Follow Us


Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process: Potentials and Challenges

 Enabling Participation for Poverty Reduction and Greater Accountability in Governance

by Regina Salvador-Antequisa[2]

Purpose of this paper

This paper aims to present experiences, lessons and recommendations on how to make the concept Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process (GPBP) or formerly called the Bottom-up Budgeting (BUB) really work and achieve its aims of addressing poverty in the Philippines through institutionalizing participation of the grassroots and civil society organizations in planning and in allocating resources for poverty reduction projects.

While the program concept is considered positive by the civil society as an opportunity for achieving change towards more governance accountability, but experience showed that without real reforms in the government system and structures, the process will just become another frustrating exercise for the civil society and especially for the grassroots organizations who pin their hope on this program to help alleviate their socio-economic condition.

Based on the actual experiences and engagement on the bottom-up or grassroots participatory budgeting process, practical recommendations from ECOWEB and other civil society organizations are hereby presented to make participatory planning, budgeting and monitoring become and effective vehicle in addressing poverty, marginalization and vulnerability of people and communities.


Methodologies used in the paper

The paper is based on the first-hand experience and lessons learned by ECOWEB, its partner local civil society organizations and grassroots organizations involved in the Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process (GPBP). Insights, reflections and recommendations of other civil society and government actors are also used as reference in this paper.


The preparation of the annual national budget of the Philippines is generally a top-down process led by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The official mandate of the DBM is “to promote the sound, efficient and effective management and utilization of government resources (i.e., technological, manpower, physical and financial) as instrument in the achievement of national socioeconomic and political development goals.”[2] It is worthy to note that at this time the Philippines was still under a Commonwealth Government controlled by the government of the United States of America. Nowhere in the mandate of the DBM assured peoples’ participation in the budget process.

The budget process of the Philippines involves a series of steps that begins with the determination of the overall economic targets, expenditure levels, revenue projection and the financing plan by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee (DBCC). The DBCC is an inter-agency body composed of the DBM Secretary as Chairman and the Bangko Sentral Governor, the Secretary of the Department of Finance, the Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority and a representative of the Office of the President as members.[4] The Social Contract did not mention any policy about the bottom-up-budgeting. However, one of the visions that President Aquino articulated in the Social Contract was “Public institutions rebuilt on the strong solidarity of our society and its communities.”[6] Among the clusters created were on Good Governance and Anti-Corruption (GGAC) and Human Development and Poverty Reduction (HDPR).[8]

The focus of the HDPR Cluster was on improving the overall quality of life of the Filipino and translating the gains of good governance into direct, immediate, and substantial benefits that will empower the poor and marginalized segments of society.[10]

Two months later, on March 8, 2012, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1 series of 2012 (JMC-1-2012) providing the guidelines and procedures for the implementation of the bottom-up planning and budgeting in the preparation of the 2013 Budget.[12]

The new budget procedure was a landmark policy in the Philippines’ public finance. From the time President Aquino declared his Social Contract, it took one year and eight months to formulate the guidelines and procedures of the bottom-up planning and budgeting. Its sudden promulgation and immediate implementation caught most LGUs, especially those that were included among the pilots, unprepared to perform their mandated function. CSOs reacted with skepticism and suspicion but many believe that the new policy opened new opportunities for peoples’ empowerment. Some also suspect the hidden motivation of the policy.

Although it is not yet the general procedure in preparing the National Budget, the new policy underscores two important notions:  first, that peoples’ participation is important and possible in formulating national budget and, second, that democratization of the budget process is an important approach in reducing poverty.  The big challenge is how to operationalize the process in a country whose people and government are used to top-down budgeting in the last eight decades.

A Top-down reform historically advocated from below

Peoples’ participation in governance is not new to the Philippines but participation in national budgeting is new. The participation of non-government, community-based and sectoral organizations is a matter of state policy under Section 23 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.[14]

Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.

People's organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure.

Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.

The above Constitutional provisions were further defined and operationalized by the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) where the relationship of peoples’ organization (PO) and non-government organization (NGO) with the local government units (LGU) at all levels were defined.[16] local health boards,[18] the powerful regional development council[20]

It is worthy to note that both Philippine Constitution and LGC only mentioned PO, NGO and sectoral organizations not Civil Society Organizations (CSO). In 1989, the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development (PSSD) was adopted by the Philippine Government. The PSSD document mentioned of three key actors of sustainable development – government, civil society and business. The PSSD also strongly advocated for peoples empowerment and decentralization in government as key strategies to sustainable development. The PSSD strongly contributed to the promulgation of the Local Government Code (LGC) in 1991. While the term CSO was widely used by NGOs, POs, Cooperatives and other citizens’ organizations to collectively refer themselves when engaging with the government, the LGC only mentioned non-government organizations (NGO), peoples organization (PO) and other sectors.

In September 1992, three months after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, the Philippine Government adopted the PSSD as its Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21) and created the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) through Executive Order (EO) No. 15.[22] that is to be automatically allotted as development fund.

Under the LGC of 1991, the Local Development Council (LDC) is mandated to “formulate long-term, medium-term and annual socio-economic development plans and policies” and “formulate the medium and annual public investment programs.”[24] In the JMC-3-2012 issued on December 19, 2013, the term “Basic Sector Organization (BSO)” was added and defined as “organizations of the marginalized sectors of the Philippine society, namely: farmers and landless rural workers, artisanal fisherfolk, formal labor and migrant workers, workers in the informal sector, indigenous peoples and cultural communities, women, persons with disabilities, senior citizens, victims of calamities and disasters, youth and students, children, cooperatives and urban poor.” The BSOs were included as among the CSOs. The new definition attempts to clarify who are the marginalized sectors in the broad CSO category.

In December 20, 2013, JMC-4 was released providing the guidelines for the preparation of the budget for 2015 and changing the name of the process from BUB to Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process (GPBP). There was no explanation provided for the change of name, however, it seems to emphasize the “who” and the “process” rather than the process alone.

The mechanism for CSO participation in the BUB, now GPBP, was outlined in the JMC-1-2012. The JMC ordered the LCE of LGUs to organize their Local Poverty Reduction Action Teams (LPRAT). JMC-2-2012 defined the membership of the LPRAT to be 50 percent coming from the LGU and 50 percent from the CSOs.[26]  In cases where the CSOs, particularly the BSOs, are not able to prepare project proposals, the LGUs are the ones to prepare and just present to the LPRAT for endorsement but usually without further explanations and involvement of the BSOs. In some cases, the CSOs helped the BSOs prepare their proposals.

For the government-initiated civil society consultation workshops, it is usually one-off activity per year apart from a number of meetings of the LPRAT with CSO representation. In the workshops, situational analysis and prioritizing of projects is based on menu list provided by the government agencies.  Through own initiatives, CSOs with strong leadership and collaboration have also initiated separate meetings to discuss issues and concerns on GPBP.

While the GPBP is strongly welcomed and appreciated as a policy reform to reinforce accountable governance system, but because of some imperfections in the mechanisms, misunderstanding of the processes, and lack of capacity of both CSOs and LGUs in making the policy a real opportunity for change, criticisms are abound but sustained engagement in the process by the civil society and the grassroots is also remarkable.

Ensuring a transparent and accountable mechanism is major concern among the CSOs. For while planning and budgeting is democratized, implementation and direct management of the project funds is still very much controlled by the LGUs and the national government agencies, whichever is appropriate.

Participatory Budgeting: the EcoWEB Experience

The Aquino government in pursuit of the attainment of Philippines’ target under the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) in the Philippines has initiated the BUB now called GPBP.[28]  

EcoWEB is directly participating in the GPBP in 3 areas within Region 10: in Iligan City and in the municipalities of Naawan and Kolambugan in the provinces of Misamis Oriental and Lanao del Norte respectively. EcoWEB have ongoing projects in the three localities in the last three years prior to the GPBP. EcoWEB is accredited by the LGUs of Iligan, Naawan and Kolambugan since 2010 and it became an active member of the LPRATs of the 3 LGUs. It was elected as the leader among the CSOs and set as co-chairperson of LPRAT-Iligan. It is an ordinary member in Naawan and Kolambugan.  

The LPRAT plays a major role in identifying projects for the GPBP under the Poverty Reduction Action Program (LPRAP) of the government. The LPRAT is represented 50-50 by CSO and Local Government Unit (LGU) which number varies in each place. Iligan has 24, Naawan 36 and Kolambugan 20 LPRAT members where 50% are civil society representatives.

For 2014, EcoWEB Executive Director has also been elected as the Provincial Focal Person to represent the civil society of the province of Lanao del Norte in the Regional Proverty Reduction Action Team (RPRAT) of Region X, Northern Mindanao region.

GPBP Experience in Iligan City

In Iligan City, the 2013 budget allocation was not accessed due to failure of the City LGU to organize the LPRAT in 2012. Under the JMC-1-2012, the LGU is responsible in convening the LPRAT. With the inaction of the city LGU, EcoWEB and some NGOs gathered in early January 2013 to discuss strategies how to participate in the BUB knowing that the 50M pesos allotted for the city is a big help to thousands of marginalized communities in the City.[30] There are two possible options to address the problem: ask the LGU to draft the proposals of the BSOs or the capable NGOs to help the BSOs.

The NGOs opted for the second option despite knowing that it would be an added burden to them. The NGOs were worried that if they will simply allow the LGU to draft the proposals, it would not suit to the need of the BSOs and they will have less control in the implementation or worse Iligan will again forfeit the 2014 budget like in the 2013 considering that time for project proposal preparation is very limited. The CSOs agreed to have a Project Conceptualization Workshop. It was done at EcoWEB office and participated by 15 CSO representatives. After the concepts were developed, 4 of the 9 NGOs present committed to write down the concepts. EcoWEB provided much of the venue and the resources needed in the conceptualization process. It mobilized its staff to help in the drafting of the proposals to catch up the deadline.

Instead of drafting one proposal for each CSO, the group agreed to conceptualize projects that will address the need of the basic sectors even including those who were not present. The group identified an organization who will act as the lead a proponent in the case of a group proposal. The process strengthened the collaboration of the CSOs and avoided the competition that characterized in other LPRATs. The CSO cluster of the LPRAT-Iligan also earned the respect of their LGU representatives as they were able to craft sound projects that respond to the needs of the basic sectors not just the participating BSOs.

The CSOs’ active role in Iligan is fully recognized by Mr. Emilio Rana, the City Director of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) in Iligan, who said, “I would like to congratulate and thank EcoWEB and the other CSOs for your active participation in the GPBP that ensured the inclusion of the marginalized sectors in planning and budgeting. GPBP is a realization of the 1991 Local Government Code that provides local participation in planning. But it provides more space for it enables grassroots participation in national budgeting. However, it needs public support, and thanks to your leadership and to active participation of the CSOs.”[32]

“It is fortunate that EcoWEB is there to help the GPB process in Iligan that participation and fair distribution of opportunities to all has been facilitated which is not the case in many other areas”, says Ms. Carmela D. Arienza, Executive Officer of the CHARM, Inc., a member of the LPRAT of Iligan City. [34]

GPBP Experience in Naawan and Kolambugan

In Naawan, the LPRAT was organized in early 2012 and were able to meet the deadline for the GPBP for 2013. The Naawan LPRAT is composed mostly of BSOs, only two were NGOs including EcoWEB. Like in Iligan, the BSOs expressed their interest to participate but requested for support from NGOs or the LGU. EcoWEB’s participation in the LPRAT-Naawan was minimal because its capacity was focused in Iligan City. In the absence of capacitated NGO, the only option is for the LGU to draft the project proposals of the BSOs.

The CSOs in Naawan were lucky that the Municipal Planning and Development Officer (MPDO) is very concerned in ensuring the participation of marginalized sectors. Mr. Salvador Almiñe, the MPDO, looks at the GPBP as a venue and opportunity for partnership between the national agencies, LGU and the communities. He sees the GPBP as a process of convergence aiming at developing projects that are responsive to the situation of the local communities.[36] respectively for 2014 which is lower than their annual GPBP allocation of PhP 15M each.  Iligan City has PhP176M development fund for 2014 which is more than three times greater than its GPBP allocation. Having been always short of budget for concrete development projects that would directly benefit the grassroots and people in poverty, the GPBP is certainly a great opportunity not only for these LGUs but more to the people who have been hoping for government support to their poverty reduction initiatives and plans.

However, it is not only the amount and the very good intention of this remarkable program of the current administration that matters but how it is being planned and implemented. Certainly, impact of the GPBP to poverty reduction lies on the effectiveness and efficiency of the project implementation, accountability of fund management and sustainability of implemented projects operation. During the Regional Poverty Reduction Action Team (RPRAT) meeting on August 5, 2014, DILG Region-X Director Rene Burdeos said, “Through the GPBP, it is the intention of the current administration of the government to create impact on reducing poverty through ensuring meaningful participation of the grassroots, hence, we are learning and promoting good practices.”   

“Based on survey, the fisherfolks are among the most poor in our society, always left out and mostly marginalized. We hope that through the GPBP and based on our unified voice and plan as a sector, projects will finally reach us and help alleviate our situation,” said Randy Cabardo, the newly elected President of the federation of Fisherfolks association in Iligan City.[38]

Ms. Tripona B. Enterone, a retired school teacher who is also a veteran in advocating peoples participation in governance commented, “the Local Government Code of 1991 implied that CSOs can participate in the budgeting process for the local development fund but the problem is that there is no clear mechanisms for peoples’ participation except for attending meetings called by the Local Chief Executive (LCE) or the mayor. If there is a mechanism, its implementation is largely dependent to the LCE who is the designated Chairperson. Usually the LDC is convened to endorse the proposed Annual Investment Plan (AIP) with budgets already prepared by the Office of the LCE for submission and approval of the Local Legislative Body that is composed of the LCE’s party-mates and allies. Usually, what is lacking is the mandatory endorsement from the LDC’s that is why they are forced to call for a meeting.”[40]

The experience of EcoWEB in the GPBP in 3 LGUs revealed that peoples’ involvement in the budget process can be limited to the identification of priorities instead of allocating resources to those priorities if CSOs do not have the capacity to engage in the process. Ms. Renefe M. Padilla from the Iligan City Council of Women (ICCW), one of the NGOs that helped in facilitating the process viewed BUB as “an empowering process for the grassroots that opens new chances for transformation of society where marginalized people could participate in convergence with government and the CSOs. However, there is still a gap for smooth implementation of the process because both LGUs and CSOs are still grappling how participatory budgeting could be done better.”[42]

The process is moving up, but still a long way to go to ensure that it will be true to its concept of ensuring participation of the grassroots[44]

Mary Jane Homena, project coordinator of the Western Visayas Network of Social Development NGOs (WEVNET) also shared the same observation in a related consultation done in central Philippines:  "CSOs that have experienced engaging in local budget process before the BUB was adopted undeniably possessed the edge because its constant participation in the local budgeting process provided them the knowledge and familiarity of government's financial terrain."[46]

Since the GPBP is considered as an approach to poverty reduction, the participation of POs from the marginalized sector should be ensured. However, if they could not develop and write proposals for the inclusion in the LPRAP, the approach could fail since this is the key to their meaningful participation.

“I believe that it is the government’s responsibility to help the CSOs but as much as possible it should not be the LGUs. I could think of two possible options: first, it should be a different government agency that has no electoral interest and, second, an NGO with capacity and commitment to help should be funded by the government,” commented Ms. Aida Abarquez, long-time NGO worker now connected with the Sentro sa Maayong Magbalantay (SMMI) that focuses on communities of informal settlers.

Challenge No. 4:  The need for CSOs to Monitor the Implementation of GPBP Projects

In the three localities, Iligan City, Naawan and Kolambugan, where EcoWEB is involved in the GPBP, a total of 70 LPRAP Projects identified by 150 CSOs were included and approved for 2014 with total worth of PhP 67M. This is in addition to the 24 million pesos in 2013 for Naawan and Kolambugan. This imply that a total of 91 million pesos worth of fund for poverty reduction project is secured already for two years.

Assuming that the three localities will get the maximum GPBP funding allocation for 2015 and 2016, this means a total of additional 80M pesos annually or 160M in the next two years. Combining this projected amount to the secured amount, this imply that 251 million pesos worth of poverty reduction projects could be supported in a period of 4 years. If managed well, this could have a real impact to the lives of the poor in the 3 localities.

Under the GPBP scheme, local government or the national line agencies will be managing all the funds, the CSOs to assist in the planning, budgeting and monitoring and the POs or organizations of basic sectors to serve as beneficiaries. Undoubtedly, monitoring the implementation of the project is a colossal task for the CSOs especially for the BSOs not just for the sake of compliance but to ensure that they will reap the fruits of their participation.

Mr. Sabino Gutierrez, a PO leader representing the fishermen lamented, “We are now given the opportunity to submit proposals with budgets but how can we do it when we only know how to use nets and fishing hooks. Much more, how could we know that what was budgeted for us will eventually reach us?”[48]

Grassroots organizations who are the supposed priority beneficiaries of the budget reform should have the capacity to participate in monitoring the implementation. To do this, they need the support from established NGOs. Otherwise they will be left out.

“But how can we effectively monitor the GPBP projects when we don’t have funds for this and not supported by the government as well? It is not also included in the project budget. Good for the government personnel, they are paid to implement this program. But how about us, we don’t receive any compensation for this and yet we have to use our own resources just to be able to help implement this program and monitor the projects being implemented,” shared CHARM Director Carmela Arienza in a meeting of the CSOs in Iligan for the GPBP 2014.[50].

Ms. Cherlita Amores of the Lanao Comrades Multi-Purpose Cooperative also expressed her frustration about the change of beneficiaries of their proposed livelihood project. “We are the only organization here that is implementing a coconet geotextile project and we were the ones who proposed said project to the LPRAT to help strengthen our project, but how come the final project lists another organization as beneficiary? Although, the mayor assured us that we would still be included as beneficiary, but I really wonder how come a proponent of a BUB project can be changed that easily?”Government’s lack of in placed system and support structure to facilitate meaningful participatory process;

  1. Lack of  financial support for capacity building and unforeseen gaps in project implementation;
  2. Lack of technical capacity and weak governance of community-based organizations in managing and sustaining projects;
  3. Lack of clear mechanism for ensuring gender-responsiveness, conflict sensitivity and disaster resiliency in poverty reduction projects;
  4. Lack of harmonization of interventions of various government agencies that usually mind more on respective mandates and targets and less on the complementary impact of interventions done in same communities; and
  5. Absence of results-based participatory monitoring and evaluation process at local level.

The lack of active citizens’ participation in the implementation and monitoring is also observed due to the following:

  1. CSOs’ lack of understanding on government programs and its financial systems and procedures;
  2. Lack of capacity and support to enable CSOs to actively participate in local governance and in planning, implementation and monitoring of projects; and
  3. Lack of trust on the government’s intention due to failed programs and policies in the past and the negative experiences on manipulations of government programs to serve vested interest rather than protecting the interest of the people.

The national government thru the facilitation of the DILG just mainly facilitates and supports one-day assembly of CSOs and one-day participatory budgeting workshop in a year for the GPBP. LPRATs are expected to meet quarterly and for the LGU structure to spearhead in the preparation of proposals and its submission to the national line agencies after the participatory one-day budgeting workshop.

Sustaining the project planning, implementation and monitoring processes and making them to be truly inclusive mainly depends on the initiative of the local government and the CSOs. Hence, in areas with weak CSO structure, local government decision dominates. But in Iligan where CSOs are a bit strong, project concepts mainly came from the organized CSOs.


While the CSOs were strongly proposing for a process that would meaningfully involve the people living in poverty with consideration of gender, geographic and sectoral representation, the lack of resources to support the process and inadequate preparedness in conducting consultation made it difficult for the CSOs to achieve this aim.

Homena of WEVNET elaborated that "all of this imbalance, if we can call it as such, is also a consequence of inadequate preparedness in conducting consultation and the lack of trained facilitators. These observations were shared by many CSOs that participated in the process."Improving the LPRAP workshop design to make it more inclusive and effective participatory spaces such that not limiting project choices to ready menu provided by the national government agencies but should be truly considering non-menu projects that are much needed by communities to address poverty.

  • Enhancement of knowledge and skills of key CSOs to represent themselves and engage the government in planning and implementing programs and projects;
  • Clear procedural guidelines, well trained facilitators and enough funding from the government to support the process;
  • Special support (financial and logistical) to CSOs that have capacity to help other CSOs especially the BSOs. This is a better alternative by simply relegating the responsibility to the LGUs.

[2] The Ecosystems Work for Essential Benefits (ECOWEB), Inc. is an NGO operating in the southern and central Philippines that is currently actively participating in the Bottoms-up-Budgeting (BUB) or now called Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process (GPBP) initiated by the government. Please see for more information about ECOWEB.

[2]Executive Order No. 25 series of 1936, The Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. Accessed 12 July 2014.

[4]A Social Contract with the Filipino People, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. Accessed 17 July 2014.

[6]Executive Order No. 43 series of 2011. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, posted May 13, 2011.  Accessed 17 July 2014.

[8]Ibid, Section 6.

[10] “Bottom-up approach defines 2013 budget Process.” Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, 19 January 2014. Accessed 12 July 2014.



[16]Ibid, Sec. 37, p.16.

[18]Ibid, Sec. 107, p. 38.

[20] Republic Act No. 10121, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. Accessed 12 July 2014.

[22] Local Government Code of 1991, Sec. 287, p. 92.

[24] DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1 series of 2012 (JMC-1 s. 2012), Section 4.8, p.4.

[26] JMC-1 s 2012, Section 5.3 – 5.4, p. 5.

[28] Minutes of EcoWEB Board Meeting, EcoWEB Office, Iligan City, 16 December 2012.

[30]Minutes of the LPRAT Meeting, Iligan City, 20 January 2013.

[32] Ibid.

[34] Interview of Iligan City Farmer leader Mr. Cornelio Dagaas,  EcoWEB Office, 10 July 2014.

[36] Local Development Fund (LDF) is the 20% of the Annual Internal Revenue Allotment of an LGU. LDF is intended to fund development projects endorsed by the Local Development Council (LDC) that should be participated by the CSOs. Mainly, LDF is the source of fund to support priority infrastructure projects of LGU.

[38] Minutes of meeting with LanCom officers facilitated by Cherlita Amores, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte, 9 June 2014.

[40] Ted Alwin E. Ong, “Bottom-up Budgeting: Experience at the Grassroots,”Rappler #Budgetwatch, Posted July 25, 2013, accessed July 15, 2014,

[42]Minutes of CSO meeting, EcoWEB Office, Iligan City, 11 July 2014.

[44]Interview of Ms. Blenda Desierto, Manager, PAGLINGKAWAS Multipurpose Cooperative; Kauswagan, Lanao

                del Norte; 3 September 2014.


[48]Interview of NGO worker Ms. Aida Abarquez, Iligan City; 11 July 2014.

[50]Interview of Ms. Blenda Desierto, Manager, PAGLINGKAWAS Multipurpose Cooperative; Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; 3 September 2014.





  1. Articles
  1. Philippine News Agency, “Bottom-up approach defines 2013 budget Process”. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines,
  1. Sixto Donato C. Macasaet, “Bottom-up Budgeting: Moving up but long way to go,”Rappler # BudgetWatch, Posted on April 5, 2013.
  1. Ted Alwin E. Ong, “Bottom-up Budgeting: Experience at the Grassroots,”Rappler #Budgetwatch, Posted July 25, 2013.


  1. Books


  1. Ahmad, Raza and Erid Thebault Weiser. Fostering Public Participation in Budget-

Making. (Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2006.)


  1. Kasuya, Yuko and Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert, eds; The Politics of Change in the Philippines. (Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing House, 2010)


  1. Local Government Code of 1991. (Manila: A.V.B. Printing Press, 1993).
  1. Schaeffer,Michael and Yilmaz, Serdar; Strengthening Local Government Budgeting and Accountability, (Washington DC: Social Development Department, World Bank, 2008)


  1. Government Documents
  1. A Social Contract with the Filipino People, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
  1. DBM Mandate.
  1. DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1 series of 2012 (JMC-1-2012).
  1. DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2 series of 2012 (JMC-2-2012.
  1. DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 3 series of 2012 (JMC-3-2012).
  1. DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 4 (JMC-4).
  1. Department of Budget and Management National Budget Memorandum No. 121, March 18, 2014.
  1. Executive Order No. 15, series of 1992. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
  1. Executive Order No. 25 series of 1936, The Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
  1. Executive Order No. 43 series of 2011. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, posted May 13, 2011.
  1. Republic Act No. 10121, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
  1. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.


  1. The Budgeting Process.


  1. Interviews


  1. Interview of Mr. Sabino Gutierrez. EcoWEB Office, Iligan City; 10 July 2014.
  1. Interview of Iligan City Farmer leader Mr. Cornelio Dagaas,  EcoWEB Office, 10 July 2014.
  1. Interview of Ms. Tripona V. Enterone, EcoWEB Office, Iligan City; 11 July 2014.
  1. Interview of Ms. Aida Abarquez. EocWEB Office, Iligan City; 11 July 2014
  1. Interview of Ms. Renefe M. Padilla, Director of ICCW, EcoWEB Office, 26 July 2014.
  1. Interview of City DILG Director Emilio Rana, Iligan City, 3 September 2014.
  1. Interview of Naawan MPDO Mr. Salvador Almiñe, 3 September 2014.
  1. Interview of Fisherfolk Associations Federation President Randy Cabardo, Iligan City, 3 September 2014.
  1. Interview of Ms. Blenda Desierto, Manager, PAGLINGKAWAS Multipurpose Cooperative; Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; 3 September 2014.
  1. Minutes of Meetings


  1. Minutes of EcoWEB Board Meeting, EcoWEB Office, Iligan City, 16 December 2012.
  1. Minutes of the 1st  CSO Meeting on BUB, EcoWEB Office, Iligan City; 14 June 2012.
  1. Minutes of CSO Meeting, Iligan City, 10 January 2013.
  1. Minutes of the 1st LPRAT Meeting, Iligan City, 20 January 2013.
  1. Minutes of CSO meeting, EcoWEB Office, Iligan City, 29 April 2014
  1. Minutes Meeting with LanCom officers facilitated by Cherlita Amores, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte, 9 June 2014.
  1. Minutes of CSO meeting, EcoWEB Office, Iligan City, 11 July 2014.