medical care.

The ordinance clearly states that abortion is not a recognized method of family planning. It highlights the illegality of abortion as provided under Articles 256, 257, 258, and 259 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. It affords women the ability to choose between natural and artifi cial methods of family planning, a decision that will ultimately depend on their personal beliefs and conscience. Under the new ordinance, city health workers and barangay offi cials will be required to undergo training on family planning service delivery.

The ordinance also provides for Adolescent Health Education in public secondary schools using a standard curriculum to be crafted by the City in consultation with health experts.

The amount of 12 million pesos is required by the ordinance for the implementation of its provisions (Sec. 12, Ordinance No. SP 1829, S-2008).

ZERO MATERNAL DEATH IN ISULAN

At the farthest tip of Mind-anao in the Province of Sultan Kudarat is another municipal-ity worth emulating by other local government units.

With assistance from the 6th Country Program (2005-2009) of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), PLCPD was able to continuous-ly provide technical assistance to pilot LGUs in terms of policy development and RH budget allocations for programs and services. One such LGU is the municipality of Isulan.

Despite the absence of a local RH ordinance, the Municipal government of Isulan has been making sure that its people’s RH and FP needs are being provided for by allocating funds for these. In fact, as shown in Table 2, there has been a steady increase in funding for RH services and commodities from the LGU through the


years. The local government of Isulan has also been zeroing in on eliminating maternal deaths through its Safe Motherhood Program.

The Safe Motherhood Program started in 2003 and immediately resulted to zero maternal deaths the following year. As its major strategy, the program maintained the ideal population to midwife ratio of 5,000:1, which translates to 1 midwife per barangay, 1 main health center in each barangay, and 20 barangay health stations. The 3 barangays with the biggest populations were assigned 2 midwives each.

Isulan’s Rural Health Unit (RHU) likewise encourages facility-based delivery through the preparation of a birth plan for pregnant women that details the person who will assist in the delivery, the specifi c birthing center, and the fi nancing of the delivery. The RHU also organizes maternal health teams in each barangay. The team is composed of a midwife, barangay health worker, nutrition scholar, traditional birth attendants, and barangay kagawad on health. The team advocates policy support for RH and forges partnerships with other stakeholders in the community; ensures continuous upgrading of birthing facilities in the municipality; and implements a monitoring and evaluation plan.

Table 2. Allocation of funds for FP commodities in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat

Year Amount Purpose Source

2006 PhP 50, 000 Purchase of FP & RH commodities

Annual General Fund

2007 PhP 100,000 Purchase of FP and RH commodities

Annual General Fund

2008 PhP 130, 000 Purchase of FP and RH commodities

5% of Gender and Development fund

Table 3. Additional funding for the Safe Motherhood Program of Isulan

Year Amount Purpose Source

2005 P80,000 Improvement of Barangay Health Stations --Used by Barangay Health Stations to improve their FP rooms which are also utilized as birthing rooms.

20% Development Fund

2006 P120,000 Improvement of the birthing facilities at the main health center


2007 P189,000 Upgrading of facilities for PhilHealth accreditation



The program also hosts an annual Buntis Congress and conducts free screening tests for pregnant women that include urinalysis, blood count, blood typing, and dental exam. These programs are maintained and funded partly from the municipal government’s Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) under special programs. Private and socio-civic organizations like the Soroptimist International and Rotary Clubs in the Province also make fi nancial contributions to said program.

The Municipality of Isulan also targeted the youth by constructing community-based and school-based RH Teen Centers. Recognizing the importance of teaching adolescents responsible sexuality through peer education, these teen centers aim to reduce unwanted and early pregnancy by making young people aware of the consequences of risky sexual behavior. All teen centers are maintained by Volunteer Center Managers and peer educators who receive an honorarium of P500 a month from the LGU. Members of the Local Youth Government (Sangguniang Kabataan) act as peer educators and organizers.

As of this writing, the local government of Isulan is preparing to construct two more teen centers while its people await the passage of their very own RH ordinance.

The local government believes that despite their active implementation of RH and FP programs and services, there remains a need to institutionalize these to ensure that these will be continued by succeeding administrations.

WHERE LGU FUNDS COULD NOT, HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES CAN

While Quezon City is blazing trails in the NCR with its RH and FP programs, in a 5th class, remote municipality in Ifugao, employees of the Tinoc District Hospital Multi-Purpose Cooperative (TDHMPC) are doing what they can to scale-up contraceptive self-reliance (CSR) in the municipality.

With only twenty (20) employees, the TDHMPC was organized in 1990. In 2006, it was offi cially registered as a cooperative.

The TDHMPC was primarily formed to address the problem of accessibility of medicines in Tinoc since there was no single pharmacy in the municipality at that time. Founding members recalled that they applied the concept of paluwagan, or a micro common trust fund, to purchase a medium-sized carton of assorted medicines for indigent patients. From then on, their share capital grew and later on evolved into a lending (salary, regular, emergency loans)

and consumer (pharmacy and goods) cooperative. Their membership has expanded to their immediate family and to the larger members of the community.

Majority of the TDHMPC members are health practi-tioners. They are concerned about family planning in their community and have realized that the municipal and provincial government, given their meager allocation that is dependent on their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), could not provide for substantial budget allocation for sustaining the provision of family planning commodities in the event that there would be a phase-out of donations on these.

In October 2007, an initial batch of Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (DMPA), intrauterine devices (IUDs), and pills worth PhP 4,000 were purchased. The following month, a higher demand for IUDs was registered. Offi cers of the cooperative shared how, in the last quarter of 2007 and early 2008, the potential acceptors in the municipality and the nearby town of Benguet signifi cantly increased. However, TDHMPC offi cers lamented the scarcity of suppliers of IUDs and began to worry about sustaining their initiative.

This year, TDHMPC offi cers are exploring


1 National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) [Philipines], and ORC Macro. 2004. National Demographic and Health Survey 2003. Calverton, Maryland: NSO and ORC Macro.

2 Trinidad, Arnie. Policy Implications of the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey: A Briefi ng Packet. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD). 2004.

3 NSO and ORC Macro xviii.

4 Trinidad.

5 United States Agency for International Aid (USAID). (April 2003). Affi rming USAID Support for the Philippine Family Planning Program [Fact Book].

6 Krisberg, Kim. August 2006. Global family planning efforts struggle with U.S funding cuts: Programs vital to women’s health. The Nation’s Health, http://www.apha.org/publications/tnh/archives/2006/08-06/Globe/2798.htm (accessed February 2, 2008)

other options to sustain their initiative. They are contemplating entering into a negotiation with the DKT Philippines’ Pop Shop to provide a steady source of reliable, effective, and safe family planning contraceptive commodities in Tinoc that will, at the same time, enable them to earn additional income.

GENUINE COMMITMENTThe budget insertions

in the 2007 and 2008 GAAs are proof that there are other avenues to ensure the allocation of funds for RH and modern FP commodities and services. It is a great leap forward despite the absence of a comprehensive national policy addressing reproductive health, family planning, and population development concerns.

However, the need to make sure that the allocation is institutionalized through the enactment of a comprehensive national policy on population management and reproductive health remains. For now, it is up to the LGUs to take the initiative to access the

allocated funds and use it where it is really targeted at. It is up to them to make the move now and start laying the ground for their own reproductive health and family planning programs.

The presence of local champions at the executive level, to a great extent, infl uences the direct budget allocation to signifi cantly improve and sustain availability of contraceptive supplies at the local level. It is important that there be continuous development of champions at the local executive level to scale up local legislation and policy support in creating an enabling environment for sustaining contraceptive self-reliance (CSR) and better reproductive health and family planning programs at the local level.

Allocating part of the national government’s resources to modern family planning is not just simply an issue of buying contraceptives. Above it all is the issue of widening the choices of women and couples,

especially the poor, in matters relating to their health and founding a family.

The Philippine government has claimed unity with numerous nations around the world in working toward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). But how can the Philippines achieve these when it does not afford its women and couples, especially the poor ones, the freedom to make informed choices on the family planning method that they feel comfortable to use?

It is said that resource allocation is an indicator of the government’s commitment in achieving a certain target. If the government is true to its goals to slow down population growth rate, eliminate poverty and reduce maternal deaths, then it must go beyond mere pronouncements. The national government should concretize its commitment to respect and uphold the rights of its citizens by allocating part of its resources for the provision of services and commodities that they badly need.

Sources:


7 United States Agency for International Aid (USAID). (June 30, 2003). Towards Contraceptive Self-Reliance (CSR) in the Philippines (2002-2006). [Working Paper].

8 USAID 3.

9 Linangan ng Kababaihan, Inc. (Likhaan), Reproductive Health, Rights and Ethics Center for Studies and Training (ReproCen), and Center for Reproductive Rights. 2007. Imposing Misery: The Impact of Manila’s Ban on Contraception.

10 Ibid.

11 Herrin, Alejandro N. Population Policy in the Philippines, 1969-2002, Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-08. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, September 2002.

12 Ibid.

13 Likhaan, ReproCen and CRR 15.

14 National Economic and Development Authority. (2004). Philippine Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2004-2010. Manila, Philippines.

15 Alonzo, Ruperto P. et. al. 2004. Population and Poverty: The Real Score. Discussion Paper No. 0415. University of the Philippines-School of Economics, Quezon City.

16 Ibid.

17 Apale, Dr. Florence, Medical Specialist 4, Family Health Division, National Center for Disease Prevention and Control-DOH. Phone interview. March 2008.

18 Ibid.

19 Agence France-Presse. 2004. GMA pledges to curb population growth. Manila Times, October 26, Top stories section.

20 Connell, Peter, Cindi Cisek, and Joan Robertson. June 2005. Support to Contraceptive Social Marketing in the Philippines, Performance and Prospects. Bethesda, MD: Private Sector Partnerships-One project, Abt Associates Inc.

21 Ibid.

22 Jimeno, Jaileen F. “In Manila, Pills and Condoms Go Underground.” i-Report Online. May 2-4, 2005. February 6, 2008 www.pcij.org.

23 Connell, Cisek, and Robertson 7.

24 Ibid.

25 NSO and ORC Macro xvii.

26 Ibid.

27 Please refer to the NSO website for the results of the Family Planning Survey (FPS) from 1995 up to 2006.

28 De los Reyes, Ma. Cecilia. Population and Reproductive Health: Ten Crucial Issues that Every Candidate Should Know. Philippines: Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc., 2004.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 De Leon, Elenor, Ma. Cecilia de los Reyes, and Rene A. Llorin. Population and Reproductive Health: What Every Legislator Should Know. Philippines: Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc., 2008.

35 Philippines. Offi ce of the Secretary for Health. Budget Execution Guidelines for Programs and Activities under item III. Section C., Number 2.j of DOH Budget in RA 9401 (GAA 2007). Manila: Republic of the Philippines, 2007.

36 General Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2007. Republic Act No. 9401. March 2007.

37 Budget Execution Guidelines 3.

38 Ibid.

39 Offi cial Website of the Local Government of Quezon City. http://www.quezoncity.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=2 (accessed February 7, 2008).

40 Philippines. National Statistics Offi ce. Quezon City: The Philippines’ Largest City. October 8, 2002. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2002/pr02171tx.html.

41 Ibid.

42 Philippines. National Statistics Offi ce. Total Population by Province, City, Municipality and Barangay:

as of August 1, 2007 -- National Capital Region. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2007/ncr.pdf.

43 City Government of Quezon City. Communication Coordination Center “Quezon City: A City Where All Shall Win.” 2007.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.


Budget Execution Guidelines for Programs and Activities Under Item III. Section C., Number 2.j of DOH Budget in RA 9401 (GAA 2007)*

A. Legal and Administrative Background

1. The General Appropriations Act of 2007 (GAA 2007), or Republic Act 9401, includes as part of the authorized budget of the Department of Health-Offi ce of the Secretary, the amount of P180,000,000 as maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) for “Programs and activities” under item “III. Operations,” section “C. Health Operations, including Policy Formulation, Standards setting and Monitoring,” number “2. Disease Prevention and Control” and activity “j. artifi cial family planning.” The total amount is composed of P30 million original allocation for reproductive health and an additional P150 million in Congressional initiative.

2. The same GAA 2007 contained the following inserted special provision: “12. Appropriations for Artifi cial Family Planning. The amount appropriated for artifi cial family planning shall be sub-allocated by the DOH to LGUs which shall apply for the utilization of the fund for the purchase of reproductive health commodities and the conduct of family planning seminars in local communities.” It is understood that this inserted provision will be applicable to the P150 million in Congressional initiative, while the original P30 million allocation will concentrate on the regular and routine functions of DOH in support of family planning.

3. The President’s Veto Message dated March 22, 2007 required conditional implementation of this special provision “subject to issuance of guidelines so that DOH may determine its priority programs.” Said guidelines shall recognize that:

• “While Reproductive health Program continues to be one of the government’s top priorities, DOH should be given necessary fl exibility in determining appropriate method to be used considering the needs of the community;”

• “Under budgeting rules and regulations, the sub-allotment of appropriations may only be issued to implementing agencies within the Executive Department;”

• “Local government participation may be secured through execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with the DOH.”

4. The general category of services (i.e., family planning services) referred to by the said budget provision is among those specifi c services devolved to local governments under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991). Under Section 17 of said law, among the basic services and facilities devolved to local governments are:

• For municipalities: primary health care; maternal and child care; women’s welfare; family planning services; purchase of medicines, medical supplies and equipment needed to carry out devolved services

• For provinces: hospitals and other tertiary health services, population development services

• For cities: services for municipalities and provinces

5. DOH Administrative Order No. 50-A, s. 2001, previously issued September 17, 2001, under the current Administration, provides that “family planning as a health intervention shall be made available to all men and women of reproductive age (15-44 years old) including those reproducing earlier or beyond this age bracket. It shall focus on the following modern FP methods: Natural Family Planning, Pills, Condoms, Hormonal Injectables (DMPA), Intra-Uterine Device (IUD), Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM), Voluntary Surgical Sterilization (VSS) such as Bilateral Tubal Ligation and Vasectomy.” The specifi c technical and clinical standards for these methods have been defi ned by existing offi cial technical manuals issued by the DOH. The following defi nitions are derived from these provisions:

• “Artifi cial family planning” shall be understood to include all the above modern FP methods, except Natural Reproductive health.

• “Reproductive health commodities” shall be understood as those commodities required and necessary, according to technical and clinical standards, to provide all the various methods characterized as “artifi cial family planning.”

6. DOH Administrative Order No. 2006-0008, previously issued May 10, 2006, also under the current Administration, provides, among others, for the following:

◦ “D.1 In order to assure that women without means to pay for care are nonetheless able to access and use family planning and maternal care services

* Reprinted with permission form the Department of Health (DOH)-Offi ce of the Secretary.


essential for them to avoid increased risks of maternal mortality, the DOH shall seek to install nationwide a safety net level of free reproductive health and maternal care services available at each locality supported by an adequate level of public funding and provided either through publicly fi nanced services of the private sector.”

◦ “D.2 Centers for Health Development shall arrange and assemble this safety net level of free (publicly funded) reproductive health and maternal care services at each locality by: (a) having the DOH budget and DOH hospitals cover part of the needed services; (b) securing provincial government support to cover another part through the provincial health budget; and (c) securing city and municipal governments support to cover the fi nal part through their respective city or municipal health budgets. This arrangement for safety net services in each locality should have specifi c quantitative target coverage, an agreed criteria for priority benefi ciaries and preferred users and explicit functional assignments among DOH, province, city/municipality funding and providers for each essential health service included in the package for women of reproductive age.”

Based on these provisions, the DOH shall allocate and use the budget for reproductive health commodities in support of LGUs providing a safety net of free (publicly funded) reproductive health services at their respective localities throughout the country.

B. Allocation of P180 million Lump Sum MOOE Provided

The total approved lump sum MOOE of P180 million for “artifi cial family planning” shall be allocated as follows:

◦ The P150 million corresponding to the Congressional initiative portion shall be constituted into a grant facility to be managed by the National Center for Disease Prevention and Control (NCDPC) and the 16 Centers of Health Development (CHDs) of the DOH. Consistent with special provision number 12 of the GAA, local government units, including the Autonomous Regional Development of ARMM, may obtain grants from

this facility to partly cover the costs of their “purchase of reproductive health commodities and conduct of reproductive health training/seminars in local communities” in relation to providing reproductive health services as part of their devolved functions. The operation of this grant facility is further detailed in Section C below.

◦ The original P30 million portion representing the regular budget of DOH for family planning shall be utilized as follows:

1. P14 million shall augment the MOOE of the National Center for Disease Prevention and Control (NCDPC) as the unit with national program management responsibilities for reproductive health in order to undertake “health operations, including policy formulation, standards setting and monitoring” specifi cally in relation to, among others, performing the technical support work in implementing the above mentioned grant facility supporting LGUs providing reproductive health as part of their devolved services.

2. P16 million shall be sub-alloted at P1 million each for the 16 Centers for Health Development (CHDs) of the DOH to augment their respective MOOE for

Region Est. No. poor WRA

Amt. Allocated

1. NCR 235,000 7 million

2. Region 1 324,000 8 million



5. Region 4-A 560,000 11 million

6. Region 4-B 279,000 8 million









15. CAR 256,000 8 million

16. CARAGA 194,00 6 million

17. ARMM 276,000 9 million

Total 150 million


“health operations, including disease prevention and control,” specifi cally in relation to, among others, performing the technical support work in implementing the above mentioned grant facility supporting LGUs providing reproductive health as part of their devolved services.

C. Operation of the portion constituted into a DOH grant facility for LGUs

The P150 million Congressional initiative for “artifi cial family planning” shall be constituted into a grant facility managed by NCDPC and the 16 CHDs of DOH to partly cover the costs incurred by those LGUs that provide free reproductive health services to poor clients by, among others, purchasing reproductive health commodities and conducting reproductive health seminars in local communities, according to the following provisions:

1. DOH shall make available to LGUs from each of the 17 regions the following amounts based on dividing the P150 million total according to each region’s estimated number of women of reproductive health age who are poor:

ARMM shall be regarded, according to its governing law, as a special (region-wide) type of LGU and NCDPC shall make the grant for the whole ARMM via the DOH-ARMM. The utilization of the grant for ARMM to assist component LGUs of ARMM shall be undertaken by the DOH-ARMM under the autonomous regional government.

The total amount was divided among the regions according to this procedure: fi rst, the estimated number of women of reproductive age of each region was multiplied by each region’s corresponding poverty rate; second, the regions with the smallest estimated number of poor women of reproductive age was allocated a minimum amount of P6 million; third, regions with proportionately larger estimated numbers of poor women of reproductive age were given correspondingly larger amounts until the full amount was exhausted. The regional allocations range from a minimum of P6 million to a maximum of P12 million.

2. NCDPC, in consultation with the 16 CHDs and DOH-ARMM, shall determine the eligibility of clusters of LGUs to access their respective portions of the region’s share of the grant based on evidence about the levels of effort and costs already incurred in securing safe motherhood outcomes in their localities, including assuring that pregnancies are desired and planned through

availability of a range of reproductive health services provided for free to poor clients.

The details on implementing this rule are further described in the attached annex.

3. Each CHD shall rate the eligibility of groups of LGUs to secure corresponding amounts of grants by applying the above guidelines. As single municipalities or small cities are unlikely to be fully self-suffi cient in the full range of RH services required, CHDs shall only rate clusters of LGUs, such as: a whole province (including its component municipalities and cities); or a cluster of municipalities comprising an inter-local health zone; or clusters of cities and contiguous municipalities comprising a metropolitan area as determined by the CHD. NCDPC shall rate the whole ARMM region in consultation with DOH-ARMM. CHDs may rate individual chartered or highly urbanized cities that are large enough to be self-suffi cient in all the RH services.

CHDs shall continue to monitor changes in the status of programs of their region’s LGUs and, whenever appropriate, update the ratings to enable groups of LGUs that demonstrate further progress in their RH provisions to access additional percentages of the grant amounts. At the end of each quarter, CHDs shall report the ratings of clusters of LGUs in their regions and the corresponding releases of grant amounts corresponding to the ratings.

4. Each group of LGUs rated shall identify a “sponsor” that shall receive the grant amount that each group is eligible according to its rating. This “sponsor” shall sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with DOH to receive the grant amount, place the said amount in a trust account, disburse the grant proceeds received to different LGUs comprising the group, maintain necessary accounting records, and render required reports. The following may be designated as “sponsor” by participating LGUs: the provincial government for a whole province; a designated municipal government or a provincial district hospital for an inter-local health zone; or a city government in behalf of the city and surrounding municipalities or cities of a metropolitan area.

5. CHDs shall release the percentage of the grant amount corresponding to the rating of each group of LGUs. The grant proceeds shall be released to their “sponsor” in behalf of the group. The “sponsor” in turn shall disburse said grant proceeds to augment the health budgets or reimburse identifi ed expenses of LGUs comprising the group in order to partly cover, fi rst, the costs associated with purchasing reproductive health commodities and, if the grant proceeds


Annex A: Procedures on Grants to LGUs under These Guidelines

NCDPC and CHDs shall follow these procedures in making grants to groups of LGUs under these guidelines. NCDPC shall rate the whole ARMM in consultation with DOH-ARMM, while individual CHDs shall rate groups of LGUs in their respective regions.

Step 1: Allocation of region’s total grants among region’s provinces and cities

The CHDs and DOH-ARMM shall divide the total grant allocated to the whole region, under section C.1 above, among the region’s provinces and highly urbanized cities using any one of the following options:

(a) Equal shares: total amount is divided by the number of provinces and cities

(b) Big and small shares: provinces and cities are grouped into two based on size of population ; the bigger ones get a higher equal share; the smaller ones get a lower equal share

(c) Proportional share: the smallest province/city gets an amount and each province or city gets a proportionately bigger share according to population size.

CHds shall choose the options based on the actual variations in provincial and city populations in their regions. The goal of the allocation is to have grant amounts that are

sizeable enough for every province and city to be interested.

Step 2: Informing provinces and citiesThe CHDs shall inform the provinces and cities that they

can access a specifi c amount of grant from DOH based on how far their localities meet the two rules on the availability of the full menu of RH services for poor clients backed by suffi cient LGU funding. They are also advised on the details of the application of two rules and the schedule of rating visit.

Step 3: Applying the guideline under section C.2 aboveEach CHD shall determine how far provinces and cities

within its region meet the guideline under section C.2 above. If provincial governments are not interested in being rated, clusters of municipalities in the province may also be rated.

Each group of LGUs that meet the requirements shall be given access to 0%, or 30%, or 60% or 100% of the grant amount allocated to it depending on its overall rating on levels of evidence about the extent of effort and costs the group has collectively borne in order to assure safe mother-hood, including provision of free RH services to poor clients. The rating of each group of LGUs under this rule shall be based on the following rating system:

can still accommodate, the costs of conducting seminars in reproductive health at local communities. CHDs shall assist each group of LGUs entitled to receive funds from this grant facility to decide among themselves how the grant they obtain shall be divided among themselves how the grant they obtain shall be divided among themselves. It is hereby emphasized that paying for the costs of free reproductive health services at localities remains a responsibility of LGUs under the LGC of 1991. This 2007 grant provided under the DOH budget is not intended to substitute for sustained LGU expenditures to support local reproductive health services but is intended only to temporarily augment the budgets of those LGUs that have shown their best effort to fully meet this important responsibility for the benefi t of their poor constituents.

6. CHDs shall monitor the receipt, proper use, recording and reporting by the “sponsors” of the grant amounts released to them in favor of LGUs comprising their groups as stipulated in the MOAs. The CHDs shall insure that a complete paper

trail and documentation is available for each group of LGUs extended as grant consisting of the following: (a) offi cial rating of the group of LGUs in meeting the requirements of Rules 1 and 2; (b) written representation on the designation of the sponsor for the LGU group; (c) signed MOA between DOH and the sponsor in behalf of the LGU group; (d) release of grants corresponding to the rating; (e) receipt of grant proceeds by the “sponsor” and deposit in trust accounts; (f) disbursements by the sponsor of the grant proceeds to LGUs comprising the group; (g) reporting by the sponsor on the use and disposition of the grant proceeds. Failure to meet these requirements of acomplete paper trail and full documentation shall make the group of LGUs ineligible to obtain further releases of grants under this facility.

(signed)FRANCISCO T. DUQUE, III, MD, MSc

Secretary of Health


Criteria:

1. Public health professional(s) is/are responsible for managing maternal catre and family planning services throughout the cluster of LGUs. (10 points)

2. Local requirements for RH commodities are specifi ed, projected and estimated. (10 points)

3. Activities to educate and counsel clients about respon-sible parenthood, family planning and safe motherhood are planned and organized. (10 points)

4. Local funding for RH commodities and education/coun-seling activities are budgeted. (15 points)

5. Local funding budgeted for RH commodities and educa-tion/counseling activities are utilized. (15 points)

6. Clients deemed eligible for free RH services are able to access services of their choice. (40 points)

Groups of LGUs that earn 30 points can get 30% of the grant allocated to them.



The overall rating of each group of LGUs shall be based on the most number of observations noted among them for the above criteria. Provinces/cities that do not meet the 30% require-ments shall not be able to access the grant allocated to them.

Step 4: Conduct of rating visitTeams from CHDs shall conduct a visit to arte each province

and city using the above criteria. It is emphasized that the whole province, including its component municipalities and cities, is being rated. In some cases, provincial governments may decide to bear a larger burden of meeting the criteria than the municipalities; while in other cases, municipalities and cities may decide to bear a larger burden than the province; or in yet other cases, each level of government may share in the total burden. The rating should be on the overall result of the burden sharing rather than some pre-set notion of what each level must do or not do. The DOH rating should focus on the overall result for the whole population affected in terms of accessibility of a full menu of free RH services for poor clients.

Step 5: Evaluating the results of rating exercisesTeams from CHD shall not report the results of the

rating visit immediately upon completion of the visit. Teams should assemble at the CHD and calibrate their results region-wide so that a fair and equitable judgment is reached in the ratings of all provinces and cities in the region. Once all the rating results are in, the CHD management shall hold

an evaluation meeting that shall come up with the following results for each province/city rated:

(a) Level of meeting the requirements of guidelines/Share of grant amount for release: 0%, 30%, 60%, 100%

(b) Recommendations in order to obtain release of the next higher level of grant portion (i.e., from 0% to 30%, from 30% to 60%, from 60% to 100%)

The CHD management shall insure that it has fairly rated all provinces and cities across the region and shall release the results for all provinces and cities in the region at the same time.

Step 6: Communicating the rating result to provinces and citiesCHDs shall offi cially communicate to provinces and

cities the results of the rating and the appropriate information for next steps.

Step 7: Negotiating and signing the MOA and release of the grantCHDs shall consult with the provinces and cities rated

in order to determine the designated sponsor of each group of LGUs. Once a sponsor is identifi ed, CHDs shall conclude a MOA with the sponsor in behalf of the group of LGUs. One the MOA is signed, CHDs shall release to the sponsor the amount of the grant that corresponds to the rating of the group of LGUs. CHDs shall inform all LGUs concerned about the signing of the MOA and the release of the grant proceeds.

Step 8: Monitoring the use of grants releasedThe CHDs shall assist the sponsor to disburse the grant

proceeds to the LGUs based on the provisions of these guidelines. Based on mutual agreement of the LGU concerned, the grant proceeds received by the sponsor may be disbursed for the following uses: (a) reimburse participating LGUs for part of costs associated with providing free RH services to poor clients; (b) pay for properly procured contracts that provide goods or services necessary to provide free RH services to poor clients; (c) supplement MOOE of the health services units of participating LGUs providing free RH services to poor clients.

Step 9: Updating the rating of provinces and cities at the request of LGUs or on the initiative of CHDs

CHDs can undertake another rating of any province or city when there are indications that the service conditions may have changed suffi ciently to merit a re-evaluation.

Step 10: Reallocating unused grants in favor of prov-inces and cities that move forward

At the start of the last quarter, any unused grant may be re-allocated by the CHDs in favor of provinces and cities that have further improved their RH provisions.


FFacts acts && FFiguresiguresBudget LingoBudget Lingo

Allotment – Authorization issued by the Department of Budget Management (DBM) to an agency, which allows the latter to incur obligation for specifi ed amounts contained in a legislative appropriation.

Allotment to Local Government Units – The share of LGUs from the internal revenue collections of the National Government (NG) special accounts and special funds, based on a sharing scheme computed for each Local Government Unit (LGU) provided for under the Local Government Code.

Appropriation – An authorization made by law or other legislative enactment, directing payment out of government funds under specifi ed conditions or for specifi c purposes.

Automatic Appropriations – An authorization made annually or for some other period prescribed by law, by virtue of standing legislation, which does not require periodic action by the Congress of the Philippines.

Continuing Appropriations – An authorization to support obligations for a specifi ed purpose or project, even when these obligations are incurred beyond the budget year.

Reserves Appropriations – Amount set aside to provide for contingencies and emergencies, which may arise later in the calendar year and which would otherwise require defi ciency appropriations.

Supplemental Appropriation – Additional appropriation authorized by law to augment the original appropriations, which proved to be inadequate or insuffi cient for the particular purpose intended due to current economic, political or social conditions.

Capital Expenditures/Outlays – Expenditures for the acquisition of fi xed assets and other goods and services the productive benefi ts of which extend beyond the fi scal year. These include investments in the capital stock of government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and their subsidiaries and investment in public utilities and loans outlays.

Capital Infl ows – Private and offi cial inward fl ows of money to the country in the form of investments, grants, and loans.

Capital Revenues – Proceeds from the sale of fi xed or capital assets such as land, buildings, machinery, stocks and intangibles, including receipts of unrequited transfers for capital purposes from non-governmental sources.

Commodity Grants – Donations/contributions/gifts in kind received and which are subsequently monetized. The peso proceeds are thereafter deposited with the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) to be used or expended for projects specifi ed in the grant documents between the donor and the NG.

Source: Department of Budget and Management. www.dbm.gov.ph/bestf2005/besf_2005_html_fi les/got.pdf


Securing Budget for Reproductive Health Commodities and Services

Lagman talks about how the 2007 and 2008 GAAs came to include budget for RHBy Elenor de LeonInterview conducted by Shelley Francisco

When the original 30-million peso allocation on family planning was increased to 180 million in the 2007 General Appropriations, advocates rejoiced. Despite the continuous absence of

a national comprehensive policy on reproductive health and family planning, at least there is something to be thankful for.

A congressional initiative, the additional 150 million pesos has been destined for allocation to local government units (LGUs) that will express intent to use it in the purchase of commodities and in the conduct of seminars on reproductive health (RH) and family planning (FP).

And when long-time population and human development champion Edcel Lagman assumed the Chairmanship of the House Committee on Appropriations, advocates were in a state of suspended anticipation.

Considered very powerful, the Committee on Appropriations has jurisdiction over “all matters directly and principally relating to the expenditures of the national government including the payment of

public indebtedness, creation, abolition and classifi cation of positions in government, and the determination of salaries, allowances and benefi ts of government personnel.”1

But far from taking advantage of his new post, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman introduced various innovations to the Committee that refl ect his progressive leanings.

“We have revived an abandoned tradition of empowering the various Vice Chairpersons of the Committee to conduct hearings at the subcommittee level. It is at this stage that the nitty-gritty of the proposed budgetary allocations comes under the Committee members’ scrutiny for eventual retention, augmentation, disallowance, reduction or realignment,” Rep. Lagman proudly said.

Rep. Lagman fi rst sat in the Committee on Appropriations during the 8th Congress as its Vice Chairperson. According to him, vice chairmen then were involved in the budget process. But he was somewhat dismayed to discover that they were no longer involved when he came back during the 13th Congress.

“Now you will notice that all of the vice chairpersons of each committee were given subcommittees. They were given responsibilities,” Rep. Lagman shared.

He is also proud to say that the House deliberation on the budget was expeditiously fi nished for the fi rst time. On record time, they were able to approve the 2008 General Appropriations Bill (GAB) on 3rd reading sometime in October 2007.

1 House of Representatives Committee Information. http://www.congress.gov.ph/committees/search.php?congress=14&id=0504.


PROFILERep. Edcel C. Lagman

Civilly democraticUnder Rep. Lagman’s stewardship, the Committee broke tradition after it approved the participation of bona fi de people’s organizations (POs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) in public hearings on the GAB on September 17, 2007. Accordingly, on September 28, 2007, the Committee heard the presentation of an “alternative budget” by Social Watch and the Freedom from Debt Coalition, and took note of their recommendations.

“The traditional practice of limiting budget briefi ngs and hearings solely to heads and representatives of government departments and agencies is an incomplete process. The people, who are the ultimate benefi ciaries of suffi cient budgetary allocations -- or the casualties of meager or absent allotments -- should be given the opportunity to be heard through their non-elective and alternative representatives in the PO and NGO community,” Rep. Lagman explained.

Asked about his assessment of civil society’s fi rst attempt to engage in budget advocacy during the 2008 budget deliberations, Rep. Lagman thinks that they have done fairly well.

“But I think they should be more realistic. Because if you ask for the heavens, it will be hard. Next time around,

it should be more practical and realistic. And I think they should be able to truly justify their proposal,” the Bicolano Congressman said.

Clear and present advocacies

As Chairperson of the Committee on Appropriations, Rep. Lagman pursued some of his steadfast advocacies in the crafting of the 2008 General Appropriations Bill. Two of these are the defl ation of debt service and the comprehensive management of the population growth rate, which is presently 2.36 percent per annum and among the highest in the world.

“I have repeatedly said in many fora that the twin problems besetting the country are both escalating -- the spiraling debt service payments both for principal amortizations and interest payments, which has a combined total of P598.188 billion for 2008, and the exploding population,” Rep. Lagman said.

For the fi rst time in almost a decade, the debt service allocation for interest payments was cut, paving the way for augmenting the appropriations for: (1) health, (2) education, (3) agriculture, (4) social welfare, (5) infrastructure, (6) local governance and development, (7) justice and judiciary, (8) labor and employment, (9) energization, (10) environment, and (11)

public safety and security, among others.

The reduction in interest payments for foreign loans totaled P25.9 billion and consisted of the following:

a) P15.9 billion corresponding to savings as a result of the appreciation of the peso with the exchange rate recomputed at P41.00 to a dollar from a high assumption of 48:1 in the National Expenditures Program (NEP), or a P7.00 differential (A total of P2.272 billion in savings is generated for every peso appreciation);

b) P5 billion in suspension of interest payments for loans, which are challenged as fraudulent, tainted and/or useless pending the Executive’s renegotiation of the loans or their eventual condonation; and

c) P5 billion in premature allocations for interest payments for program loans and bond issuances still in the pipeline.


“There is no comprehensive and national policy to contain the population growth rate and the budget for reproductive health has always been miniscule.”

In addition to the debt service cut, proposed appropriations for slow-moving projects, excess allocations and other miscellaneous allotments totaling P12.638 billion were likewise slashed.

The total cuts amounting to P38.5 billion were realigned to the budgets of the following agencies and programs, among others, to increase their respective appropriations as originally proposed in the NEP:a) Basic and higher education

allocation was increased by P4.829 billion for a total new appropriation of P158.602 billion;

b) Health allocation was increased by P5.790 billion for a total new appropriation of P25.847 billion;

c) Agriculture allocation was increased by P1.872 billion for a total new

appropriation of P29.161 billion;

d) Infrastructure allocation was increased by P12.982 billion for a total new appropriations of P94.729 billion;

e) Justice and the judiciary allocation was increased by P1.236 billion for a total combined new appropriation of P16.570 billion;

f) Social welfare and development allocation was increased by P.165 billion for a total new appropriation of P4.848 billion;

g) Local governance and development allocation was increased by P3.5 billion for a total new appropriation of P16.253 billion;

h) Public safety and security allocation was increased by P.859 billion for a total new appropriation of P53.242 billion;

i) Labor and employment allocation was increased by P.236 billion for a total new appropriation of P6.272 billion;

j) Energization allocation was increased by P.6 billion for a total new appropriation of P.922 billion;

k) Environmental protection allocation was increased by P.184 billion for a total new appropriation of P8.118 billion; and

l) Sports development

allocation was increased by P.059 billion for a total new appropriation of P.360 billion.

Aside from infrastructure development, the health, education, and agriculture sectors were the biggest benefi ciaries of the bicameral augmentation with respective increases of P5.790 billion, P4.829 billion and P1.872 billion.

Sports development got the highest percentage increase (19.6 percent or P59 million) to propel Filipino athletes in their quest for gold in the Beijing Olympics in August 2008.

No more lip service to population management

Rep. Lagman opines that the country’s inordinate population growth rate impedes and constricts our overall socio-economic growth. He believes that the problem of a huge population adversely impacts on all indicators of human development like education, health, shelter, employment, food security, and the environment.

He regretfully pointed out, however, that in the past, both the Executive and the Legislative branches have given mere lip service to population management.


“There is no comprehensive and national policy to contain the population growth rate and the budget for reproductive health has always been miniscule,” Rep. Lagman said.

In the General Appropriations Act of 2007, a budget of P180 million was allocated for artifi cial family planning, which could be accessed by local government units since the national government has prohibited the procurement and dissemination of family planning commodities like condoms, contraceptive pills and injectables. Regrettably, it was only on February 12, 2008 that this amount of P180 million had been released through a belated Special Allotment Release Order (SARO).

“To compound the problem, even the Commission on

Population was not aware of this tardy release to the Department of Health,” Rep. Lagman lamented.

For this year, through the initiative of the House of Representatives and with the concurrence of the Senate, a total of P2 billion has been allocated in the GAA for reproductive health and family planning. Of this amount, P800 million is allocated for reproductive health and family planning seminars to be conducted nationwide by the DOH in coordination with LGUs to enable women and couples to make informed choices regarding the family planning method that is best suited to their needs, personal convictions, and religious beliefs. The remaining P1.2 billion is appropriated for the purchase of modern natural

and artifi cial family planning methods and devices.

Purchasing power-less

The national government has fi rmly kept its policy not to purchase reproductive health commodities, devolving the responsibility to local government units.

“The problem is that local government units don’t have the funds. They might have the authority to purchase but if they do not have the funds to purchase, that’s a useless authority. That’s why we are appropriating this year P2 billion for reproductive health and family planning,” Rep. Lagman explained.

He clarifi ed that his effort will not go head-on with conservative opinion.

“The problem is that local government units don’t have the funds. They might have the authority to purchase but if they do not have the funds to purchase, that’s a useless authority. That’s why we are appropriating this year P2 billion for reproductive health and family planning.”

PROFILERep. Edcel C. Lagman


“I think this new thrust is not offensive to the Catholic hierarchy because it is an impartial advocacy for family planning. The government will pursue both natural and modern family planning and at the same time, address our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as prescribed by the United Nations,” Rep. Lagman said.

According to him, the increases, which the House of Representatives have introduced for health, education, agriculture and the environment, have addressed the country’s commitment to the attainment of the MDGs on eradicating extreme hunger and poverty, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality, reducing infant mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and ensuring environmental sustainability.

“For the fi rst time, an allocation of P100 million was appropriated for the prevention and management of HIV/AIDS. Another P600 million was given for the prevention and treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis, with P400 million given to the Department of Health and the remaining P200 million allocated to the Department of Education for the treatment of teachers and non-teaching personnel in public schools who are affl icted with tuberculosis and tend to spread the disease to their pupils and students,” Rep. Lagman proudly shared.

However, the staunch champion legislator who also serves as PLCPD’s Board Secretary believes that the two-billion peso allocation is not enough to cover the family planning needs of the people, especially the poor.

“With many women and couples of reproductive age in this country, 2 billion is not enough. But that is a sizeable amount to start with because for the fi rst time, we are having a budget that big for reproductive health, family planning, and population management because I have injected my advocacy into the budget group,” Rep. Lagman said.

Lingering challenge

The insertions in the 2007 and 2008 GAAs prove the truth behind the maxim “if there’s a will, there’s a way.” Far from being overwhelmed by the legislative challenge, legislator-champions along with civil society groups have gone beyond what is obvious, extending their reach to Congress’ another important function and maximizing its potential to attain a noble goal. But rejoicing over this new victory should not make advocates and leaders lose sight of the remaining challenges ahead.

“The urgent need to pass a comprehensive national policy on RH and FP remains, without which all our efforts would remain under threat from individual whims and beliefs,” Rep. Lagman said.

For now, while Rep. Lagman, along with other legislator-champions and advocates, awaits the fate of House Bill No. 17, or the Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2007, he has committed to continuously ensure that the succeeding GAAs will contain allocations for RH and FP services and commodities.

“The urgent need to pass a comprehensive national policy on RH and FP remains, without which all our efforts would remain under threat from individual whims and beliefs”.


Budget Lingo (2)Budget Lingo (2)Commodity Loans – Foreign loans in the form of goods received, which are subsequently monetized to fi nance programs and projects of implementing agencies. Peso proceeds are thereafter deposited with the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) to be used or expended for projects specifi ed in the loan documents.

Debt Service – The sum of loan repayments, interest payments, commitment fees, and other charges on foreign and domestic borrowings.

Fiscal Policy – The part of government policy, which is concerned with raising of resources through taxation and borrowing and deciding on the level and pattern of expenditures.

General Fund – Fund which is available for any purpose to which the legislative body may choose to apply, and is composed of all receipts or revenues, which are not otherwise accruing to other funds.

Public Debt – Includes the total indebtedness of the National Government, local government and government corporations or fi nancial institutions from industries, corporations or fi nancial institutions, whether private or government, foreign or domestic, which are fully supported and guaranteed by NG.

Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) – A specifi c authority issued to one or more identifi ed agencies to incur obligations not exceeding a given amount during a specifi ed period for the purpose indicated. It shall cover expenditures, the release of which is subject to compliance with specifi c laws or regulations, or is subject to separate approval or clearance by competent authority.

Special Purpose Funds (SPFs) – Lump-sum appropriations that are governed by special provisions and/or requirements (e.g. Allocation to LGUs, Calamity Fund, Contingency Fund, Pension and Gratuity Fund, Priority Development Assistance Fund, etc). Releases out of these funds are generally subject to prior approval by the President. There are also SPFs that are intended to augment budget allocations of selected line agencies, such as those of the Departments of Agriculture (DA), Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and Transportation and Communication (DOTC).

Unprogrammed Funds – Standby appropriations allotted for activities without identifi ed specifi c source at the time the General Appropriations Act is approved. This budgetary item shall be implemented only when: (a) revenue collections exceed target, or (b) when additional foreign project loan proceeds are realized. The fi rst condition is defi cit-neutral, that is, cash disbursement is kept within the level of actual revenue collections while the second condition gives an option to bloat the budget whenever proceeds from foreign loans are received.

Source: Department of Budget and Management. www.dbm.gov.ph/bestf2005/besf_2005_html_fi les/got.pdf

FFacts acts && FFiguresigures

ForumHDLOODL FORUM HDL FORUM HDL FORUM

HDL ODHDL ODHDL MOHDL MOHDL MFOHDL ML FMOHDL HHRHDLOORUM HDL FORUMO

“”

“I don’t buy contraceptives kasi hindi ko kailangan (because I do not need it). But I am more than willing to buy them kasi better ang maging protected especially when sexually active (because it’s better to be protected). Saka personally, ‘di ko feel ang magka-anak pa (Besides, I personally don’t think I want to have children yet).”

- Stephanie, 29, events organizer

“Actually, hindi pa sa ngayon (not now) but I’m thinking about it. Consult muna ‘ko sa OB ko para mapayuhan ako ng most suitable way or brand ng contraception (I’ll consult with my OB fi rst so I can be advised on the most suitable way or brand of contraception). S’yempre pinag-iisipan para safe (Of course, I think about it to be safe). Walang (No) hassle. Walang iniisip (No worries). I think they’re safe. Dapat nga i-promote (It should even be promoted).”

- Jinky Garcia, 29, travel consultant

“Normally, I don’t include it in my budget as condoms can be accessed for free. The condoms that we sell that are nearly expiring are given out for free a few months prior to its expiry date.”

- Oca, 40, Health NGO worker

“I’m not yet using contraceptives.”

- Ma. Katrina C. Fernandez,19, BA Commerce student

Kasama ba sa budget n’yo ang pagbili ng contraceptives? (Do you allocate part of your budget for the purchase of contraceptives?)

ForumHDLOOO

OMMMMHOO

”No. It’s just that many groups give it for free so I don’t to have to include it in my budget ... hehehe.”

- Aaron, 30, NGO worker

”Hindi. Kasi libre ‘yung condoms sa opisina. Kaya wala siya sa budget ko. (No. Because condoms are given for free in the office. That is why it is not included in my budget.)”

- Udong, 31, development worker

“Heck no. I don’t use condoms.”- Alvin, 28, student

“Kung kinakailangan, kasama ang condom sa aking budget (If needed, purchase of condoms is included in my budget). Lagi ako’ng may baon, di ko lang alam kung expired o sira na (I always have one with me, although I am not sure if it’s expired or damaged already).”

- Igmata, 28, call center agent

”Hindi, kasi takot akong magka-breast cancer o kahit na anong cancer (No, because I’m afraid to get breast cancer or any other cancer).”

- Homer Nievera, 40, sales manager

”Yup. Yan lang sagot ko (That is my only answer).”

- Ming, 23, web programmer


The budget is technically a planning document that refl ects and translates the government’s policy priorities and fi scal targets in fi nancial terms. It is the result of a decision-making process and of the government’s system for managing and assessing spending and tax policies including borrowing and debt servicing. This paper discusses the budget process, which consists of the major stages in making budget decisions, and

implementing and assessing those decisions.

THE BUDGET PROCESSTHE BUDGET PROCESSTHE BUDGET PROCESSTHE BUDGET PROCESSBy Dir. Nora Oliveros*

* Ms. Oliveros is the Director of the Budget and Management Bureau-E of the Department of Budget and Management.

The budget cycle has four stages:• Budget Preparation - when the budget

plan is formulated by the executive branch of government;

• Budget legislation - when the budget is debated, altered and enacted by the legislative branch;

• Budget Execution - when the approved budget is carried out by the government; and

• Budget Accountability - when the actual expenditures are accounted for and assessed for effectiveness.

The government is currently undertaking reforms in expenditure management aimed at improving effi ciency and effectiveness in the use of resources. Some of the policy and process changes that have already been introduced into the budget system as a result of the reforms are incorporated in the discussion of each of the stages in the process.

Budget preparation

The formulation of the budget occurs within the executive branch of government and includes a number of actors. However, the whole process, which can take several months (usually seven to eight) prior to the constitutional deadline of submission to the legislative branch (within thirty days after the opening of congressional session), is led, managed, and coordinated by the Department of Budget and Management.

The following are the steps in the preparation of the budget:

1. The Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) approves budget parameters

2. Budget Call3. Budget Forum/Budget Hearings4. Budget Review and Consolidation5. Budget Validation/Confi rmation6. Approval by President and Cabinet7. Submission of the President’s Budget to

Congress

The development of the budget is holistic and is based on a three-year planning framework introduced recently as the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Total expenditures and revenue targets are initially determined and are infl uenced partly by projections on key macroeconomic parameters such as economic growth, infl ation, demographic changes, exchange rate movement, and world market prices of oil, and partly by overarching fi scal goals such as maintaining a surplus, defi cit or debt at a certain level, raising or reducing taxes or increasing expenditures for certain priority areas. Initially, the determination of the expenditure program at the aggregate level may include the use of the current budget as baseline or starting point. The baseline, consisting of the cost of on-going policies, is indexed for infl ation and carried forward over the out years of the planning period. The


THE BUDGET PROCESSTHE BUDGET PROCESS“No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in accordance with an appropriations made by law.”result of the process is thus called the Forward Estimates (FEs).

Incremental changes to the FE may occur when the medium term revenue program exceeds the FE, resulting to a fi scal space. Reduction of the FE may occur when the reverse happens. In both cases, budget policies and sector priorities developed, debated and agreed upon by the DBCC for the ensuing budget year will determine the use of the fi scal space or the reduction of the FE.

The resulting changes in the FE determine the aggregate, as well as the agency budget ceiling for the ensuing budget year. Agencies belonging to the priority sector may benefi t from the fi scal space and receive incremental budgets that may be used for new spending proposals. Those agencies with compelling reasons to justify incremental changes in their respective budgets, such as an activity or project that will enhance frontline services, may likewise be considered.

The macroeconomic parameters and thrust of the budget agreed upon and approved by the President are communicated to the agencies and all stakeholders concerned through the issuance by the DBM of the Budget Call formalized in a National Budget Memorandum (NBM).

The preparation of the budget at the agency level replicates the processes at the national level. The budget refl ects the agency’s strategic plan that demonstrates the

policies and strategies in producing mandated goods and services based on clear statements of targets and intended results. The performance and results orientation of the budget is anchored on the concept of an Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF) that focuses spending to agency major fi nal outputs and measuring agency performance based on identifi ed outcome and output indicators.

Agency budget proposal is discussed with the concerned agency and is evaluated and debated on at the DBM. The completed and consolidated budget is called the National Expenditure Program (NEP), which sums up the national government agency budgets including government subsidy to state universities and colleges (SUCs), internal revenue share of local government units (LGUs), subsidy and equity contribution to government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), interest payment, and a number of special purpose lump sum funds including standby appropriations. The budget is then sent to the

cabinet members for confi rmation and subsequently submitted to the President for approval and submission to Congress. The NEP is supplemented by four (4) other budget documents, to wit: Budget of Receipts and Sources of Financing (BESF), Selected Programs and Projects, Staffi ng Summary, The President’s Budget Message (PBM), and the OPIF Book.

Budget legislation

The legislation of the budget fi nds its ground on the constitutional provision that states, ”No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in accordance with an appropriations made by law.” Thus, in summary, the following are the primary steps in the legislation of the budget:

1. House Hearings/Debate 2. House Approval and

Submission to Senate 3. Senate Hearings/Debate 4. Senate Approval 5. Conference Committee 6. President Signs the General

Appropriations Act (GAA)


The legislative branch at the lower house receives the budget within the deadline set in the Philippine Constitution. However, there is no prescriptive period in the enactment of the budget so its passage may take several months. In the process of legislation, Congress may introduce changes, but it is not authorized by the Constitution to increase the aggregate level of the budget.

Budget technical discussions may happen simultaneously at both Chambers of the House wherein agency representatives and members of the DBCC are invited as resource persons. The technical discussions provide the venue for clarifying, validating, and testing the key macroeconomic parameters, policy directions, strategies, and assumptions underlying the formulation of the aggregate as well as agency budgets. Budget debates may likewise happen at both chambers with sponsorship of the budget by the respective chairpersons of the Committee on Appropriations at the House of Representatives and Committee on Finance at the Senate. Subsequently, a bicameral conference committee follows to provide a venue for addressing and fi nding solutions to contentious issues between the two chambers. The General

Appropriations Bill (GAB) is then passed and submitted to the President for signing into law that will eventually be referred to as the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

The probability of a delay and failure to pass a new budget is recognized in the Philippine Constitution by providing for the reenactment of the preceding year’s budget until a new one is passed. This legal framework aims to avoid disruption in the delivery of government services.

Budget execution

The third phase of the budget process covers the various operational aspects of budgeting. The establishment of obligational authority ceilings, evaluation of work and fi nancial plans for individual activities, continuing review of government fi scal position, regulation of funds release, implementation of cash payment schedules, and other related activities comprise this phase of the budget cycle.

The DBCC reviews the fi scal position regularly and adjusts the program accordingly during budget execution. The primordial concern is to ensure that spending requirements of government as

approved in the budget can be served.

The appropriations authorized by the reenactment of a budget or the passage of a new one provides the legal cover for the release of funds by the DBM and the delivery of goods and services by government agencies. The release of funds is executed through the issuance of four (4) types of disbursement authorities, namely: Agency Budget Matrix (ABM), Special Allotment Release Order (SARO), Notice of Cash Allocation (NCA), and Non-Cash Availment Authority (NCAA).

The execution of the budget is crucial in the implementation of agency plans. Thus, the submission by the agency of a comprehensive and detailed work and fi nancial plan (WFP) as well as a monthly cash program are essential to the release process. The DBM requires the WFP and cash program to serve as basis for allotment and cash releases.

The ABM and SARO are instruments that authorize the agency to obligate and commit funds. Procurement cannot be done without a valid allotment such as


the ABM and the SARO. On the other hand, the NCA is an authority for an agency to disburse funds for current expenditures as well as prior year’s payables. The NCAA is another disbursement authority generally applied for foreign-assisted projects. This instrument is generally issued to cover importation of goods and services, which are paid directly out of the loan/grant proceeds by the foreign donor or lender in behalf of the agency to the foreign contractor or supplier.

The two-step process of obligating and disbursing funds serve as a control mechanism to regulate releases and effectively manage expenditures both at the national and agency levels. ABM and SARO can be released to the extent of available appropriations while NCA can be issued to the extent of available and valid allotments.

The WFP is a living document, which may be revised during the course of implementation. When the need to revise the WFP arises, the agency may secure approval from DBM, which may issue a new SARO to effect the changes requested. The process is called realignment, which means

reallocating funds from one category or class of expenditure to another subject to limitations and rules in the GAA.

Budget accountability

Monitoring and evaluation of agency performance are management functions, which complete the budget process and provide inputs to budget decision-making processes. It is at this stage that accomplishments of the agency are measured and accountability for the use of funds are established through the work targets set in the budget preparation stage and confi rmed at the onset of the budget execution.

The progress or outputs delivered by the agency at any given time are periodically measured against work targets by the use of qualitative and quantitative indicators. Units of measure such as effectiveness and effi ciency in terms of cost and timeliness in the delivery of goods and services are used to account for funds and to assess performance of the agency.

Budget Accountability Reports (BARs), as prescribed by the DBM, are required to be submitted as they become due. Reports of actual performance include the following information:

1. Disbursements arising from the issuance of NCAs, NCAAs among others;

2. Obligations and Balances summarizing allotments received and

corresponding obligations incurred from all sources by object of expenditures;

3. Physical accomplishments in terms of the targets set; and

4. Actual income collection from all sources.

These reports may be used as bases in the conduct of the Agency Performance Review (APR) in validating the reasonable level of funding provided to the agency to accomplish its targets during the remaining quarters of the year. They may also serve as benchmarks in determining the budget level for the ensuing year.

Conclusion

The government budget system has been in a transition since DBM introduced the MTEF and OPIF two years ago in the preparation of the budget. These two major reforms are both “works in progress” as shifts in policies and processes become necessary to implement the new frameworks adopted. The change process is slow, but the DBM is optimistic that these changes will gain support not only from the bureaucracy but from all stakeholders, especially the general public to whom the benefi ts of these reforms are dedicated.


The enactment of Republic Act 7160, or the Local Government Code of 1991,

presented two sides to a nation so used to having an “imperial Manila” making and administering decisions in all governance and fi scal matters. Described by University of the Philippines-National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG) Dean Alex Brillantes as “the most radical and far-reaching policy that addressed the decades-old problem of an over-centralized politico-administrative system,”1 RA 7160, or simply the LGC, laudably devolved much of the central government’s powers to local government units (LGUs) including the delivery of basic services and drafting of local development plans. But while it provided for greater local autonomy, the LGC likewise presented greater pressure on LGUs and opened vast opportunities for them to either shine or shrink.

The LGC bestows upon LGUs the right to “enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.”2 It also accords them the authority to establish an organization that shall be responsible for the implementation

By Rene Llorin and Elenor de Leon

Local PromiseLocal PromiseThe

Success stories in local reproductive health advocacy in the Philippines

LUZONProvince of AuroraProvince of IfugaoMunicipality of Lagawe, IfugaoMunicipality of Asipulo, IfugaoMunicipality of Tinoc, IfugaoMountain ProvinceBontoc, Mountain ProvinceSagada, Mountain ProvinceParacelis, Mountain ProvinceMunicipality of Placer, MasbateOlongapo CityAngeles CityQuezon City, NCRNaga CityProvince of Camarines SurSorsogon CitySorsogon Province

VISAYASMunicipality of Llorente, Eastern Samar

Municipality of Carmen, BoholMunicipality of Ubay, Bohol

Municipality of Talibon, BoholMunicipality of Makato, Aklan

MINDANAOMunicipality of Kapatagan,

Lanao Del SurMunicipality of Lebak,

Sultan KudaratProvince of Sulu

Municipality of Jolo, SuluDavao City


Bellafl or Angara-Castillo fi rst fi led the reproductive health bill in Congress in 2001, the group already realized the need for complementary actions at the local level. The advocacy for a national population management and reproductive health policy was clearly in need of support across the country and not just from a handful of champions and civil society groups based in Metro

of their development plans and gives them the power to create their own sources of revenue.3

But more than a decade since its enactment, a lot, as they say, remains to be done. Beset by a host of problems starting from its implementation to the general question of commendable leadership and governance from among our generation of local leaders, the accordance of greater autonomy to LGUs also presents vast potentials for policy advocates.

Since its inception in 1989, the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) has been engaging legislators in the Senate and House of Representative for the passage of a comprehensive national policy on reproductive health and population management. Through the years and three congresses (from the 11th to the 13th Congress), PLCPD has vehemently fought for the enactment of this national policy. Sadly, though, its conscientious effort to help elected legislators acknowledge the urgency of enacting said policy is continuously, repeatedly and consistently being blocked by conservative groups led by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.

But the overwhelming challenges faced by our population and reproductive health (pop/RH) advocacy in the legislative arena have not dampened the enthusiasm and commitment of legislator-champions and advocates.

The Philippine’s population growth rate remains high compared to our Asian neighbours despite its recent

drop from 2.36 percent to 2.04 percent in 2007.4 Filipino women still bear an average of 3.5 children in their lifetime5 while maternal mortality remains at a high 162 for every 100,000 live births.6

Poverty has also been found to be strongly linked to family size. According to a recent study, only 23.8 percent of families with four members are poor compared to 48.7 percent of families with seven members.7

Faced with diffi culties of enacting a comprehensive national policy on population and reproductive health, PLCPD consolidated its partners at the local level and directed their effort toward the realization of a broad initiative in improving the state of reproductive health service delivery and signifi cantly contribute to the management of the country’s population.

Initial engagement

Even when then PLCPD Co-Chairperson and Aurora Lone District Representative


Manila. Moreover, the demand for better services and supplies emanates from the grassroots in the provinces and municipalities. Any policy, therefore, would have to be implemented practically by local leaders.

After the 2004 elections, during the inauguration of the 13th Congress, PLCPD assessed its intervention at the local level. It was also the time when several civil society groups were clamoring for population management and reproductive health advocacy to go local, a logical step considering the opposition encountered in Congress. And so, complementing its national advocacy efforts on population management and reproductive health, PLCPD

expanded and strengthened the advocacy at the local level.

During its early years of local advocacy work, PLCPD engaged its legislator-champions vis-à-vis local government units in the districts that they represented. The intervention focused on building sustainability mechanisms at the municipal level to provide solutions to the insuffi ciency of family planning (FP) and reproductive health services and entailed the creation of advocacy teams and ensuring resource allocations.

Turning point

It was in 2005 when a speck of silver lining illuminated the dragging advocacy for a national

policy. After several years of advocating for a national RH policy in Congress, newly-elected Aurora Governor Bellafl or Angara Castillo, respected former Chairperson of PLCPD, vowed to stay committed to the advocacy and carry it home to her province.

True enough, on June 1, 2005, the Provincial Council of Aurora enacted the landmark Reproductive Health Care Code (Provincial Ordinance No. 125, Series of 2005) authored by Vice Governor Annabelle C. Tangson and Board Member Zenaida S. Querijero. The Code encompasses most, if not all, of the elements of RH complete with mechanisms and appropriations to ensure its continuous implementation.

Given Aurora’s success, PLCPD began setting its sights on the promotion of similar local reproductive health ordinances by working with local legislators in other areas in the country and developing them into local champions. Consequently, these local champions organized themselves into the Local Legislators’ League on Population, Health, Environment and Development or the 3LPHED.

Formally established in 2005, the 3LPHED now has seven provincial chapters with over 200 members who support the enactment of local policy proposals on environment, children, gender, and health.

In 2005 and in early 2006, with support from the Management Sciences for Health-Local Enhancement and Development (MSH-LEAD) for Health Project,


PLCPD conducted several Policy Development Writeshops for the local governments of Benguet and Pangasinan. Although the project’s objective was to improve local health systems in specifi c areas like vitamin A supplementation, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS, among others, it also sought to improve contraceptive self-reliance strategies and policies that eventually resulted to increased local government response to the need for FP services.

Meanwhile, policy development trainings and political mapping workshops were conducted in the 10 Pilot Provinces of the UNFPA 6th Country Program to help increase knowledge and skills in developing RH ordinances. Consequently, these areas successfully enacted their very own RH ordinances because of the strong support of local implementing partners as well as adequate provision of after-training technical assistance, such as the conduct of advocacy activities, political mapping, media advocacy, capability building, action research, and advocacy monitoring and review. The commitment of advocates and local legislators was harnessed through constant person-to-person engagement and conduct of strategic leadership trainings on population and development.

Victories here and there

By 2007, many of the founding members of the 3LPHED have drafted and fi led their RH ordinances in their respective LGUs.

Despite the intervening 2007 national elections, members of the 3LPHED continued its organizing

activities, with PLCPD providing comprehensive technical assistance on advocacy and policy development.

Vice Mayor and Mindanao member of the 3LPHED National Organizing Committee Renato De Manuel of Lebak, Sultan Kudarat pushed for the passage of the fi rst ever Municipal Reproductive Health Ordinance. Today, the ordinance already has its implementing rules and regulations and is being enforced.

Down south in Naga City, Councilor and 3LPHED Legal Counsel Miles Raquid-Arroyo led the pack toward the enactment of the City’s Women in Development Ordinance, which contains provisions for RH. Farther up in the north, then Ifugao Vice Governor and 3LPHED Executive Vice President Glenn Prudenciano worked toward the passage of the Ifugao Province Reproductive Health Ordinance while his colleague in neighbouring Mountain Province, then Vice Governor and 3LPHED Vice President for North Luzon Benjamin Dominguez secured the installation of the Mountain

Province Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Prevention of Abortion Ordinance. Not long after these successes in Northern Luzon were achieved, several members of the 3LPHED also fi led RH policy proposals in their respective LGUs.

In Olongapo City, PLCPD rendered its expertise in population and RH policy advocacy through the conduct of a presentation in one of their public forums to help create better understanding of reproductive health and the need for corresponding policies.

In Quezon City, PLCPD once again made use of its years of experience in the conduct of policy advocacy. By providing technical assistance and mobilizing a critical mass of supporters, PLCPD was able to help


the Quezon City local government push through with the passage of their Population and Reproductive Health Management Ordinance.

As for General Santos, Gov. Angara-Castillo’s visit and inspirational talk on Aurora’s success in passing their landmark provincial RH ordinance moved the LGU to craft and enact their very own.

At present, there are fi ve provincial, 13 municipal, and three city reproductive health ordinances. Aside from these are several related ordinances tackling women in development, family planning, and adolescent reproductive health that have been passed.

Our continuing responsibility

As of this writing, members of the 3LPHED are attending to the enactment of proposed RH ordinances before 2010. This is in line with achieving the targets set forth in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), specifi cally MDG 5, which aims to improve maternal health, and MDG 4, which seeks to reduce child mortality.

But despite the gains in the population management and

reproductive health advocacy at the local level, very few have ventured in actually allocating resources necessary for broader local advocacy actions in almost 1,500 municipalities, 81 provinces, and 80 cities all over the country.

It remains important to inform policymakers about reproductive health. Many still believe that because of the fi erce opposition of the Roman Catholic Church, supporting RH policy initiatives would mean political suicide. Time and again, the Roman Catholic Church has claimed a Catholic vote in threatening politicians planning to seek re-election to public offi ce.

This, despite clear and strong evidences of the voting public’s clamor for a comprehensive national policy on RH and FP. As shown by the March 2007 Pulse Asia Ulat ng Bayan survey, nine out of 10 Filipinos (92%) consider FP important while nearly eight out of 10 (76%) believe in the importance of including FP in a candidate’s program of action.8 Both the 2004 and 2007 surveys have shown that inclusion of RH and FP in a candidate’s platform of government is not a factor in losing.9

It is also important to create a multi-sectoral base of supporters from

local and external stakeholders that would prove to policymakers the existence of a huge and continuously growing demand for RH policies. Harnessing popular support can be sustained through the conduct of dialogues, conferences, discussions, and consultations.

Finally, after a policy proposal on RH has been enacted, it is important to ensure that it is implemented. This would mean shifting the advocacy from the legislative arena to the executive branch, and toward the allocation of funds. Realizing outcomes or the objectives of a policy is a painstaking process. It is essential that certain processes and mechanisms be put in place to determine its success or the need for changes.

Again, if there were suffi cient investments on RH, the Philippines could have achieved several milestones in the delivery of comprehensive services and information on RH. This could also create a momentum that would lead to the realization of a national population and RH policy.

Advocates are always hopeful whenever a province, municipality, or city enacts its RH policy. Success in LGUs, albeit still handful, only proves that enacting RH policies can be done.

More actions than words are needed. Numerous best practices have gained positive results. The next step, obviously, is for local, national, and international stakeholders to invest the right amount of resources for RH and population advocacy.


Table 1: List of Reproductive Health Ordinances in the Philippines

Province/ City Municipality

Title Author Date passed

1. Province of Aurora

An Ordinance Providing for the Aurora Reproductive Health Care Code of 2005 (Provincial Ordinance No. 125, Series of 2005)

Initiated by Governor Bellafl or Angara-Castillo

Authored by: Vice Governor Annabelle C. Tangson and Board Member Zenaida S. Querijero

June 1, 2005

2. Sulu Ordinance No. 01–2008An Ordinance Providing For the Sulu Reproductive Health Code of 2008

Provincial Board Member Khalil Hajibin

February 5, 2008

3. Ifugao Ordinance No. 2006–033The Ifugao Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood Ordinance

Former Governor and Vice Governor Glenn Prudenciano; Provincial Board Members Joseph Odan, Nora Dinamling (currently Vice Governor), and Maritess Tumapang

July 7, 2006

4. Mountain Province

Reproductive HealthResponsible Parenthood and Prevention Of AbortionOrdinance Of Mountain Province(Provincial Ordinance No. 76, Series of 2006).

Initiated by then Vice Governor Benjamin Dominguez, Sr.

2006

5. Olongapo City Olongapo City Reproductive Health Care Code of 2007

September 17, 1997

6. Quezon City, NCR*

An Ordinance Establishing a Quezon City Population and Reproductive Health Management Policy

City Councilor Joseph P. Juico

2008

7. General Santos City, Province of South Cotabato

An Ordinance Establishing the General Santos City Population and Reproductive Health Management Policy

City Councilor Pedro Acharon

2008

8. Tinoc, Ifugao Resolution No. 874–2007Resolution Adopting the Provincial Ordinance No. 2006-003 known as the Ifugao Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood Ordinance

Municipal Councilor Victor V. Calya-en, Sr.

August 10, 2007

9. Talibon, Bohol Ordinance No. 2008–20The Talibon Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood

Municipal Councilor Thomas Cornelio

January 8, 2008

10. Lebak, Sultan Kudarat

Ordinance No. 06–107An Ordinance Providing for the Lebak Reproductive Health Care Code

Municipal Councilor Manuel Frieres

August 18, 2006


Sources:

1 Brillantes, Alex B. Jr. and Donna Moscarel. 2002. Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines: Lessons from Global Community. Discussion paper presented at the International Conference of the East West Center, July 1-5, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

2 Tabunda, Manuel S., and Mario M. Galang. 1992. A Guide to the Local Government Code of 1991. Manila: Mary Jo Educational Supply.

3 Ibid.

4 National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). Sectoral Statistics: Population. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_popn.asp

5 National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) [Philipines], and ORC Macro. 2004. National Demographic and Health Survey 2003. Calverton, Maryland: NSO and ORC Macro.

6 Result of the 2006 Family Planning Survey (FPS) as cited in a press release by the National Statistics Offi ce (NSO) dated March 17, 2007. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/pr0718tx.html

7 Result of a study conducted by Aniceto Orbeta Jr. entitled “Poverty, Vulnerability and Family Size: Evidence from the Philippines” (ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 29, June 2005) as cited in PLCPD’s Population and Reproductive Health Primer: What Every Legislator Should Know.

8 De Leon, Elenor, Ma. Cecilia de los Reyes, and Rene A. Llorin. Population and Reproductive Health: What Every Legislator Should Know. Philippines: Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc., 2008.

9 Ibid.

11. Llorente, Eastern Samar

Mun. Ordinance No. 3 Series of 2007, Reproductive Health Ordinance of the Municipality of Llorente

Municipal Councilor Rosario Coral

November 26, 2007

12. Ubay, Bohol Ordinance No. 09–2006The Ubay Reproductive Health Care Code

Municipal Councilor Rose Lima Abapo

June 27, 2006

13. Sagada, Mountain Province

Ordinance No. 04–2007RH Ordinance of Sagada

Municipal Councilor Regina Tambiac

July 30, 2007

14. Lagawe, Ifugao Municipal Ordinance No. 97The Lagawe Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood Code

Municipal Councilor Marifl or D. Dipia-o

March 11, 2008

15. Municipality of Kapatagan, Lanao Del Sur

An Ordinance Providing for the Reproductive Health Code of Kapatagan

Municipal Councilor Sansarona Bansil

2007

16. Municipality of Asipulo, Ifugao

Asipulo Reproductive Health and Responsible Parenthood Ordinance(Municipal Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2007)

Municipal Councilor Denis P. Gumangan

2007

17. Municipality of Bontoc

An Ordinance on Reproductive Health of Bontoc, Mountain Province(Ordinance No. 118, Series of 2008).

Municipal Councilor Eva Mila F. Fana-ang

January 7, 2008

18. Municipality of Paracelis

An Ordinance on Responsible Parenthood And Prevention of Abortion of Paracelis, Mt. Province.(Ordinance no. 2006-018)

Municipal Councilor Bello M. Banggot

December 18, 2006

19. Municipality of Carmen Bohol

An Ordinance Providing for Reproductive Health and Population Management Policy.

Vice Mayor Jocel Trabajo and Municipal Councilor Nathaniel Binlod,

December 29, 2006

20. Municipalities of Maydolong

An Ordinance on Women’s Welfare (Includes provisions on reproductive health)

Vice Mayor Renato Palce

2007


FFacts acts && FFiguresiguresRH Financing

• Despite the non-passage of the National Reproductive Health (RH) Care Code in the Philippine Congress, the provinces of Aurora, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Masbate and Tawi-Tawi have supported and enacted their respective RH ordinances. These provinces also allocated budget for RH and family planning (FP) services, especially Aurora and Masbate, which allotted P1 million each for services and commodities.

• In 2006, the province of Albay allocated 7.6 million pesos for RH and FP services and commodities.

• According to the Bureau of Local Government and Finance (BLGF), local government units (provinces, cities and municipalities combined) spent P17.52 billion for health, nutrition and population management in 2004 or 10.91 percent of their combined total budget.

• In September 2005, DOH Assistant Secretary Mario C. Villaverde estimated a P7.52-billion annual budgetary gap for the financing of RH-related Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs. These are on infant and child health, maternal mortality, HIV-AIDS, malaria, and TB.

• According to ASec. Villaverde, the total budgetary need for RH-related MDGs is P8.99 billion, and that only P0.69 billion was funded by the Department of Health (DOH) and P0.78 billion from Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Costing and Budget Gaps for the Health-Related MDGs (Annual)

MDGs Total Cost(in Pesos)

DOH Funding ODA GAP

Reduction of Child Mortality

1,469,938,544 370,544,000 3,500,000 1,095,894,544

Improve Maternal Health

4,825,928,227 107,880,277 11,230,000 4,706,817,950

Combat HIV-AIDS, Malaria and other Diseases

2,692,233,557 208,976,667 768,978,810 1,714,278,080

GRAND TOTAL 8,988,100,328 687,400,944 783,708,810 7,516,990,574

Source: DOH, September 2005 as cited by Carlos H. Aquino Jr. in “Translating RH Commitments to Budgetary Appropriations: Philippine Experience,” PLCPD Policy Brief, 2006.


GOVERNOR MAXIMO DALOG:

By Christopher B. Estallo

The “Max-Champion” of Reproductive Health in Mountain Province

Mountain Province Governor Maximo Dalog recalled the

relatively smooth passage of his province’s reproductive health ordinance.

“It was a cooperative effort. The members of the Provincial Board and local religious groups, including the Catholic Church, were all cognizant of the ordinance’s importance to the development efforts in the province,” the Governor said.

An active member of Couples for Christ, Knights of Columbus, and other religious and civic organizations in Mountain Province, Gov. Max, as he is fondly called by his constituents, also wasted no time in making allies out of its leaders and members.

“I explained to them that the provincial government’s various initiatives on reproductive health (RH) and family planning (FP) value respect for human dignity and uphold the right of every person to have access to relevant and

accurate information and services that will, in turn, enable them to make informed choices and decisions in accordance with their religious convictions and cultural beliefs,” he said.

In his talks with various stakeholders, the governor would often clarify the provincial government’s aim to ensure the health of child-bearing women.

“We do not discourage couples to have children. What we merely want is for them to observe proper birth spacing and pregnancy care,” Gov. Max explained.

Coming from a big family himself, Gov. Max knows perfectly well how hard it was for their farmer-parents to raise several children.

“I have 7 siblings and our life then was not as comfortable as the lives of other families,” Gov. Max related.

He explained that, when faced with challenges in passing ordinances pertaining to RH and FP, he would always

“I believe in putting more effort in educating the people on the pros and cons of having many children, and on the importance of making informed choices, especially when it comes to family planning. I believe that the people would know best what is and what is not good for them. We in government should merely guide them” .


PROFILEGov. Maximo Dalog

Table 1: RH-related issuances in Mountain Province

EXECUTIVE ISSUANCES

(Number and Year Issued)

TITLE OBJECTIVE(FUNCTION)

Executive Order No. 11, Series of 2005

Protection of Child-Bearing Women

Directing all pregnant women to undergo complete prenatal consultations and that all deliveries should be attended by health workers.

Administrative Order No. 17, Series of 2006

Creation of Mountain ProvinceHIV/AIDS Council

Tasks the Provincial Health Board to function as the Provincial AIDS Council in line with R.A. 8504 (AIDS Law).

The main function of the Council is to oversee the planning, implementation and monitoring of HIV/AIDS programs and services in Mt. Province.

Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 2006

Organize Councils Against Traffi cking in Persons and Violence Against Women and Children

The administrative order was made in support to RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, and to RA 9208 or Anti-Traffi cking in Persons Act.

Monitoring and strict implementation of RA 9208 and RA 9262

The administrative order will create and establish systems on surveillance, investigation, and rescue to ensure effective and effi cient coordination among the concerned agencies.

Executive Order No. 30, Series of 2007

Exemption from Payment of Services in All Hospitals Managed and Operated by the Provincial Government of Mt. Province

Birthing mothers are exempted from paying all hospital services while confi ned in any of the hospitals under the operation and management of the Provincial Government of Mountain Province.

To enhance women’s reproductive health and be a potent factor in ensuring that no birthing mother shall die due to pregnancy-related causes.


think about his people and what their needs really are.

“They entrusted me to serve them,” Gov. Max stressed.

Taking the lead

“It has been my advocacy that there should be no infant and maternal death in Mountain Province on account of delayed, inadequate or incompetent medical assistance.”

A staunch RH and FP supporter, Gov. Max has been proving his commitment to better serve his people by addressing population concerns vis-à-vis development initiatives.

As the province’s chief executive, Gov. Max has been instrumental in

institutionalizing local laws protecting child-bearing women, ensuring safe motherhood, preventing HIV/AIDS, and addressing traffi cking in persons and violence against women.

The province is also implementing programs aimed at reducing maternal mortality and increasing access of mothers to reproductive health services. Upgraded services in district hospitals have also encouraged pregnant women to avail of obstetrics care. A healthy lifestyle is being promoted by hospital workers, and the Provincial Population Offi ce has been constantly conducting and providing family planning education, counseling services, and contraceptives provision to both men and women.

“The provincial government’s policy and program initiatives are in line with, and supportive of, the Millennium Development Goals, specifi cally the goals on child mortality, women’s reproductive health, and prevention of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases,” Gov. Max explained.

The governor also commended the municipalities of Bontoc, Sagada, and Paracelis for passing their respective municipal reproductive health ordinances.

“This is Mountain Province’s share in achieving the MDGs,” Gov. Max proudly stated.

Money matters

Programs on health are always placed at the center stage of the provincial government’s list of priorities. However, the discontinuation of contraceptives donation from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) puts the province at a dilemma. But with the 10 percent capitation from PHILHEALTH of provincial and district hospitals allocated, Gov. Max believes they can manage.

“The provincial government’s policy and program initiatives are in line with, and supportive of, the Millennium Development Goals, specifi cally the goals on child mortality, women’s reproductive health, and prevention of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.”


PROFILEGov. Maximo Dalog

“The budget appropriated is rather small, but if it is utilized well, it would be a great help in the realization of our RH and FP programs,” the governor said.

At present, the provincial government is experiencing diffi culties allocating their meager income. Despite this, the provincial government has earmarked 12.5 million for the different programs related to the development of women and children’s health. This amount also includes support to midwives and aid to barangay health workers.

“Overall, our budget is not enough to fi nance all of these programs. We are grateful to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for providing invaluable support to our RH and FP Programs.”

PHE and development

Dubbed as La Montañosa by our Spanish conquerors, Mountain Province is part of the rugged but magnifi cently endowed Cordillera region. It takes its share in Northern Luzon’s vast and elaborate watershed system and plays host to the famous Mount Data forest reserve.

With these natural riches in mind, Gov. Max all the more emphasizes the need to harmonize efforts at managing the population and protecting the environment.

Speaking in the organizational orientation and induction of offi cers of the Local Legislators’ League on Population, Health, Environment, and Development (3LPHED)-Mountain’s Province Chapter, Gov. Max stressed the need to capacitate local legislative bodies in crafting laws that are responsive to the needs of the people and of the environment.

“We are dependent on Mother Nature for our sustenance. It is only right that we make sure that

she is not harmed by our similar quest for survival,” Gov. Max said.

The 3LPHED is an issue-based and people-centered league of local legislators that champions, articulates, and concretizes appropriate and sustainable responses to population, health, environment, and development (PHED) issues affecting Philippine Society.

Gov. Max hopes that with the support of such groups as the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) and the 3LPHED, efforts at accelerating Mountain Province’s development will soon come to fruition and leave behind the tag of being one of the country’s poorest provinces.

“We are dependent on Mother Nature for our sustenance. It is only right that we make sure that she is not harmed by our similar quest for survival.”


As this article is written, the National Statistical Co-ordinating Board (NSCB)

reports that the country’s poverty incidence increased from 24.4 percent in 2003 to 26.9 percent in 2006. In actual numbers, some 3.8 million more Filipinos fell below the poverty threshold from 2003 to 2006. The release of the NSCB report coincided with the call of visiting former World Bank President James Wolfenson for the Philippines to make greater investments in education and health, which can lower poverty levels by 10 to 15 percent. Such in-vestments are precisely what DKT Philippines, Inc. is implementing by promoting reproductive health and family planning.

DKT and the Filipinos’ reproduc-tive health needs

Founded in 1990, DKT is a reg-istered, non-stock, non-profi t Filipino NGO with the mission of making affordable, high-qual-ity reproductive health products and information available to low-income couples throughout the country. DKT carries out its mission through social market-ing and social franchising. Social

marketing utilizes the resources and techniques of the established private medical and commercial sectors to promote, distribute, and sell essential health products at affordable prices through com-mercial and non-commercial outlets that are convenient and accessible to target groups. Social franchising, on the one hand, is a development approach, which applies modern commercial fran-chising techniques to achieve so-cial rather than commercial goals and is therefore analogous to social marketing, which has been used to good effect in the promo-tion and distribution of preventive and curative health products.1

A pioneering organization, DKT has built a track record as the acknowledged market leader with a multi-brand, multi-product portfolio. DKT’s most dramatic performance occurred in the past fi ve years, reaching a 184-percent growth rate in sales volume. Its market share ranges from 65 to 85 percent in each product cate-gory, accounting for 80 percent of units sold and 36 percent of peso value in the Philippine market.

In fi lling the gap between the public sector that is facing ac-cess and availability issues and the private sector where products

Pushing development by investing in reproductive healthBy Ed Tamayo*

*Mr. Tamayo is DKT Philippines’ PR Consultant.1 Smith, Elizabeth. 2002. Social franchising reproductive health services: Can it work? A review of the experience. Paper made for the Marie Stopes

International Global Partnership.


are available but not cheap, DKT has helped ensure the supply of quality products while simultane-ously expanding product choice to include more formulations, keeping prices low, generat-ing greater awareness on, and interest in, family planning and its importance, and increasing focus on maternal and child health care as well as adolescent repro-ductive health. It has increased access and availability through better coverage, especially in rural areas, and has played a key role in promoting information on reproductive health and family planning. Its POPSHOP Franchise has been reaping successes as a micro-enterprise system that meets the contraceptive needs of the community by offering a viable and immediate option to procure and distribute contracep-tives with a built-in cost-recovery mechanism to ensure sustainable operations.

Challenges and issues

Despite efforts exerted by DKT and its allies, the country’s contra-ceptive and reproductive health needs remain daunting. Accord-ing to the 2003 National Demo-graphic and Health Survey, the Philippines’ contraceptive preva-

lence rate remains low at 49 per-cent, unmet needs remain high at 17.3 percent, and almost half (44 percent) of all births are unwant-ed. HIV/AIDS incidence is “hidden and growing.” Furthermore, an estimated 400,000 abortions take place every year despite being illegal. And in a study of hospital cases of abortion complications, 36 percent of these are young women (15-24 years old).

The pursuit of Philippine repro-ductive health needs is confronted by several challenges and issues. Strong religious lobby and infl u-ence on the hearts and minds of those most in need aggravate efforts to increase demand and translate it into access, purchase, and usage. There is also the diffi cult operating environment that includes opposition from gatekeepers in the medical com-munity and the pharmacy sector, and regulatory restrictions on promotions. For its part, DKT faces strong-arm tactics from commer-cial competitors, e.g., in the form of cease-and-desist orders insti-gated by competitors intended to impede its operations.

The USAID phase-down of con-traceptive donations also pose a serious concern, particularly the

prevention of drop-outs among users. With 40-50 percent of Filipinos earning less than US$2 daily and dependent on access to contraceptives through the public sector, there remains a very large cohort of poor Filipi-nos who cannot afford to and will not buy contraceptives from commercial drugstores. By way of an alternative, DKT is attempt-ing to sustain product delivery at the level of Local Government Units (LGUs) through POPSHOPs. In addition, DKT is concentrating distribution and coverage in poor areas, partnering with NGOs and midwives at the local level, and targeting education and infor-mation efforts at hard-to-reach segments. The challenge is how to create demand, which involves policy implications and requires an appropriate policy environ-ment.

Possibilities for legislation

From DKT’s point of view, there are a number of areas in which legislators can make an impact in meeting reproductive health needs. The most important one is to work for the change in status of oral contraceptives to make them available over-the-counter (OTC) even while the actual ac-tion will require Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) implementa-tion. Oral contraceptives are the most researched products in the pharmaceutical industry, its safety and use endorsed by interna-tional agencies such as the World Health Organization, various do-nor agencies and the academe. Such a reclassifi cation will signifi -cantly help generate awareness, interest and usage, and promote new channels for distribution, sales, education, information and promotions.


There is also a need to reform the policy environment to make it more conducive to the promotion of family planning and eliminate or reduce duties and VAT on re-productive health products.

Legislators may also emulate Que-zon City’s recent feat by enacting an ordinance on population and reproductive health management that could provide for a 100 percent condom use policy in cooperation with the LGU; encourage LGUs to allocate budget for contraceptive procurement; permit emergency contraception; enable the Depart-ment of Health (DOH) to facilitate importations of contraceptives; strengthen reproductive health edu-cation in schools through the De-partment of Education (DepEd) and Commission on Higher Education (CHED); and allow for a 100-percent condom use and availability policy in drugstores, convenience stores, and entertainment establishments in their locality.

Private sector initiative

In promoting reproductive health, members of the private sector can initiate a range of important efforts:

More vigorous implementation of the Labor Code by industries and businesses with regard to the provision of reproductive

health services for employees, i.e., family planning programs and access to contraceptives;

In the commercial sector: more aggressive education efforts and price restraint, with retail outlets embracing a full complement of modern contraceptives, to promote affordability and availability of modern contraceptives;

On the part of private schools: incorporating reproductive health comprehensively in curri-cula to promote awareness and acceptance of sexuality as an in-tegral aspect of young people’s growth and development;

Among gatekeepers such as doctors, pharmacists, and teachers: dissociating religious beliefs from the dissemination of information and options ad-dressing reproductive health needs; and

For opinion leaders and infl u-encers, even at the community level: to highlight the benefi ts and merits of reproductive health and family planning.

From hard experience, DKT has realized the importance of re-maining highly focused on the goals involved in meeting repro-ductive health needs, of maintain-

ing confi dence in approaches that have been validated, and of stay-ing on the course in implement-ing strategies. There is no room for fear in the process of pushing the envelope, of creating debate, because this is what advocates of reproductive health must do, including and especially legisla-tors who will be making a worth-while investment in progress as they help their constituents meet relevant needs.

The current Philippine environment has been the most restrictive one there is for reproductive health pro-motion for the last 40 years. There is ample reason for grave concern with respect to unmet reproduc-tive health needs, as witnessed by the percentage of unwanted pregnancies, the high abortion rate, and the number of young children and fetuses abandoned in public places. Insuffi cient attention is being paid to macro issues that can be addressed by providing informa-tion and product access as bases for decision-making for those of reproductive age. Yet, doing so will clearly yield substantial benefi ts in addressing poverty and related issues such as housing, the deple-tion of resources, and the impact of population growth in negating eco-nomic and human development.

– o 0 o –

Facts & Figures


FFacts acts && FFiguresigures

Figure 1: Government Spending for 2007 (in billion pesos)

2.5

18.368.83

35.55

55.353.81

612.8

164.1

Debt Service

Education, Culture and ManpowerDevelopmentHealth

Natural Resources and theEnvironmentAgriculture and Agrarian Reform

Social Security, Welfare andEmploymentHousing and Community Development

Military

More than 64 percent of the government’s total spending in 2007 went to debt service while a measly 1.9 percent (P2.5 billion) was spent on health. This translates to a mere P 206.93 per capita.

• From only 36.8 percent of the total appropriations in 2002, the government’s special purpose fund grew to more than half (50.9%) in 2008.

• Unprogrammed funds comprised a mere 3.7 percent of total new appropriations in 2002, but grew to 11.7 percent in 2008.

•

Sources: Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC). Debt Snapshots, as of end-2007. http://www.fdc.ph/index.php?option=com_

docman&task=doc_view&gid=53&tmpl=component&format=raw&Itemid=89 (accessed March 6, 2008).

Congressional Planning and Budget Department (CPBD). An Analysis of the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2007. November 2006. House of Representatives. http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/cpbd/2007_Budget_Analysis.pdf (accessed March 6, 2008).

Congressional Planning and Budget Department (CPBD). Special Purpose Funds. In Facts in Figures. January 2008 (No. 1). House of Representatives. http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/cpbd/fnf_2008_01_spf.pdf (accessed March 6, 2008).


The business sector has, for a long time,

viewed the provision of family planning and reproductive health information and services as the government’s responsibility. Although the law requires those business establishments mandated to set up clinics and infi rmaries to provide free family planning (FP) services as well to their employees,1 many

of them remained stuck to the provision of general health services.

In 2003, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued Department Order No. 56-03 of 2003 to further rationalize the implementation of the government’s Family Welfare Program (FWP).

The FWP is part of DOLE’s effort to promote productive and

gainful employment, advancement of workers’ welfare, and maintenance of industrial peace. It has 10 dimensions: (1) reproductive health (RH) and responsible parenthood; (2) education/gender equality; (3) spirituality or value formation; (4) income generation/livelihood/cooperative; (5) medical health care; (6) nutrition; (7) environmental protection, hygiene and sanitation; (8)

sports and leisure; (9) housing; and (10) transportation.2

As the business sectors’ response to the challenges of population, family planning and reproductive health, the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) adopted a resolution calling on the business sector to contribute to a rounded discussion and advocacy contributing

Financing Reproductive Health and Family Planning Programs in the Workplace:A Corporate Social Responsibility A Corporate Social Responsibility Program for SustainabilityProgram for SustainabilityBy Marlou Abaja*

“In order to encourage responsible parenthood, and promote maternal & child health consistent with the company’s mission to enhance the working conditions of its workers, CUP-Bukidnon recognizes the need to provide FP services namely, education, counseling and supply dispensing among its workforce. Referral mechanisms are in place to sources of products and services outside the workplace. The FP services would address spacing needs of workers in the 24-35 age range and preventive measures for unplanned pregnancies among single workers. This will also serve as an advocacy project for small sized families directed towards workers with more than 3 dependents, highlighting health and economic benefi ts of small sized families vis-à-vis disadvantages of large families. Intended result is acceptance of longer-term spacing methods or permanent sterilization method.”

– Culled from Chiquita-Unifrutti Philippines’ Family Planning Program Policy.

* Mr. Abaja is the Advocacy Specialist of the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines Corporate Social Responsibility-Project Management Unit (ECOP-CSR-PMU).

1 The Labor Code of the Philippines. Art. 134.2 NATLEX. International Labour Standards Department. International Labour Organization (ILO). http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex_browse.details?p_

lang=en&p_country=PHL&p_classifi cation=01.03&p_origin=COUNTRY&p_sortby=SORTBY_COUNTRY (accessed July 30, 2008).


Policy dialogue with Sultan Kudarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In photo are: Mr. Jose Roland Moya, ECOP Deputy Director General; Mr. Vispo Ramos, SKCCIFI President, and Ms. Abigail Cainglet, PLCPD Project Offi cer (Photos courtesy of ECOP).

to the attainment of a manageable population size.3 ECOP concretized this mandate through its Population and Development Strategies, Integrated RH in the workplace and Family Planning and MCH programs in the workplace. In pursuing these programs, ECOP has adopted a two-pronged approach. One is the mobilization of business leaders to support and advocate for a sound national and local population policy while the other is helping companies install or strengthen their FP and RH programs in the workplace.

In 2005, ECOP deepened this commitment with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) grant under its 6th Country Assistance Program (6th CAP). Through this program, ECOP tapped several companies to install RH programs through Workplace Oriented Reproductive Health Knowledge and Services (WORKS) and local business organizations to advocate for local population policy. ECOP has recruited 25 companies and 25 local

business organizations to the project.

On policy advocacy

Several local chambers of commerce passed resolutions calling on their local governments to prioritize RH and population issues and reiterated the need for a policy to sustain the dissemination of information and provision of services to all, most especially to poor women and indigent communities. The Sultan Kudarat Chamber of Commerce, Tawi-Tawi Chamber of Commerce, Metro Cotabato Chamber of Commerce, Gensan Chamber of Commerce, Baguio-Benguet Chamber of Commerce, Malaybalay City Chamber of Commerce and Marawi Chamber of Commerce

are among the local business organizations that adopted and passed a resolution on population and RH.

The local chambers of commerce and industry are actively engaging their offi cers, members, and constituents by organizing various forums, dialogues and consultations with LGUs and other stakeholders in their respective areas. In General Santos City, for instance, the GenSan Chamber of Commerce led the advocacy for the passage of their City RH ordinance, which was eventually enacted in November 2007 (Please see Annex A: Oro Chamber Family Welfare Policy).

ECOP believes that the business sector

can infl uence the local policy environment. And most of the time, local offi cials listen to the recommendations of business sectors on policies and programs in their respective LGUs.

WORKS as a sustainability mechanism

The Workplace Oriented Reproductive Health Knowledge and Services, or WORKS, is ECOP’s program that targets the health of both the employers and employees, meaning it covers their general health and reproductive health (RH) as well. This project helps companies install and/or strengthen their existing family welfare, FP, and RH programs.

3 Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP). Omnibus Resolutions: Making Entrepreneurship Work for the Nation. A Resolution Arrived at at the 26th National Conference of Employers, May 17-18, 2005, Manila Hotel, Manila, Philippines.


Oro Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducting RH Orientation with members of the business sector in Cagayan de Oro City (Photos courtesy of ECOP).

Under the UNFPA 6th CAP, ECOP piloted 10 companies for the WORKS Program. These are PhilBest Canning Corporation in General Santos City, Marco Polo Hotel and New City Commercial Center in Davao, Chiquita-Unifrutti Philippines in Bukidnon, Alturas Group of Companies and BQ Corporation in Bohol, Cebu Mitsumi and Lear Corporation in Cebu, Fujitsu Manufacturing Corporation in Cavite, IndoPhil Group of Companies in Bulacan, and Manila Peninsula in Manila.

ECOP has conducted focus group discussions in these companies primarily to determine their employees’ specifi c RH concerns. After the FGDs, ECOP trained the company’s human resources offi cers

and service providers on Integrated Reproductive Health in the Workplace using WORKS as a platform for drafting their action plan. Attendees to the training developed a work plan where specifi c activities were focused on the results of the FGDs conducted in the workplace.

As a sustainability plan, ECOP also trained company HR personnel in developing effective RH or FWP policies. As a result, several companies adopted FWP policies to include RH and FP services in the workplace. These policies are very important in sustaining what they have achieved. Chiquita Unifrutti Philippines, for instance, has allocated P1 million per employee as

annual contraceptive subsidy. This is considered a milestone for FP programs in the midst of dwindling foreign support and government’s reluctance to provide comprehensive information and services to the Filipino people (See Annex B: Chiquita Unifrutti Philippines Family Planning Program Policy).

Recognition of best practices

In 2007, in cooperation with the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), ECOP initiated the search and award for Best Workplace Reproductive Health Policies and Programs. This annual recognition, begun in 2007, aims to highlight the business sector’s RH programs in the workplace

and document best practices. It also seeks to encourage wider business sector support for workplace RH programs as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and promote a harmonious working relationship between employers and employees leading to the attainment of higher level of commitment on, and responsibility for, RH in the workplace that would result to better productivity and competitiveness.

Previous winners include the PHILEXPORT Region 12 (1st), Cagayan de Oro Chamber of Commerce (2nd Place), and PCCI Cavite (3rd) in Chamber category. For Company category, the winners were Cebu Mitsumi (1st), Cenral Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. (2nd), and University of the Cordilleras (3rd).

The awarding ceremony was held during the 33rd Philippine Business Conference and Exposition (PBC and E) at the Manila Hotel. No less than President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo presented the awards to the grand winners.

For 2008, ECOP and PCCI will recognize


workplace programs that have integrated demographics and soci-economic interrelationships in the formulation of development plans, policies, and programs. They will recognize a wider scope of stakeholders such as corporations, local chambers, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), corporate foundations, and industry associations.

Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

ECOP’s effort to promote RH and FP in the workplace is not only in compliance with the law; it is also in fulfi llment of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

CSR is a buzzword in the business community that means doing over and above what the law provides. It is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as that of the local community and society at large.

And similarly for ECOP and its ally business entities, CSR means empowering the people, widening their choices, and uplifting their lives.

Through many efforts and initiatives of

these business entities, the CSR concept was redefi ned to mean “people empowerment” and “community empowerment,” among others.

Sustaining gains

Based on the experience of ECOP and other business organizations, the business sector has the capacity to sustain RH and FP programs in the workplace. They have the resources, they have the needed structures and networks that when mobilized, will facilitate the sustainability of these programs. However, RH and FP advocates should keep in mind that businesses exist primarily

for profi t. Every businessman/woman wants their business to be productive and their employees effi cient. Linking RH and FP to effi ciency and productivity, therefore, is a sure way to mobilize the business sector in adopting RH and FP programs in their respective workplaces.

FP or RH programs in the workplace can only be sustained with structures in place and a policy that will provide direction and guidelines in all the interventions.

Cebu Mitsumi Executive Director Atty. Januario Seno and Company Physician Dra. Regina Tan accepting the fi rst place award from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and ECOP Offi cers (Photos courtesy of ECOP).


A n n e x A

CAGAYAN DE ORO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY FOUNDATION, INC.

WORKPLACE FAMILY HEALTH PROGRAM POLICY* A. RATIONALE

ORO CHAMBER believes that employees’ performance at the workplace is directly related with their circumstances at home.

Having a sound family life will make them more focused and as such, will translate to increased productivity that will ultimately benefi t the company in the form of a positive bottom line.

Hence, the Oro Chamber created its Workplace Family Health (formerly Family Welfare) Program to primarily address its problems on staff absenteeism, lapses in performance, low productivity, and high turn-over rate through an information and education campaign (IEC) on family planning, responsible parenthood, and maternal and child health. Such is also pursuant to the provisions of Article 134 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

The other components of the Chamber’s WFH Program, in observance of DOLE’s Department Order No. 56-03 (series of 2003), will include the following:

1. Education/Gender Equality2. Value Formation3. Livelihood4. Medical Health Care5. Nutrition6. Enviromental Protection,

Hygiene and Sanitation

7. Sports and Leisure8. Housing9. Transportation

B. OBJECTIVES

The WFH Program is designed:

1. To plan for the appropriate family planning intervention for Chamber employees and companies located in Cagayan de Oro and Misamis Oriental;

2. To advocate for the adoption of Family Welfare/Health Program by all companies and enterprises in the City of Cagayan de Oro and Province of Misamis Oriental; and

3. To educate member large companies as to the benefi ts of setting-up a Family Welfare/Health Program at their respective companies.

C. COVERAGE

There are two (2) classifi cations of the WFH Program benefi ciaries – 1) direct and 2) indirect.

The direct beneficiar ies are Chamber employees, both regular and contractual. Through the various trainings conducted for them, Oro Chamber believes that in a year or two, it will be able to transform its personnel into happier, more focused and service-oriented professionals by not only attaining respective desired family size but also by becoming

more equipped and fi t to take on work challenges.

On the other hand, the program’s indirect beneficiaries are the Chamber’s member companies and their corresponding employees, with the end view of helping the member companies at enhancing respective productivity levels to become profi table and sustainable.

Though the fi rst year of program implementation will be dedicated to Chamber staff development and IEC for stakeholders, trainings for member companies especially on family planning and population concerns will also be conducted, on a partial scale.

However, it is good to note that for the first three (3) years of program implementation, priority will be given to member companies employing 200 or more staff. For the succeeding years, efforts will be geared toward encouraging even the small and medium enterprises to also install respective Family Welfare Program.

D. SERVICES

The WFH Program of Oro Chamber is predominantly on IEC and policy advocacy. Along this, below are activities that will have to be undertaken covering all the 10

Program components, to wit:

* Published with permission from the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) and Cagayan de Oro Chamber of Commerce and Industry Foundation, Inc.


Workplace Family Planning Program

Since the priority component of the Oro Chamber’s WFH program, at least within the fi rst fi ve (5) years of program implementation is family planning encompassing concerns on reproductive health, responsible parenthood and maternal and child health that emphasis is given on Workplace Family Planning for Chamber employees and member fi rms and the latter’s employees.

It is a well-recognized fact that almost all employees with large family size are struggling to make both ends meet. This makes them pre-occupied and fi nancially i nadequa te a f f ec t i ng t he i r productivity at work and ultimately the companies’ bottom line.

Along this, Oro Chamber will highlight the following in its WFH Program:

• PhP 2,500 medicine allowance for Chamber staff including family

planning supplies purchases;• Family Planning Counseling;• Dissemination of Family Planning

materials;• Trainings/ information campaign

on gender-related topics and family planning concerns for staff and Chamber members;

• Policy Advocacy Campaign on Family Planning; and

• Organizational Meetings with partner organizations.

E. SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

In order to sustain its WFH Program, Oro Chamber will under take networking and proposal-for-funding development activities to ensure that resources requirement will be met and services will be continuously offered to Chamber staff and member fi rms.

Oro Chamber wi l l a l so be establishing its own pool of trainers on family welfare and health. This will enable the Chamber to serve the health requirements of staff and member fi rms because of its ready expert support.

Oro Chamber will also invest heavily at capacitating its own personnel to be able to extend not only free but as well as fee-based services to members especially on program installation consultancy work, capacity-building of member firms and project development services on family welfare and health.

Also, it shall develop its own directory of health and family planning service providers for ready referral purposes.

On Program Advocacy

Oro Chamber shall send regular commun ica t ions to pa r t ne r organizations on its WFW Program especially on the implementation of related activities.

Within the organization, Oro Chamber shall conduct regular Board and Management and staff meetings, send Family Welfare tips thru the emails, pay slips and messages featured at the Bulletin Board in addition to reports submission and the conduct of trainings.

On Proposal-for-funding Development

Oro Chamber shal l develop proposals on Family Welfare P r o g r a m i n s t a l l a t i o n f o r potential funding par tners so that needed resources for the successful implementation of the WFW Program will be made available.

Starting 2005 Starting 2006 Starting 20071. Annual Stakeholders’

Meeting2. Training of Trainers on

Family Welfare during the fi rst two years of program implementa-tion

3. Training for Chamber staff on Family Wel-fare and Health

4. Policy Advocacy5. Annual Monitoring &

Evaluation of Program Results

6. Annual Good Business Fora

1. Training for Chamber Board and Manage-ment on Family Wel-fare/Health

2. Annual Trainings on “How to Set-up a Workplace Family Planning Program” for Chamber staff and member companies

3. Annual Peer Educa-tors’ Training

4. Annual Trainings for Company Physicians and Nurses

1. Annual Trainings on Entrepreneurship/Live-lihood

2. Annual Trainings on EcoProfi t

3. Annual Values Forma-tion Trainings

4. Annual Maternal and Child Health Trainings

5. Workplace Diseases Prevention Trainings

6. Annual Training on Gender Sensitivity

Cagayan de Oro Chamber of Commerce and Industry Foundation, Inc. (Oro Chamber)

RATIONALE

The company prides itself not only for its pursuit of excellence in advanced and environment-friendly agricultural technology but for its God-centered management principle centering on values formation and its commitment to the constituents via its corporate social responsibility program.

Two main programs directed towards promoting employee welfare are the Values Formation Program-where weekly sessions on life skills and spiritual development are conducted—and the In-house Comprehensive Health Plan which covers all health needs of employees.

In carrying out its corporate social responsibility, CUP-Bukidnon is committed to promote employee welfare through its family planning program within workplaces.

The purpose of this policy is to create an FP Program that

will provide knowledge on the available family planning options to workers with unmet family planning needs.

GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT

In order to encourage responsible parenthood, promote maternal & child health in consistent with the company’s mission to enhance the working conditions of its workers, CUP-Bukidnon recognizes the need to provide FP Services namely, education, counseling and supply dispensing among its workforce. Referral mechanisms are in place to sources

of products and services outside the workplace. The FP Services would address spacing needs spacing needs of the workers in the 24-35 age range and preventive measures for unplanned pregnancies among single workers. This will also serve as an advocacy project for small size families directed towards workers with more than 3 dependents, highlighting health and economic benefi ts of small sized families’ vis-à-vis disadvantages of large families. Intended result is acceptance of longer-term spacing methods or permanent sterilization method.


CHIQUITA UNIFRUTTI PHILIPPINES – BUKIDNONFamily Planning Program Policy*

A n n e x B

* Published with permission from the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) and Chiquita Unifrutti Philippines-Bukidnon.

SERVICE DELIVERY – EDUCATION/COUNSELING/DISPENSING

o Unifrutti Program Team shall identify and train FP educators, counselors and dispensors from the various plantation HR Units to ensure standardized delivery of FP Management services and sustained FP education activities.

o Unifrutti Program Team shall ensure quality assurance through continuous education, trainings and skills profi ciency of its FP implementers.

o Unifrutti Program Team through its plantation HR units shall maintain close coordination with family planning practitioners and other health providers as well as partner organizations (cooperatives, LGU’s, RHU’s) to maintain quality and effi ciency of its FP programs.

BENEFITS

o Commodity Assistance—CUP shall provide the annual complete contraceptives worth Php. 1,000.00 to all employees – gratis.

o Medical Examination during Diagnosis during Diagnosis and Follow-up

Company Doctor and Medical Staff shall schedule a pre-application check-up and follow-up consultations and examinations during contraceptive usage.

FINANCING

The company’s annual health budget shall include an allocation for FP promotions and FP management activities to cover medical assistance, training, education sessions, contraceptives and other administrative related expenses.


VP-Corporate Management Services

Deliberation and Approval

Plan and Implement

Corporate Human Resource Manager

Medical Personnel

Site HR Personnel

Medical Personnel

Site HR Personnel

Medical Personnel

Site HR Personnel

MKADC BHPI MKAVI

IMPLEMENTING STRUCTURE

Management of the family planning programs fall under the Human Resources Department

which is under Mr. Wenceslao B. Plamus, Vice President for Corporate Management Services. Implementation is handled by site personnel

(Organic HR Departments and Nurse/s per site. As mentioned, site personnel are included in the planning. Line-staff structure are as follows:

financing the rh needs of filipinos

Documents