Uploaded by Jeesson Alamar

Towards More Effective LCPC in CRRG

advertisement
Towards More Effective
Local Councils for the Protection of Children
in Child Rights Responsive Governance in the Philippines
A study by the Alcanz Consulting Group
For the Council for the Welfare of Children
May 2012
Painting by Dante Hipolito
http://dhipolito.multiply.com/
Credits and thanks to the artist
for permission to use the photo
Document design and layout: Emmanuel Adorna
Copyright © 2012 Council for the Welfare of Children
All rights reserved
Printed in the Philippines on Recycled Paper
Library of Congress Control Number _____
ISBN: _____
i
Acknowledgement
The study would not have been possible without the leadership of the Council for the Welfare of
Children. The determination of its Executive Director Brenda Vigo, Deputy Executive Director Maria
Elena Caraballo and staff in pursuing the research has been the factor why the study was conceived and
completed. The CWC staff led by Grace Cymbeline Alejandrino accompanied the process and provided
technical and administrative support, from meetings with key stakeholders, secondary data collection and
the preparation and conduct of the Validation Meeting.
The final report as well as the next step of pursuing the way forward benefited from ideas and insights
shared by Undersecretary Austere Panadero. His contributions during the validation meeting helped
shaped the discussions and steered the workshop to fully endorsing the study’s findings and
recommendations.
Colleagues at the National Barangay Operations Office, Director Virgilio Castro, Deputy Director Mr.
Leocadio Treovalo, Dr. Rene C. Raffinan and their staff provided advice and critical thinking at the
validation meeting in addition to having lent their data base of LCPC progress over the years during the
initial stages of the research.
Participants in the Experts Group Meeting held at CWC shared their long experience to enrich the
research design. Similar appreciation goes to the agencies and individuals for their valuable time and
ideas at the Validation Meeting: DILG, NEDA, DSWD, Leagues of Municipalities, Cities and Provinces
in the Philippines (LMP, LCP, LPP) World Vision Philippines and the local governments from the
sampled LGUs.
Many local governments warmly welcomed the study team at various stages of the research. The pre-test
of the Focus Group Discussion instruments was held in the LCPC of Mexico Pampanga where local
authorities likewise aided the team’s initial assessment of the dynamics of inter-agency and community
collaboration in advancing children’s rights and concerns, . The LCPCs in Luzon, NCR, Visayas and
Mindanao shared valuable time, concrete information and view points on LCPC functioning, factors
affecting functionality level and how the LCPC organization and process can be improved, thus shaping
the study and its recommendations.
UNICEF provided the funding for the research as well as a steady stream of advice from its Social Policy
and Child Protection section. In addition, the UNICEF Representative, Tomoo Hozumi expressed active
support at the validation meeting and other venues.
Finally, on behalf of all who participated in the research and helped fashion out the recommendations, we
thank Secretaries Corazon Juliano-Soliman and Jesse Robredo for once more investing in pursuing
sustained excellence in child rights programming at the local level. We look forward to continued support
in a far more strategic stage of the work, which is putting in place the recommendations for a more
sustained and broader functionality of the LCPC.
i
Executive Summary
The 2012 study on the functionality of the Local Councils for the Protection of Children in the
Philippines was undertaken by AlcanzConsult, Inc. as commissioned by the Council for the
Welfare of Children (CWC) and supported by UNICEF Philippines.
Conducted between January and April 2012, the study examined the issues around the
functionality of local councils for the protection of children (LCPC). A combination of research
methods were used: document and literature review; focus group discussions in 31 random and 6
purposively selected LGUs across the country; key informant interviews with LGUs, agencies
and individuals involved in governance and child rights; experts group meetings; and a
Validation Meeting to gather feedback on findings and recommendations. This report presents
the findings and analyses and proposes a roadmap for local government units and other
concerned entities to attain wider and stronger compliance with the nation’s child protection
objectives.
Considerable investments in legislation and initiatives to make the local councils work has been
tried in the last few decades. Yet the general view among agencies concerned with child rights
promotion is that the LCPCs have been ineffectual in improving the situation of the Filipino
children.
Over-all, the compliance with Republic Act 4881 and DILG memorandum circulars (MC)
pertinent to the LCPC has been weak. Based on the 2010 NBOO report and the MC 2008-126
functionality criteria, only around 36 percent of provinces, 56 percent of cities, 44 percent of
municipalities and 34 percent of barangays have functional LCPCs. Retrogressions from
functional to non-functional status are not uncommon. Being categorized as a “functional” LCPC
is not synonymous to a council in operation nor does it imply results for children. There is no
sanction for non-performance and no apparent widespread interest in the Child Friendly Award.
Is the local council for the protection of children inherently defective and ineffectual OR can it
work if it is given the right conditions to prosper and deliver results? Public policy architects face
two possible positions on the question. One, simply consider that the initiatives have been
exhausted and abandon further hope of making the councils work nationwide. This can be done
by simply not paying any more attention to it - which seems to be the current thinking
demonstrated by the (non)attention the LCPC gets at the national and LGU levels. Two, reaffirm
the significant potential value of the councils in advancing the rights of children, recognize that
past initiatives were incomplete and insufficient, and push for comprehensive and reinforcing
changes that could bring about LCPC functionality across the country.
The study adopted the key proposition that weak compliance with the intents of pertinent
legislation and memorandum circulars is directly related to the lack of compelling and enabling
ii
conditions faced by LGUs. The research examined to what extent such conditions exists at the
LGU levels and in the governance framework of the LCPC, and their implications on the LCPC
status.
The research found few but nevertheless exemplary cases of LGUs whose local councils produce
sustainable results for children from comprehensive programs, demonstrating that the LCPC can
in fact be viable. The compelling and enabling conditions are present, for the most part generated
by the local governments themselves. These LGUs have been the exceptions. Below are the
specific findings on the status of the local councils in general:
1. Where LCPCs are supposedly implementing initiatives for children, majority of
interviewed council members point to few, disjointed sectoral achievements suggesting
that their LCPCs do not operate as “councils”. On the other hand, in LCPCs that
mainstreamed child rights in their local plans (the viable LCPCs mentioned above),
programs for children are more creative, comprehensive, sustained and noticeably
tackling children’s issues that cannot be handled by sector agencies acting separately.
This observation points to mainstreaming as a necessary element in the viability of the
local councils.
2. There is a serious lack of awareness on the MCs on child rights and LCPC. The research
encountered frequent confusion and lack of clarity about intent and relationship among
the MCs and budgets.
3. In a number of LGUs, children’s concerns are regarded as matters of charity rather than
issues of rights and development. Children’s issues are topics not discussed among local
authorities and in the public debate. Interviewed staff sees no pressure of such debate at
the national level.
4. The Local Chief Executive (LCE) is the key driver of the LCPC and of local government
programming for child rights. There are currently only few of them, found among the
Child Friendly Award winners and rare LGUs in the research. Distance to the capital, the
Luzon-Visayas-Mindanao and National Capital Region locations, income classification
of LGUs, legal and income classification of cities, did not appear to affect LCPC
(non)performance. While the finding is primarily a result of little variability among the
high percentage of non-performers, the experience showed that LCPC-supportive LCEs
are sufficient to rally the local councils’ performance. When LCEs are not supportive,
initiatives backslide and even LCPC champions from other government agencies or
NGOs are unable to keep the local council from crumbling, let alone deliver sustained
results for children.
5. Change of LCEs after elections result in decreased support for LCPC, in disruptions of
operations as children’s programs wait for attention or worse, in abandonment of
initiatives undertaken under the previous incumbent’s administration.
iii
6. While it is apparent that the LCE plays a singular role in catalyzing child rights
programming at the LGU level and in strengthening the LCPC, the study encountered no
well-thought out or effective mechanism to systematically reach out, sensitize, motivate
and build the capacity of new LCEs and the LGU team in the twin imperatives of
mainstreaming child rights programming into the Rationalized Local Planning System
(RPS) and establishing functioning LCPCs as provided for in the relevant MCs.
7. The situation in the LGUs visited generally conformed with the ratings reported by the
DILG to the NBOO. However, a number of LCPC showed lower levels of functionality
than what was reported and could not show results on children. Moreover, many local
councils at the barangay levels do not receive feedback on their ratings and status.
8. In areas where LCPCs are successful, DILG officials and LCEs mention a sense of
mission and the correctness of the focus on child rights, the political value of child-rights
responsive governance, or professionalism as motivation for ensuring the high quality of
LCE results. It will remain a formidable task to convince LGUs to establish the councils
and comply fully with the intents of the LCPC legislation if the compelling and enabling
conditions are not put in place.
Many of the findings resonate with the problems identified in the LCPC Experts Meeting held on
1 February 2012. The findings and recommendations were discussed extensively in the
Validation Meeting held on 19 April 2012. Convened by the CWC Executive Director, the
meeting called for a shared partnership among the stakeholders to tackle the challenge of
enabling LGUs to programme child rights and make their LCPC function. Although an unofficial
group, the entities in attendance (DILG, NEDA, CWC, DSWD, JJWC, the Leagues of LGUs
(Provinces, Cities and Municipalities) child rights agencies (UNICEF, World Vision, Plan
International, Child Fund, ERDA, Education, and selected LGUs) endorsed the findings and
enhanced the recommendations with operative details.
The main recommendations are:
1. Establish a replication strategy for wider compliance of MC 2009-170/Mainstreaming
Child Rights in the Rationalized Local Planning System (RPS). The strategy will
include the incentive system for compliance and the “knowledge hubs and network”. It
should create the demand to learn what and how to replicate as well the mechanism for
sharing knowledge at various moments and in various forms. The experience of the
CFA and Hall of Fame awardees present invaluable resource for the purpose.
2. Unify, simplify and make the Child Rights Responsive Governance Award a mobilizing
incentive that is truly attractive to LGUs.
3. Redesign the LCPC monitoring system for greater efficiency and improved reporting by
and feedback to constituent LCPC/LGUs. Use the same to mobilize lagging LGUs and
iv
reward the performing ones. The new system will be included as part of the singular
MC on LCPC.
4. Enact a singular coherent government directive/MC, into which existing relevant
corollary directives for LGUs and support sectors can be rationalized and amendments
and new provisos added as needed.
5. As an integral part of advancing the objectives of MC 2009, develop a purposive
advocacy and mobilization plan that will place child rights in the agenda of LCEs and
their teams and in public debate at national and local settings, supported by the
government and child focused UN and non-government agencies.
The five recommendations constitute a package of inseparable components for producing
functional LCPCs (MC 2009 -170) engaged in child programming and systematically delivering
comprehensive and sustained results for children.
The agencies present in the Meeting expressed interest and support for the direction of the
recommendations and called for a concerted action to pursue them under the banner of shared
partnership for child rights. It was agreed that a 5-year ‘project’ will be formulated for
expeditious implementation of the recommendations. A consortium of agencies will form part of
the CWC network to prepare and oversee the development of the different building blocks of the
five recommendations and find the resources to implement the actions. It is the hope of the
participants of the Validation Meeting that by a vigorous and sustained pursuance of the
recommendations of the study, a wide scale strengthening of the local councils for the protection
of children will occur so that mainstreaming of child rights in local development and investment
plans will be the rule rather than the exception.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... i
Note to Reader ............................................................................................................................ i
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................... viii
I.
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
A.
Why Study the Functionality of LCPC? ...................................................................................... 2
B.
Summary of Major Issues affecting LCPC Effectiveness – Experts’ Meeting ............................... 7
II.
PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................8
A.
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................ 8
B.
Key Policy and Research Question ............................................................................................ 8
C.
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 9
D.
Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 10
E.
Structure of the Report .......................................................................................................... 11
III.
KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 12
A.
Local councils viable and can produce results for children ...................................................... 14
B.
Lack of awareness and clarity about the LCPC ........................................................................ 20
C.
Low position of children in the LGU priority list ...................................................................... 21
D.
LCE as key driver of LCPC ........................................................................................................ 22
E.
Elections affect sustainability of the LCPC............................................................................... 24
F.
No effective mechanism to build the capacity of new LGU officials......................................... 25
G.
Deficiencies in current functionality criteria as benchmark of performance ............................ 26
H.
Enabling and compelling conditions are lacking ...................................................................... 29
IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS: ELEMENTS OF A ROADMAP ........................................... 32
A.
The five recommendations ..................................................................................................... 33
B.
Immediate next steps ............................................................................................................. 46
References ................................................................................................................................ 48
Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 49
vi
Annex 1 – Presidential Award for Child Friendly Municipalities and Cities .............................. 49
Annex 2 – LGU Performance Awards ....................................................................................... 51
Annex 3 - FGD Guide Questionnaire......................................................................................... 53
Annex 4 - Laws and Memorandum Circulars Related to Child Rights and LCPC ...................... 57
Annex 5 – Summary of Experts Group Meeting ........................................................................ 60
Annex 6 – Summary of Technical Group Meeting ..................................................................... 62
Annex 7 – Summary of CWC Executive Board Meeting Relevant to LCPC .............................. 63
vii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
CGRC
Child Rights Responsive Governance Resource Center
CSO
Civil Society Organization
CFA
Child Friendly Award
CWC
Council for the Welfare of Children
BCPC
Barangay Council for the Protection of Children
CCPC
City Council for the Protection of Children
DILG
Department of the Interior and Local Government
DSWD
Department of Social Welfare and Development
ECCD
Early Childhood Care and Development
EO
Executive Order
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
GAD
Gender and Development
IRA
Internal Revenue Allocation
KII
Key Informant Interview
LCE
Local Chief Executive
LCPC
Local Council for the Protection of Children
LGU
Local Government Unit
MC
Memorandum Circular
MCPC
Municipal Council for the Protection of Children
MDG
Millennium Development Goals
NBOO
National Barangay Operations Office
NEDA
National Economic Development Authority
NGO
Non-government Organization
PCPC
Provincial Council for the Protection of Children
RA
Republic Act
RSCWC
Regional Subcommittee for the Welfare of Children
SK
Sangguniang Kabataan
UNICEF
United Nations Children’s Fund
viii
Towards More Effective Local Councils for the
Protection of Children in Child Rights Responsive
Governance
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
The general view among agencies concerned with child rights promotion in the country
is that the local councils for the protection of children (LCPC) have been largely ineffectual in
improving the situation of Filipino children. Moreover, it is apparent that numerous initiatives
put in place to make the councils work have not yielded satisfactory results.
2.
Media reports of violations of children’s rights are rampant, and flagrant ones often
occur with impunity. Child trafficking, child prostitution, violence and abuse, social crimes
involving children are common in daily news. The observations in 2008 of the UNCRC
Committee described the country as struggling to enforce laws that protect children. 1 This is
essentially the same conclusion found in the reviews of The State of the Filipino Children Report
of CWC.2 The Philippine Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Report showed a mixed
picture in 2010 but it is evident that serious gaps and issues remain in child protection.
3.
The National Barangay Operations Office (NBOO) of the Department of the Interior
and Local Government (DILG) reported that as of end 2010, LCPC had been established in 69
percent of provinces (55/80), 83 percent of cities (114/138), 80 percent of municipalities
(1195/1496), and 84 percent of barangays (35,163/42,025). However when functionality is taken
into account and only LCPC categorized by NBOO as “mature” and “ideal” are counted, among
local government units (LGUs) providing information the percentages reporting a functioning
LCPC are 61 percent of provinces, 68 percent of cities, 56 percent of municipalities and only 43
percent of barangays.
4.
In addition, the numbers of LGUs that are not reporting are also high, a fact that NBOO
attributes to elections and natural calamities. If one assumes that these LGUs either have nothing
to report or that they belong to LCPCs classified as basic and progressive (i.e. not yet
functional), functional LCPCs as a proportion of total potential number in the nation go down to
36 percent of provinces, 56 percent of cities, 44 percent of municipalities and 34 percent of
barangays. Moreover, the variation in level of functionality reported over the years is a concern.
1
2
See the Observations of the CRC Committee on the Report of the GOP of 2008.
A review of the SOFCR for the last five years supports these observations.
1
The NBOO report noted oscillations between functional and non-functional particularly after
elections.
5.
In the opening session of the Second Forum on Children in the Urban Environment held
on 23 August 2011 at the Ateneo de Manila University, the DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo
lamented the LGUs’ unsatisfactory compliance with laws and Memorandum Circulars related to
LCPC. At the same time he also stressed DILG’s intentions to exert greater efforts to promote
the LCPC’s key role in protecting the rights of children, including children of the urban poor.
A.
Why Study the Functionality of LCPC?
6.
This study was commissioned by the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC) with
support from UNICEF Philippines. Three points below explain the rationale.
First, the main responsibility to create a protective environment for children lies with the
local governments and the Local Councils for the Protection of Children.
7.
This thinking is embodied in two documents - the Local Government Code and
“Protecting Filipino Children from Abuse, Exploitation and Violence: A Comprehensive
Programme on Child Protection, 2006-2010, Building a Protective and Caring Environment for
Filipino Children” produced by the Special Committee for the Protection of Children. The
second document explains the levels of the current child protection system in the country and
emphasizes the need to implement such across sectors and levels of government.
The LCPC is hosted by the LGU where child protection problems are identified, and where
effective preventive, corrective and rehabilitative actions to address them can be taken in a
timely manner. That the LCPC is strategic in the promotion and protection of children’s rights is
expressed in the following extracts from the second document:
Operationalizing a Multi-Level Child Protection System
“Unlike in health where we can speak of the health system or in education where we can speak
of the school system to address the health and education rights respectively of Filipino children,
we have yet to put in place an operational multi-level child protection system which will address
various cases of abuse, exploitation and violence committed against children. But we are not
starting from scratch since there are already existing structures at various levels which when
linked together can operationally function as a multi-level child protection system.
An operational multi-level child protection system – from barangay to city, municipal,
provincial, regional and national level – coordinated by the CWC and the RCWCs will be
primarily responsible for (a) establishing an improved database, monitoring and reporting system
on child protection; (b) initiating collective awareness-raising and advocacy campaigns among
various publics on various forms of abuse, violence and exploitation; (c) coordinating technical
support networks to support the work of implementing agencies at various levels; and (d)
developing policies and standards on the care and protection of children particularly those in
2
circumstances of abuse, exploitation and violence.”
Barangay Council for the Protection of Children
“The Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) is the primary body at the
grassroots level that can effectively address issues of abuse, violence and exploitation against
children – provided that these are properly trained, organized, funded, provided with technical
support, and continuously monitored. The critical actions and milestones that must be done at the
BCPC level include the following 3:







master-list and database on children
situation assessment and analysis on children
action plan for children with corresponding budget
local ordinances on children
monitoring and reporting system on children
annual state of the barangay children report
children's organizations actively involved in BCPC activities
Constituting the base of and the first layer in the multi-level child protection system, active and
functional BCPC in the more than 42,000 barangay nationwide will spell a difference in all child
rights promotion and child protection efforts. Based on previous case studies done, the following
elements contribute to the making of BCPC that work: (a) presence of committed champions for
children, (b) sustained community organizing strategy and process, (c) proactive local
government units, and (d) organized, effective and meaningful participation of children.”
City, Municipal and Provincial Councils for the Protection of Children
“The city, municipal, and provincial councils for the protection of children (C/M/PCPC)
constitute the second layer in the multi-level child protection system. They are the main sources
of support – financial, material, human, and technical – to the BCPC. They will spearhead
advocacy and social mobilization, situation analysis, programme development, modeling of
innovative approaches, partnership and alliance building, monitoring and impact assessment of
interventions, and annual reporting on the situation and progress of children at the city,
municipal and provincial levels. Under the leadership of the local chief executives and/or local
NGO officials, and with the technical management and coordination of the LGU social welfare
officers, the C/M/PCPC will push for a faster process of organizing, strengthening, activating
and sustaining BCPC in all barangay under their jurisdiction. They may consider launching a
search for the most child-friendly barangay based on CWC-developed criteria.”
Regional Committee for the Welfare of Children
“The third layer in the multi-level child protection system, the Regional Committee for the
Welfare of Children (RCWC) will assist the city, municipal, and provincial councils for the
3
Refer also to the DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2005-07 dated 01 February 2005
3
protection of children in all advocacy and programming efforts on child protection in particular
and on child rights promotion in general. The existing functions of the RCWC, which go beyond
child protection concerns, make them strategically critical in regional advocacy, resource
mobilization, capacity building and technical support, networking and alliance building, and
coordination and monitoring of child protection initiatives.”
National Council for the Welfare of Children
“The apex of the multi-level child protection system, the National Council for the Welfare of
Children (CWC) is the government body mandated by law to coordinate and monitor
implementation of the CRC, Child 21, NPAC, and the CPCP. The current CWC Board is
composed of seven government line agencies, three coordinating bodies, three private
individuals (one of whom is a child representative), and two ECCD experts.
The Board provides the policy guidelines and directions on all children's concerns including
child protection. Next to the Board is the Technical Management Group (TMG) composed of
bureau and service heads of concerned government agencies and heads of identified NGOs. The
TMG assesses, prioritizes and recommends plans, policies, programmes, approaches and
strategies for children for approval of the Board. Sectoral Committees and Sub-Committees
assist the TMG in studying more specific areas of children's concerns formulate and recommend
policies and strategies, and monitor and evaluate programmes and projects as needed.”
Second, while the initiatives and investments on the LCPC have been substantive, the huge
potentials to deliver returns for children are yet to materialize. 4
8.
The creation of local councils for the protection of children was first articulated in the
Civil Code (1949) as a matter of State Policy. In 1967 Congress enacted RA 4881, creating the
Council for the Protection of Children at the city and municipal level. In 1974 the country
adopted the Child Welfare Code (Presidential Decree 603), and created the national Council for
the Welfare of Children (CWC).
Given its mandate to guide, monitor, and supervise governance capacity and responsibilities of
LGUs, the DILG took the challenge of establishing the local councils. Between 1990 and 2010,
DILG issued 13 Memorandum Circulars (MCs) primarily to provide guidelines on the
organization and monitoring of the LCPC. CWC and DSWD together with other national
agencies provided technical support.
9.
The seminal MCs issued in 1990, 1991, and 1994 introduced the task of organizing
LCPC and the Revised Guidelines for the Reorganization of Local Sub-committees for the
Welfare of Children. The MCs that followed from 2000 onwards focused on enhancing the
functionality of the LCPC as well as establishing the monitoring and performance rating system
(i.e., MC 2004-52, MC 2005-07, MC 2008-126, and MC 2009-170).
4
The efforts described are by no means exhaustive - manuals on orientation, training activities, resources of child
rights agencies of the UN and NGOs invested in specific programmes to support LCPC.
4
10.
Two MCs (2002-122, 2009-170) specifically called on LGUs to support implementation
of new laws (i.e., Early Childhood Care and Development Act/RA 8980 and the Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act/RA 9344). The MCs dealt with the specific roles of LCPC in the
implementation of governance measures to support various aspects of early childhood care and
development and the prevention and curtailment of juvenile delinquency and related problems,
particularly at the barangay level. They also created separate National Councils distinct from the
Council for the Welfare of Children, and with far more resources, particularly in the case of the
ECCD Council which was funded by government sources and a loan from the World Bank. The
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act provided for the allocation of 1% share of the LGU IRA to
support the costs of LCPC operations apart from introducing model ordinances at the LGU level
to prevent and manage juvenile delinquency.
11.
In 2006, in support of the CWC, DILG issued MC 2006-19, enjoining all municipalities
and cities to participate in the Presidential Award for Child-friendly Municipalities and Cities.
The MC emphasized the effective management of child-focused policies and programs as a basis
for recognizing dedicated governance worthy of Presidential citation.
12.
In 2009, two other relevant MCs were issued: MC 2009-170/Mainstreaming Child
Rights in the Rationalized Local Planning System and MC 2009-100, which calls on local
officials to support the Barangay Human Rights-based Program, with its particular emphasis on a
gender-responsive and child-friendly barangay justice system. In particular, MC 2009-170
articulated the pivotal role of the LCPC in contributing to the LGU’s Comprehensive
Development Plan (CDP) and annual investment plan (AIP) and in ensuring that critical issues
around child rights are incorporated.
Third, the limited studies on the LCPCs suggest that the investments made have not been
enough or uniformly available at the local level to produce the desired results and to make
LCPC function on a nationwide scale.
13.
A 2005 study for UNICEF on the Barangay Councils for the Protection of Children
“BCPC that Work; Documentation of Experience with BCPC in Selected Barangays in CPC 5
Provinces and Cities” (Rialp, 2005) documented ten case examples of BCPC identified by
provincial development offices as among their best and most active. The report highlighted the
key elements or characteristics of the ten BCPC; the major issues affecting children and young
people frequently addressed by the BCPC; and the involvement of children and young people.
Through appreciative inquiry in focus group discussions, BCPC members shared the secrets of
their success. They spoke of a collective history and shared values; identified locally-specific
problems and concerns about their children; had strong community organization in place;
enjoyed an enabling policy environment and good governance; cited effective local leadership;
engaged broad community support and participation, including e.g., child and youth groups,
community watchdog groups, NGOs, faith-based organizations; possessed local planning,
monitoring, evaluation capacity, and diverse funding sources including barangay funds,
5
Sangguniang Kabataan, Gender and Development funds, NGO or UNICEF support; cited
sustaining factors such as their spiritual foundations and the participation of children and youth.
14.
In summary these are highly driven communities with committed champions for
children actively supported by people’s organizations, NGOs, and faith based organizations.
However, effective LCPC led by champions are few; increasing their numbers requires
deliberate identification and nurturing because as this current study also found, even their
strengths do not guarantee sustainability.
15.
In the Filipino Child Policy Brief “Global study on child poverty and disparities:
Philippines,” (Cuenca, 2010) contends that the LCPC matters and that the MCs emphasize its
importance. In general, the LCPC is crucial in sustaining the national efforts in bringing to the
local level the Philippine National Strategic Framework for Plan Development for Children
(Child 21). Child 21 is a roadmap for planning programs and interventions meant to promote and
safeguard the rights of Filipino children. In combination with RA No.9344, otherwise known as
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, the LCPC’s role in coordinating with and assisting
the LGUs in the formulation of a comprehensive plan on juvenile delinquency prevention and in
its proper implementation is established.
16.
She concluded however that while the LCPC really matters, its current status in the
country does not quite show it. She points to the big challenge of convincing LGUs to organize
LCPCs and more importantly, encouraging LGUs to activate, strengthen, and sustain LCPCs
once organized. The factors that hinder LGUs to undertake these responsibilities must be
addressed.
17.
The study “Understanding the Non-organization and Non-functionality of the Local
Council for the Protection of Children in the Philippines: Evidence from Selected Local
Government Units” (Paunlagui, 2011) examined the reasons for non-functionality of the LCPC
in selected LGUs. Paunlagui noted that the number of LGUs complying with the DILG
requirements increased from 2009 to 2010 and attributed the increase to the renewed joint effort
of the DILG and DSWD staff at the city and municipal levels to strengthen the LCPC as called
for in RA 9344. She observed, however, that the ideal level of functionality declined among the
lower level LGUs – with 62 percent of the provinces at ideal level and only 14 percent of
barangays at ideal level. She contended that at the provincial, city and municipal levels, the
functionality of the LCPC could be affected by the lack of support from the Local Chief
Executive and the changes in the composition of the Council every three years or after election.
She cited additional factors that could constrain the functionality of the BCPC namely,
overlapping community-based organizations and the corresponding duties and responsibilities;
limited capacity of barangay officials and staff; and incomplete and inadequate orientation to
strengthen BCPC.
18.
A review of national and field documents and reports found gaps in reporting and
monitoring in LGUs. Some barangays had no development plans or minutes of meetings to
submit to the municipality for monitoring purposes. Where plans were prepared, they were too
6
broadly stated to be implemented. Broadly planned activities included health interventions,
supplemental feeding, mothers’ class and livelihood opportunities, without specifying
implementation date or budgets. Some barangays do not submit any required report; others had
no more than the copy of the resolution creating the BCPC.
19.
On 1 February 2012 the AlcanzConsult team met with a group of 10 experts from child
rights agencies as part of its preparation for the study. The group noted that up to that time LCPC
functionality can be characterized as largely an accidental success, propelled by the few
champions of child rights or few political leaders who find advancing child rights convenient at
that point in time. The group cited the need to go beyond the current limited scale, multiply
champions and reach more LGUs.
B.
Summary of Major Issues affecting LCPC Effectiveness – Experts’ Meeting
20.
In summary, the LCPC Experts Meeting participants highlighted the following issues
affecting LCPC effectiveness:
Box 1 - Major issues affecting LCPC effectiveness identified in the LCPC Experts
Meeting on LCPC preparatory to the study
There is a lack of understanding about what the LCPC is for and why it is organized. The view
is that MCs “encourage”, not “mandate” because directives only “enjoin” compliance.
The link between the LGU and the LCPC is weak, when it is this link that should push and
sustain LCPC functioning.
LGUs complain that they do not have budget and have too much to do in multiple barangay
committees, leading to confusion about what to prioritize.
There is no “follow-through” after LCPC orientation has been given.
There is no baseline information on problems and issues, which is critical for mobilization.
Without the information, no consensus is reached. Even when there are reliable information,
certain issues are not addressed– e.g., drugs, violence.
Changes in leadership (election periods) affects functionality.
7
II.
PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
A.
Purpose of the Study
21.
By examining the functioning of LCPC, the study aimed to come up with
recommendations and a road map to get the LCPC operational and effective in generating results
for children. Because of the generally undeveloped state of the LCPC in the country, the study
particularly sought to examine policy and governance issues in the organization and functioning
of the councils. The findings and recommendations will feed into the State of the Filipino
Children’s Report (SOFCR) for 2011 and contribute to policy and operational adjustments
governing the LCPC.
B.
Key Policy and Research Question
22.
The study adopts the following key policy question for the study: Is the local council for
the protection of children inherently defective and ineffectual OR can it work if given the right
conditions to prosper and deliver results? Public policy architects face two possible positions.
One, simply consider that the initiatives have been exhausted and abandon hope of making the
councils work nationwide. This can be done by simply not paying any more attention to the
LCPC - which seems to be the current trend demonstrated by the kind of (non)attention it gets at
the national level and even at LGU levels. Two, reaffirm the significant potential value of
councils in advancing the rights of children, recognize that past initiatives were incomplete and
insufficient, and push for a comprehensive and reinforcing set of changes that will bring about its
functionality across the country.
23.
The key proposition of this study is that compliance with the laws and memorandum
circulars pertinent to LCPC in the Philippines has been weak to date, but that this is only to be
expected given the lack of compelling and enabling conditions for LCPC to take off and sustain
their mandates. The study considers as compelling and enabling conditions those which lead to
and facilitate the establishment and sustained functioning of the LCPC. The laws and
memorandum circulars, the monitoring and reporting mechanisms, together with accompanying
sanctions and rewards are factors that force compliance i.e., the compelling conditions. So are
one’s sense of mission and buy-in on the rights of children. Factors that increase the ability of
LGUs, LCPC and other entities to advance and sustain the protection of children are the enabling
conditions, e.g., orientation and training, planning and funding support, community organization
and participation.
24.
This position thus seeks to reaffirm the significant potential value of LCPC in
advancing the rights of children, recognizes that past initiatives were incomplete and insufficient,
and argues for comprehensive and reinforcing changes to bring about LCPC functionality across
the country. The research examined to what extent such conditions exist at the LGUs and in the
8
governance framework of the LCPC and implications they have on the LCPC status.
C.
Methodology
25.
From January to April 2012, the study team undertook the following research activities:
a. Literature and Document Review - The team conducted a desk review of documents relevant
to the history and evolution of the LCPC in the Philippines including changes in pertinent
policies and legislations over time. It also reviewed earlier studies on the local councils,
examined the reports of the NBOO-DILG with respect to LCPC and studied the documents on
Child Friendly Award and related good governance awards.
b. Discussions with CWC and NBOO-DILG - The team held a series of discussions with officers
of the CWC and DILG – National Barangay Operations Office (NBOO) to obtain information on
LGUs and LCPC reporting to DILG including process and to gain insights into the issues around
LCPC functionality.
c. Stakeholders consultations - A small consultation with experts primarily from child rights
NGOs was convened by CWC in February 2012 prior to the study to inform the research. This
was followed by the study team’s interviews and meetings with local governance experts.
d. Field data gathering using focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KII)
- Between February and March 2012, the team’s field coordinators conducted interviews and
focus group discussions in selected provinces, cities and municipalities and barangays. The FGD
guide questions developed prior to the field research are in Annex 3. 5 The research instruments
5
Among information of interest to the team gathered in the FGDs and KIIs:
- For LGUs with no established LCPC – why not yet established, if any what alternative structure/mechanism exist to address
child protection issues, what will prompt establishment of LCPC, what LGUs will commit to sustain LCPC work once
established.
- For LGUs that established LCPC that are now inactive - reasons why it became inactive, what LGUs need to reestablish the
LCPC, what will make the LCPC work.
- For LGUs that established LCPC that become functional - how many sustained over time, length of time in operation, key
results, characteristics common to LCPCs that sustain / produce impact on child protection, factors that explain sustained
functionality.
- CWC / DILG / and other entities’ policy and support processes to LCPC functioning - what works / what does not, key
improvements to improve LCPC functionality, CWC actions or non-actions that facilitated LCPC creation and sustainability,
DILG actions or non-actions that facilitated LCPC creation and sustainability, actions or non-actions of Interagency Committees
at different levels with bearing on LCPC functionality.
- The MC push - how well relevant MCs (e.g. the MC 2008 – 216) known and understood by LGUs, how LGU responded and
why, LGU motivations in implementing MCs, how important LCPC is to surveyed LGUs.
- DILG process for evaluating LCPC functionality, description of process, appropriateness / usefulness of functionality criteria in
encouraging LGUs to make LCPC operational and effective, gaps in the process and changes required
- Rewards and sanctions for compliant and non-compliant LGUs, value of rewards and sanctions in enforcement of MCs,
changes required
9
were tested in an FGD with the LCPC and the mayor of Mexico, Pampanga with assistance from
the local DILG officer in January 2012.
Thirty-seven LGUs were covered in the study. Thirty-one were drawn randomly to cover Luzon,
National Capital Region, Visayas and Mindanao, step wise from province, municipalities and
cities and lastly the barangays. Two LGUs were added - a Child Friendly Awardee LGU (Vigan)
and Cebu Province purposively selected for special research interests. Another four barangays
were drawn at random from the 10 BCPC covered in a UNICEF study of best practice in 2005,
added to the sample to look at sustainability overtime. For the total 37 LGUs, focus group
discussions were conducted with the LCPCs and/or local LGU personnel where no LCPCs exist,
using FGC guides.
Key informant interviews were held with selected LGU stakeholders (e.g., mayor, barangay
captain, designated LCPC focal point, DILG officer, DSWD Officer, etc.).
e. Validation Meeting - A Validation Meeting to review the draft report of findings and
recommendations was held on 19 April 2012 with participants from national government
agencies and NGOs, selected representatives of LGUs visited in field research and other
stakeholders. Inputs from the participants were incorporated into this final report of the study.
f. Triangulation - The study team analyzed and weighed the information gathered. Field research
yielded information from the focus group discussions and key informant interviews as well as
documents made available to the team. Additional valuable insights came from the national
agency documents, from the consultations with experts on local governance and child rights at
the national level. Triangulation strengthened the findings of the study. Key interventions at the
experts and Validation Meetings were incorporated in the discussion of findings and
recommendations.
D.
Limitations
26.
The study team tried to cover as many LGUs as feasible during the field data-gathering
so as to increase the generalizability of the findings and conclusions. However, given budgetary
and time constraints and travel limitations, the sample size was reduced from 104 LGUs initially
proposed to CWC to 37. Since the variables being studied appeared to be fairly homogeneous
among clusters of LGUs visited, the limitation probably has no serious impact on the findings of
the study.
27.
In some FGDs, “authorities” attended and it might have resulted in uneven and
constrained participation of LCPC members. A remedy taken by the FGD researchers was to
undertake separate interviews with key LCPC member(s) who they believed had important
experiences to share. Separate interviews confirmed that available documents gathered from the
field were not always adequate or reliable.
28.
One feature of the study is its confidentiality. With the accord of CWC the report makes
reference only to Child Friendly Awardee LGUs and other cases where statements made about
10
the LGUs are positive. The research team is open to providing the reader details of the sampling
frame should it be required but the names of the LGUs members will remain confidential.
E.
Structure of the Report
29.
The report is comprised of the following sections:
Executive Summary
I.
Introduction
II. Purpose and Methodology
III. Key Findings
IV. Elements of a Roadmap
V. References
VI. Annexes
11
III.
KEY FINDINGS
30.
The section discusses the salient findings about LCPC functioning gathered as
described in the section on methodology and consolidated by the team. The highlights are on
issues most frequently or most consistently raised by a wide range of individuals involved in
the establishment, functioning, and support of the LCPC over the years. Some issues are of
more recent relevance and indicate the evolution of the concept of child rights promotion in
the context of good governance and the increasingly significant potential of the LCPC in a
changing environment.
31.
The document reviews and KIIs with experts point to the LGUs’ weak compliance
with Republic Act 4881 and DILG memorandum circulars (MC) pertinent to the LCPC.
Based on the 2010 NBOO report and the MC 2008-126 functionality criteria, only around 36
percent of provinces, 56 percent of cities, 44 percent of municipalities and 34 percent of
barangays have functional LCPCs. Retrogressions from functional to non-functional status
are not uncommon. Being categorized as a “functional” LCPC is not synonymous to a
council in operation nor does it imply results for children. There is no sanction for nonperformance and no apparent widespread interest in the Child Friendly Award.
32.
The field research found few but nevertheless exemplary cases of LGUs whose local
councils produce sustainable results for children from comprehensive programs,
demonstrating that the LCPC can in fact be viable. The compelling and enabling conditions
are present, for the most part generated by the local governments themselves. These LGUs
have been the exceptions. Below are the specific findings on the status of the local councils
in general:
Box 2 - Key findings
A. Where LCPCs are supposedly implementing initiatives for children, majority of
interviewed council members point to few, disjointed sectoral achievements suggesting that
their LCPCs do not operate as “councils”. On the other hand, in LCPCs that mainstreamed
child rights in their local plans (the viable LCPCs mentioned above), programs for children
are more creative, comprehensive, sustained and noticeably tackling children’s issues that
cannot be handled by sector agencies acting separately. This observation points to
mainstreaming as a necessary element in the viability of the local councils.
B. There is a serious lack of awareness on the MCs on child rights and LCPC. The research
encountered frequent confusion and lack of clarity about intent and relationship among the
MCs and budgets.
12
C. In a number of LGUs, children’s concerns are a matter of charity rather than an issue of
rights and development. No change is forthcoming under the current state - children’s issues
are topics not discussed in the public debate among local authorities and interviewed staffs
see no pressure of such debate at the national level.
D. The Local Chief Executive (LCE) is the key driver of the LCPC and of local government
programming for child rights. However, there are few LCE drivers, found among the Child
Friendly Award winners, and rare LGUs in the research. Distance to the capital, the LuzonVisayas-Mindanao and National Capital Region locations, income classification of LGUs,
legal and income classification of cities, did not appear to affect LCPC (non)performance.
While the finding is primarily a result of little variability among the high percentage of nonperformers, the experience showed that LCPC-supportive LCEs are sufficient to rally the
local councils’ performance. When LCEs are not supportive, initiatives backslide and even
LCPC champions from other government agencies or NGOs are unable to keep the local
council from crumbling, let alone deliver sustained results for children.
E. Change of LCEs after elections result in decreased support for LCPC, in disruptions of
operations as children’s programs wait for attention or worse, in abandonment of initiatives
undertaken under the previous incumbent’s administration.
F. While it is apparent that the LCE plays a singular role in catalyzing child rights
programming at the LGU level and in strengthening the LCPC, the study encountered no
well-thought out or effective mechanism to systematically reach out, sensitize, motivate and
build the capacity of new LCEs and the LGU team in the twin imperatives of mainstreaming
child rights programming into the Rationalized Local Planning System (RPS) and
establishing functioning LCPCs as provided for in the relevant MCs.
G. The situation in the LGUs visited generally conformed with the ratings reported to the
NBOO. However, a number of LCPC showed lower levels of functionality than what was
reported and could not show results on children. Moreover, the local councils at the
barangay levels do not receive feedback on their ratings and status.
H. In areas where LCPCs are successful, DILG officials and LCEs mention a sense of
mission and the correctness of the focus on child rights, the political value of child-rights
responsive governance, or professionalism as motivation for ensuring the high quality of
LCE results. It will remain a formidable task to convince LGUs to establish the councils and
comply fully with the intents of the LCPC legislation if the compelling and enabling
conditions are not put in place.
33.
Many of the findings resonate with the problems identified in the LCPC Experts
Meeting held on 1 February 2012 summarized in Box 1, Section I.B. The following is a more
13
detailed discussion of each of the findings:
A.
Local councils viable and can produce results for children
Where LCPCs are supposedly implementing initiatives for children, majority of
interviewed council members point to few, disjointed sectoral achievements suggesting
that their LCPCs do not operate as “councils”. On the other hand, in LCPCs that
mainstreamed child rights in their local plans (the viable LCPCs mentioned above),
programs for children are more creative, comprehensive, sustained and noticeably
tackling children’s issues that cannot be handled by sector agencies acting separately.
This observation points to mainstreaming as a necessary element in the viability of the
local councils.
34.
Over the last 14 years, the achievements of the 547 LGUs6 that vied for the
Presidential Award for Child Friendly Municipalities and Cities, in particular the 307
regional awardees and 38 national winners and Hall of Famer LCPC/LGUs, have provided
evidence that LCPCs can succeed and deliver results under the administration of LGUs. Two
national winners -Vigan and Mandaluyong – included in the study are good examples. Annex
1 has a complete listing of national winners and Hall of Fame LCPC awardees.
35.
The number of LGUs that have vied for the award might likewise suggest that the
Presidential Award for Child Friendly Municipalities and Cities has to some extent been an
incentive for some LGUs to strengthen LCPC and demonstrate broad-based and sustained
results for children.7A review of relevant documents on CFA and visits to recent LGUs that
have vied for the award strengthen this conclusion. See Table 1.
36.
Another apparent positive factor is a supportive mindset among some LGUs, i.e.,
that doing good for children is the correct thing to do. “A sense of mission” and “Childfriendly governance is good politics” are phrases likewise mentioned. Can awards by
themselves be incentives for LGUs to deliver results for children or are both LCPC success
and awards outcomes of deeper motivation (e.g. a sense of mission or professionalism)? The
answer might be the first, the second, or both for different LGUs. Clearly, awards are at the
very least useful for encouraging exemplary LGUs to come forward – and hopefully assume
a bigger mission for children in a wider context. Whatever motivates LGUs to vie for the
award, the CFA represents an incentive that might be made compelling enough to stimulate
LCPC success for some LGUs. There are sufficient indications that LGUs involved in CFA
tended to form strong LCPCs and mobilize constituent ones – exercising leadership that
permeated the LGU political and sectoral spheres.
6
The numbers of repeat LCPC winners will factor down these figures. CWC is presently reviewing the files to
complete the data on repeat winners to give a more accurate listing per region.
7
The award was established in 1999 at the initiative of the Council for the Welfare of children through
Executive Order No. 184. In 2006, DILG issued MC 2006-19, enjoining all municipalities and cities to
participate in the Presidential Award for Child-friendly Municipalities and Cities. The award is conferred on
deserving local government units in recognition of their vital role in sustained promotion of children’s rights to
survival, development, protection and participation as well as in ensuring child friendly governance.
14
37.
CFA recognition of LGUs on the basis of demonstrated results for children contrasts
sharply with NBOO’s criteria for assessing LCPC functionality. “Mature” or “ideal” LCPC
mainly report on process indicators called for by MC 2008-126 (i.e., documentary proof that
the LCPC was established, record of meetings, copies of plans and budgets, and
accomplishment reports). CFA LGUs generate results for children and appear to be driven by
such results to further improve and enhance using existing LGU planning and programming
tools such as annual work plans and investment plans. In contrast non-CFA LCPC generally
did not use these tools, and were therefore limited to ad hoc projects and routine sectoral
activities.
38.
The LGUs in CFA also had higher budget allocations (CFA criterion implies budget
from 5 percent to more than 30 percent of total LGU budget) compared to non-CFA mature
and ideal LCPC that are generally limited to 1 percent of their IRA if at all supported by
budget.
39.
Excluding Vigan and Mandaluyong which are CFA Hall of Fame and national
awardees respectively, the study found that of the 37 LGUs covered, only few approximate
the level of motivation, planning, resource generation, process achievements, and programme
accomplishments of CFA LGUs. Few can show results for children beyond the usual sector
programme results.
40.
The important finding remains: the CFA LGUs and the LGUs in the study that
approximate the achievements of the CFA awardees demonstrate that they can indeed
mainstream Child 21 and the Five Year National Programme of Action for Children within
their Comprehensive Development Plans and Annual Investment Plans. They demonstrate
the role of LCPC as outlined in MC 2009-170/Mainstreaming Child Rights in the
Rationalized Local Planning System.
41.
They follow the process requirements of MC 2008–126, deliver the results
demanded in the CFA, and set the standards for other LCPC and LGUs to emulate.
Box 3A - Highlights from the Validation Meeting
In reference to the CFA awardees and a few LGUs in the study, DILG Undersecretary
Panadero remarked at the Validation Meeting that “these are truly functioning LCPC. They
set the standard against which LCPC functionality should be assessed in the future.”
15
Table 1 – Selected information on results for children generated by the LGU/LCPC participating in
Child Friendly Awards
LGU
Hall of Fame
Vigan
National Winner
Mandaluyong
KEY INFORMATION ON OUTCOMES
Regional winner since 2006, 3-time national winner

Continuing reduction in IMR: 12.86 (2008); 11.0 (2009); 5.01
(2010

Reduction in severely underweight preschool children: 0.33%
(2009) and 0.27% in 2010 which LGU attributes to its nutrition
education, micronutrient supplementation and feeding programs
(earning for it the Green Banner Award among Region 1 cities in
2010) and its food production initiatives through bio-intensive
gardening, dairy and livestock production and improved
agriculture technologies ( which earned for its City Agriculture
and Fishery Council the Most Outstanding CAFC of the
Philippines in 2009.)

Improving indicators for elementary school participation rates:
63.19% (SY 2008-09) to 77.17% (2009-10) and completion rates
80.23% (2008-09) to 90.24% (2009-10)

Improving indicators for secondary school participation rates:
96.92% (2008-09) to 126.14% (2009-10) and completion rates
55.04% (2008-09) to 126.14% (2009-10)

Increasing investment in children: P82.3 million (2008); P83.7
million (2009); P97.3 million (2010)

Expanded child protection services include: community-based
services to prevent delinquency and drug abuse, Unlad-Kabataan,
pre-marriage counseling, legal assistance for abused children,
foster care, adoption, protective services for neglected children,
Sagip-Batang Manggagawa, and diversion service for children in
conflict with the law. Award-winning PNP women and child
protection desk continually disseminates information on rights of
children using tri-media

Decrease in severely underweight pre-schoolers: 265 or 0.54% in
2008; 144 or 0.29% in 2009; 113 or 0.23% in 2010

Project TEACH (Therapy, Education and Assimilation of
Children with Handicap) an early intervention program for
children with special needs directly benefits 178 indigent children
– with increased numbers expected as more children are evaluated
and diagnosed. In less than a year of implementation, the project
16
was cited by World Bank as an innovative program under its
“Panibagong Paraan” competition and given P1 million support
grant.
CFA Participant firsttime entry 2011
Villaverde, Nueva
Vizcaya

In 2008 the city constructed Bahay Lingap – a facility for children
in conflict with the law and for street children – which to date has
served almost 300 children with social service interventions,
values formation activities, skills training, formation of music
band, in close working relationship with police Women and
Children’s Desk and SWDO.

BCPC and CCPC plans linked with Comprehensive City
Development Plan and Investment Plan under leadership of City
Planning and Development Office
 New mayor reorganized and strengthened MCPC with active
involvement of sectors, especially youth, and organized the
Technical Working Group to support MCPC
 Substantial resource allocation for children: P15.7 million (53%
of total budget) in 2009; P13.1 million (38%) in 2010
 Improving educational performance e.g. General Mean
Percentage Score of students of Villaverde Central School:
73.79% in SY 2007-08; 82.74% 2008-09; 87.0% in 2009-10.
Drop-out rate for 2009-10 was 0.33%.
National Winner 2010
CFA Entry 2011
6-time Regional Awardee – Child-Friendly City

Decreasing malnutrition prevalence rate (0-5 yrs old):11% (2004);
6% (2005); 5.50% (2006); 4.20% (2007); 4.14% (2008); 3.30%
(2009)

Decreasing maternal mortality rate: 0.58 (2007); 0.5 (2008); 0.54
(2009); 0.36 (2010)

Improved elementary performance on the National Achievement
Test for school years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-2009 respectively:
Mathematics – 59.76; 69; 74.49; Science – 56.96; 66.46; 73.35;
English – 60.16; 66.78; 74.84

Women and Child Protection Desk – Olongapo City Police has
been consistent regional and/or national awardee since 2004 for
its protection services
Olongapo City
National Winner 2007
CFA Entry 2011
Jordan, Guimaras
Regional awardee – 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009; national finalist 2006, 2008,
2009

Continuing improvement: IMR 5.57 in 2009 reduced to 1.01 in
2010; MMR 1/1000 in 2009 to 0/1000 in 2010
17
CFA Entry 2011

Priority to Scholarship Program guaranteed in ordinance to
institutionalize and continue program with whoever may sit Chief
Executive and legislative officials

Investment plan for children includes Capability-building budget
for MCPC, BCPCs and Child-Friendly Movement initiatives:
P205,000 (2008), P230,000 (2009), P290,000 (2010)

Increase in day care participation rate due to free tuition and
materials from city government: for 3-4 year olds – 53% in 2008
to 62% in 2009 and 77% in 2010; for 5-year olds – 96% in 2008
to 100% in 2009 and 124% in 2010.

100% birth registration in 2010

Creation of the Inter-agency Monitoring Task to monitor and
evaluate the functionality of the LCPC and BCPCs and coordinate
search for Most Child Friendly Barangay

Continuing support since 2005 for the Violence against Women
and Children Campaign Network and initiatives to address
problems: e.g. capacity building for BCPC officials; formation of
Quick Response Team (PNP, Liga ng Barangay president,
CSWDO, S. Isabela General Hospital, Youth Affairs Office of
Mayor’s Office, NGOs), shelters for child and youth victims
Santiago, Isabela
CFA Participant
Regional Winner 2011
San Francisco, Agusan
del Sur
LGU cited its greatest accomplishments as

Profiling of 0-17 years old children as basis for responsive policy
making, program and project development initiatives of the LGU

Formation and mobilization of the San Francisco Family and
Child Advocates (SF-F&CA)

Mobilization of the SF-F&CA on child related activities including
the Child Friendly Movement

Down to the household awareness-raising on the Child Friendly
Movement to include e.g., small business operators, jeepney and
motorcycle operators, schools, academe
The document submitted for evaluation showed a Comprehensive Local
Development Plan for Children with forthright situation analysis
identifying critical issues of children and gaps in protection system, key
result areas and strategic interventions, as well as a detailed Child
Investment Plan (2008-2012). A section on Monitoring and Evaluation
focuses on MCPC and BCPC functioning, implementation of Annual
Investment Plan, implementation of relevant child protection policies and
laws, CSO contributions to Child Friendly Movement, review of policies
and ordinances on children
18
Box 4 - The Mandaluyong City Council
for the Protection of Children
Winning in the Child Friendly Award for Regional Highly Urbanized City category in 2009 and then as
national winner in 2010 in the same category, Mr. Leo Urmeneta, the Executive Director of the City Council
for Child Protection - himself a champion of child rights for many years, attributed Mandaluyong’s success to
the following:
1. Dedication of the Local Chief Executive to children’s rights. The Mayor mobilized the human and financial
resources of the city and led his team of barangay officials to do the same for child rights.
2. Dedication of the core members of the technical working committee of the CCPC. The members represent
the different sectors and have different specializations; thus, programs are comprehensively planned,
implemented and monitored. Moreover, indicators and parameters needed for the different concerns of the
children can be easily identified and measured.
3. Cooperation from the 27 empowered barangay chairs and the Council. All the barangays in the city deliver
results for children and have their BCPC reached and maintain ideal category.
3. Innovative programs for children including: 1) Project TEACH - a unique learning program for the poor and
disabled children which employ therapy education assimilation; 2) the creation of the breast-feeding patrol, a
group of breast-feeding mothers who can be called upon during emergencies to breast-feed hungry babies; 3)
millennium baby project for the health care of women and their babies; 4) education programs and projects
which reduce the teacher-student ratio at the elementary level from 1:38 in 2008 to 1:33 and at the secondary
level to 1:31 in 2010; and 4) the 1:1 book to student ratio in all levels.
During the FGD with the CCPC of Mandaluyong it was clear to the research team that tremendous
transformative change has happened with the members and the leadership in the City. That they embraced child
rights programming and investing in children’s programmes initially as their road to winning the CFA in the
region, it was apparent that such drive has now completely been integrated in their mainstream work.
One feature of the City Council is the effort being exerted at the CCPC to enhance the capacity of the BCPC to
plan, budget, implement and monitor the projects of the BCPC. The CCPC organized several workshops to
teach the Barangay Council to prepare their Annual Investment Plan and Work and Financial Plan. There were
barangays who requested for such workshops upon learning what the CCPC does.
Finally, a requirement to be a winner of CFA is that at least 30 percent of the budget should be dedicated to
child-related programs and projects. In the case of the City of Mandaluyong, when the combined allocation of
the City and the cash and in-kind contributions from the many non-government organizations, the allocation
went up to 40 percent. The City counts on the support of many partners from the business, religious, and nongovernment organizations who the CCPC sought and nurtured with demonstrably sustained results.
At the FGD with the CCPC attended by senior managers of AlcanzConsult, we were impressed not so much by
the litany of the city’s accomplishment but by the apparent dedication and deep commitment the team has
placed in their work for children. The team were clearly professionals in their sectors but also were an integral
part of a city team with passion for protecting child rights in the city.
19
B.
Lack of awareness and clarity about the LCPC
There is a serious lack of awareness on the memorandum circulars on child rights and the
LCPC. The research encountered frequent confusion and lack of clarity about intent and
relationship among the MCs and budgets.
42.
Some LGUs and LCEs at municipal
Box 3B - Voices from FGD
and barangay levels are still unaware of
legislations and circulars on the organization of
the MCPC and BCPC. The personnel of DSWD
and DILG tasked with bringing the MCs to the “Mayroon bang Memorandum Circular iyan
attention of the LGUs at times have failed to do (referring to BCPC?” asked one Chairman of
so, citing their lack of time among many a barangay to some members of the FGD from
competing tasks. What LGUs understood from the barangay before the start of the FGD. “Eh
the circulars is that they are asked to organize saan kukunin ang budget niyan”, asked
another? “Akala ko ay natigil na yan (LCPC)
the LCPC, convene meetings, formulate and
when the ECCD project budget finished?”
show that there are plans, accomplishment
was often heard among participants of the
reports, and other documentation. Most LGUs FGD.
are confused about the value of the LCPC given
the existence of sectoral programmes, and are unaware of the budget provision or other sources
that can be tapped. Some established the LCPC because of the DILG directive, held a meeting,
but did not know what to do next as there was no orientation from any agency or the LGU
covering them.
43.
The introduction of the ECCD implementation at BCPC level and more recently of the
Juvenile Justice and Care program confused some LCPC about their roles, functions and scope
of work, funding support, and reporting lines. The new programs created additional demands on
LCPC capacity to handle the multi-sectoral concept of child protection, as against being confined
only to the objectives of the two programs. With the stoppage of ECCD program
implementation, some LCPC that were provided some capacity building in planning, budgeting
and monitoring have also stopped operations with the end of financial support from the ECCD
project.
Box 3C - Voices from FGD
“Hindi ho pinapansin yan (referring to LCPC) kasi
walang budget. Saan nga ho ba kukunin ang budget
ng komite na ito? At saka wala naman ho ito sa mga
priority na isunusulong ng gobyerno,” are oft
repeated questions and comments from FGD
participants.
“Ito ho palang LCPC ay importante rin at mukhang
mayroon evaluation ngayon,” commented one
participant in the FGD before the meeting began in
one LGU.
44.
Most LGUs are not clear about
where they can draw funds for LCPC.
Earlier circulars pertaining to LCPC did
not mention budgetary allocations and this
was seen as a damper on LGU interest and
an indication that the subject was not
really a government priority. It was only in
2008 that an MC was issued for LGUs to
20
use 1 percent of IRA for LCPC, and many LGUs are still unaware of this provision. However
recent directives state that IRA funds can no longer be used for non-infrastructure projects; while
most LCPC activities have to do with strengthening capacity for assessment, planning and
investing for child rights. The 1 percent IRA allocation also pales in comparison with those of
the other councils/institutions that are contained in the Local Government Code (Sanguniang
Kabataan 10 percent, Calamity funds 5 percent) and executive issuances (Gender and
Development 5 percent), although some LCPC manage to tap into these and other funds. For the
sectoral programs for children that they implement, the national, provincial and municipal
sectoral agency funds are used. Other LCPC have benefited from contributions from NGOs or
private sector. There are few examples of provinces and cities/municipalities that allocate special
funds for the LCPC in their respective annual development plans.
45.
In general the higher level LCPC
do not mobilize their constituent LGUs in
making their local councils work. Most of
the LCPC visited did not see any reason to
mobilize their constituent LGUs to
establish and make their LCPC function or
do better. They do not see it as their role
and a few cite the MCs as reference. It is
noteworthy that the MCs do not task the
higher level LCPCs to rally and mobilize
opportunity.
Box 3D - Voices from FGD
“Nang huli po naming pagusapan ang tungkol sa
subject ng bata ay noong may dumating na mga
lumang damit na kailangan ipamigay sa barangay.
Matagal na matagal na po iyon.” answered one FGD
participant when asked how often do the town
authorities talk about children in their work.
their constituent LCPCs. This gap is a missed
46.
One finds exceptions like the Cebu PCPC or the CCPCs in Vigan and Mandaluyong.
They mobilize their constituent LCPCs because they believe that the achievement on children’s
concerns is the sum of the work of their councils and that of their constituent ones. Because they
orient and train their constituent LCPCs, the percentage of functional LCPCs under these LGUs
are higher than in places with no higher level LCPC support.
C.
Low position of children in the LGU priority list
In a number of LGUs, children’s concerns are a matter of charity rather than an issue of
rights and development. No change is forthcoming under the current state - children’s
issues are topics not discussed in the public debate among local authorities and interviewed
staff sees no pressure of such debate at the national level.
47.
In most LGUs visited, the participants in the FGDs say that programming around
children’s issues receives a much lower priority when compared to other funded mandates, such
as those viewed as matters of security, disaster mitigation and the like. A general perception is
that problems of children are best left to parents and their families, or that the concerns of
children are sufficiently addressed by existing specific sector programs.
21
48.
Although the research team heard local
Box 3E - Voices from FGD
functionaries repeatedly mention child rights in the
FGDs, there seemed to be little understanding of the
need to analyze the situation of children, and to
“Upang maging matagumpay ang
formulate and implement strategic measures supported
mga plano, kinakailangan ng LCPC
by resources. LGUs do not see children as an issue
ang isang lider na siyang mamumuno
equal to the big topics of the day: e.g., disaster
at ang tulong na rin ng bawat
management, livelihood, crime that are often reechoed
miyembro ng organisasyon. “ (LCPC
member).
at all levels. In the national scene, there may seem to be
moments when children take center stage: e.g., in 1973
“Wala kaming magagawang ganito
when a prominent Philippine newspaper front page
kaganda kung wala ang support ni
headlined “Malnutrition in Philippines worse than
Mayor”, remarked another.
Bangladesh,” or when media reports on mudslides and
fires that ravage houses with children in them. But the
silent deaths of young children from sickness, the numbers of out-of-school children every year,
the quiet suffering of the undernourished, the unheard screams of young girls trafficked and
raped do not produce the convulsion and moral outrage that they should. The absence of such
outrage is also impacting on the attitude of LGUs towards child rights and LCPC.
D.
LCE as key driver of LCPC
The Local Chief Executive (LCE) is the key driver of the LCPC and of local government
programming for child rights. However, there are few LCE drivers, found among the Child
Friendly Award winners and some LGUs in this study.
Distance to the capital, the Luzon-Visayas-Mindanao and National Capital Region
locations, income classification of LGUs, legal and income classification of cities, did not
appear to affect LCPC (non)performance. While the finding is primarily a result of little
variability among the high percentage of non-performers, the experience showed that
LCPC-supportive LCEs are sufficient to rally the local councils’ performance. When LCEs
are not supportive, initiatives backslide and even LCPC champions from other government
agencies or NGOs are unable to keep the local council from crumbling, let alone deliver
sustained results for children.
49.
The study observed that when LCEs accord genuine importance to children, and/or see
political capital in investing in the LCPC, the following are more likely to happen: LCPCs get
organized, plans and programs for children are formulated, resources are found even beyond
what is stipulated officially; effective monitoring is undertaken; constituent
municipalities/barangays are mobilized to attend to the needs of children and to establish and
activate MCPC/BCPC. They produce results for children.
50.
This is similar to the NBOO thinking that it shared with the study team before the field
research began. NBOO officials recognized that the active support of the LGU leadership has
22
direct impact on the functioning of the LCPC, recalling that DILG Secretary Robredo himself
had headed Naga City as a Hall of Famer in the Child Friendly Awards.
51.
Such LCEs adopt appropriate tools for planning and monitoring, find ways of
mobilizing sector officers to play their roles, and move local officials to engage the communities
as first level protection for children. They engage local CSOs effectively. If not familiar with
child protection, the LCEs expand capacities in advancing children’s rights by selecting
knowledgeable members to become part of the LCPC and by observing and learning from
examples of functioning LCPC. When LCEs take the circulars to heart, results are seen in terms
of impact on children (e.g., results listed in the 24 indicators for CFA) and the sustained
functioning of LCPC to oversee the planning, programming, investment and implementation of
actions that are child rights responsive.
52.
The LCEs go beyond the usual tendency to regard children’s concerns are adequately
addressed by sectoral programmes and budgets. 8They have overcome this bias and recognize the
need for ‘council type” structures and coordinated efforts to respond to the issues around
children that require the involvement of communities and families and demand complex
strategies beyond simple sectoral programming.
53.
Even in instances when the LCE is not at the forefront of LCPC functioning, and
instead others such as NGOs or other officials take the lead, the LCPC still benefits from the tacit
approval from the LCE where s/he does not assume an oppositionist or obstructionist stance
toward the LCPC.
Box 3F - Voices from FGD
“Having good functional LCPC is good for children, for our city and for our politics; it is a win-win
strategy,” Mayor Medina honestly declares during the KII with the lady executive.
“The result of this enlightened leadership is that everyone is working in the city to support children’s
rights.,” says one of the Vigan LCPC members. Further, according to Frederick Bitonio, the City
Local Government Officer and a key player in the Vigan CCPC, “It is not surprising that the Hall of
Fame winner can show sustained outcomes for children as part of our work because we are driven by
such outcomes.
54.
In contrast, reports from the field attest that when the LCE is not interested or not
committed, little happens. The LGU plans and programs poorly for children and the LCPC do
not get established or, if established, do not function properly.
8
This point of view is common but dangerously inaccurate. Substantively, sectors do address children’s rights but
sectors have their own programming templates that are slow to adapt to change and requirements that vary from
area to area. A good example is that while departments of education around the world are generally good in their
core task of teaching, they do not automatically think and search for children who out of school or are unable to
enroll. In addition there are rights of children that are the subject of interagency, collective action by the very
nature of those issues. There are also rights of children for which the best protection framework are families and
communities.
23
55.
The FGDs indicated this phenomenon consistently. In Vigan, Mandaluyong, Cebu
province and Cebu City, the leadership has made huge difference. Mandaluyong demonstrates
that the local council sees LCE leadership as a crucial factor to LCPC functioning. (See box).
Hall of Famer Vigan is another proof of the importance of LCE leadership, with the lady mayor
inspiring the larger LGU team to integrate child rights into the overall development programme
and budget of the city.
Box 3G - Voices from FGD
“Nawala na ho ang file naming ng mga circulars tungkol sa LCPC nang magpalit ng barangay
chairman,” confessed one kagawad who was represented at the FGD.
“Noon ho ay matatag ang aming council pero noong mapalitan ang pamunuan makatapos ang
eleksyon ay hindi na kami kasing active,” lamented one FGD participant. Such remarks are heard
many times in different locations.
56.
Cebu Province and Cebu City are widely recognized for having strong champions of
LCPC. The Cebu PCPC is headed by the Vice Governor who also authored the Children’s Code.
Being well connected with other government officials and funding institutions, the vice governor
is able to promote the cause of children in the province.
57.
The Cebu City Council for the Protection of Children is equally active. It counts among
its champions the former first lady of Cebu City and now city councilor. She used to head the
UNICEF supported urban basic services program implemented by the Cebu City Inter-Agency
Coordinating Council for Children that is now an active member of the Cebu City Council for
the Protection of Children.
E.
Elections affect sustainability of the LCPC
Change of LCEs after elections result in decreased support for LCPC, in disruptions of
operations as children’s programs wait for attention or worse, in abandonment of
initiatives undertaken under the previous incumbent’s administration.
58.
A frequent reason cited by many LCPC members for the deterioration in the councils’
functionality are the electoral changes that usher in new LCEs, the majority of whom do not
receive critical orientation on LCPC. Newly elected leaders may show different priorities and
little interest in LCPC. Across the local councils visited, the commonly mentioned effects of the
election of new LCEs are changes in LCPC composition, funding changes and delays, and loss
of files or poor turnover of the same. The effects are more markedly felt when the new leadership
belongs to a political affiliation opposed to the incumbent LCPC members – whether public
officials or non-government individuals.
59.
The case in point is that of one CFA Hall of Fame LGU in Luzon where political
24
changes undermined the achievement of many years because there is no system to effectively
draw the newly elected LCEs into child rights governance. Nor is there a system in the face of a
change of LGU leadership to maintain the motivation of Hall of Fame or CFA winner LGUs
beyond the three recognition awards and the Hall of Fame status.
60.
It should be noted that the experts’ group meeting also emphasized the above
conclusion to the research team: “The group noted that changes in leadership (election periods)
affects functionality.” NBOO and the PIDS reechoed the same in their official publications.
F.
No effective mechanism to build the capacity of new LGU officials
While it is apparent that the LCE plays a singular role in catalyzing child rights
programming at the LGU level and in strengthening the LCPC, the study encountered no
well-thought out or effective mechanism to systematically reach out, sensitize, motivate and
build the capacity of new LCEs and the LGU team in the twin imperatives of
mainstreaming child rights programming into the Rationalized Local Planning System
(RPS) and establishing functioning LCPCs as provided for in the relevant MCs.
61.
Not any single agency nor the collective of the Local Government Academy, the
League of Cities, Municipalities and Provinces, CWC, sectoral government agencies, nongovernment child rights agencies, and faith based organizations possesses at the moment a
comprehensive and defined system to effectively reach and influence the Local Chief Executive
on the issues of child rights programming and the LCPC. What exist are the laws and the
memorandum circulars with no follow-up mechanism for compliance, a few valuable manuals
that are in short supply and unknown to many LGUs and LCPC visited, some sporadic
orientation done by NGOs in limited areas where their programmes are situated, and limited
capacity building in the Local Government Academy for urban LCEs involved in children’s
issues. CWC has plans to embark on a wider system of orientation and training but this is yet to
advance.
62.
An unexploited resource is the experience of CFA awardees in replicating good
practice. For example, the mayor of Vigan asks “Where do we go from being a Hall of Famer
except to continue our good work? No one has asked us to help replicate and we are willing.”
Mandaluyong is also ready to share its good practices more systematically if asked. Both cities
host ad hoc visits from LGUs on their own. If left unaided, sharing visits are likely to be
problematic for the host LGUs as they tend to be unplanned and provided without the benefit of
pedagogy and follow-up action. It is noteworthy that replication strategies of local governments’
good practices such as GOFAR has already well developed systems in place. CWC initiated
some work on best practice replication but funds were not available to push the project further.
63.
The study found that DILG local officer in most cases was at the forefront in getting the
LCPC established by placing before the LCE the Executive Order for signature. Beyond this, the
DILG and DSWD were found helpful more often than any other agencies in getting the LCPC to
function by facilitating the work of the Chair or the Co-Chair.
25
64.
The FGDs pointed out that the engagement of the community, NGOs and CSOs
contribute to relevant planning and sustained implementation. They provide expertise and
support in community mobilization and in participatory planning for children. Some LCPCs
expand their membership to include more NGO representatives (beyond number stipulated in the
MC) or tap them as needed. Volunteers from the community are sometimes chosen over other
local officials so as to minimize getting embroiled in politics. The presence of child-focused
funding agencies can enhance not only the programming capability but also the financial
sustainability of the LCPC.
65.
However valuable the support of CSOs, NGOs and faith based organizations may be,
such support cannot stand alone, particularly when the LCEs are not fully supportive of child
programming. Among the 10 barangays included in the Best Practices Study in 2005, a key
factor for success was NGO and CSO support. Of the four BCPC revisited as part of this study,
three could not sustain the work when the LCE support weakened.
66.
In summary, it was clear from the LGUs visited that the system lacked a dependable,
continuous and defined mechanism to reach the LCEs and to build and sustain the capacity of
teams in child rights programming.
G.
Deficiencies in current functionality criteria as benchmark of performance
The situation in the LGUs visited generally conformed with the ratings reported to the
NBOO. However, a number of LCPC showed lower levels of functionality than what was
reported and could not show results on children.9. The actions taken by the LGUs were in
general superficial and perfunctory. Moreover, the local councils at the barangay levels do
not receive feedback on their ratings and status.
67.
As described earlier, a few LGUs approximated the work of the CFA LGUs/LCPC. In
these LGUs the LCPC are active. In addition to complying with the process requirements of MC
2008-126, they also assess the situation of children based on information they collect, design
actions and invest resources to address problems that affect children, and take legislative actions
which implies engaging the Sangguniang Bayan in their localities. Such LGUs approximate the
description of a fully functioning LCPC.
68.
Otherwise in most other cases, LCPC work was superficial and perfunctory - basically
responding to the process requirements of the MC in the rating system. 10 They did not benefit
9
The study did not investigate whether or not the NBOO ratings were accurately reflected in the LCPC work and
situation in the LGUs covered. However the study noted a few cases of inaccurate reporting leaning on making the
LCPC appear more functional than it really is or reporting as established an LCPC that has not been set up.
10
The tendency to regard LCPC as a matter of complying with MC process requirements leads to the following
scenario, already an optimistic collage of frequently heard explanations in the LGUs visited: the DILG officer
posted at the LGU prepares the EO for the newly elected LCE’s signature to establish the LCPC, a reportable item in
the DILG system. After the LCPC establishment, the LCE’s involvement might already end at this point. The
sectors represented at the local level might meet four times as required, with no other function except to
acknowledge membership. Each member might cull from his/her sector duties those that could pass as child-related
with their corresponding budget, put them together to complete the LCPC plan of activities and budget, continue
doing one’s sector work and report it as part of the LCPC accomplishment whenever the report is required. If the
26
from a systematic analysis of children’s situation; programming appeared ad hoc in some, and
what is shown as the work of the LCPC is usually a simple aggregation of what sectors have
been doing in the past. What LGUs understood or conveniently understood from the circulars is
that they are asked to organize, convene meetings, formulate and show plans / accomplishment
reports and other similar documentation – with little mention of results for children. Partial
understanding of the rationale behind the LCPC is traceable to various reasons discussed in later
sections of the report. One that needs mentioning at this point is the misleading formulation in
the MCs particularly with respect to rating performance as it overemphasizes the superficial
process based rating system without interest on what really went on and obscures the essence of
establishing LCPC, namely, to generate results for children’s well being 11.
69.
For most LGUs that establish the LCPC, the main challenge is in attaining true
functionality for the LCPC. After establishment, many LCPC do not receive the proper
orientation, adequate training, and technical support that they need to become functional. Many
LGUs were at a loss on how to get oriented on LCPC and from which agency to seek help. The
BCPC were the least informed on where to find support. Many have never seen or heard about
the CWC manuals on organizing barangay councils. Some MLGOOs said that they are not
trained and do not feel competent to follow through the establishment of MCPC and BCPC.
Some DSWD staff voice similar concerns about lack of expertise as well as time and workload
constraints. Only some LGUs received
Box 3H - Voices from FGD
satisfactory orientation for MCPC and
BCPC members usually from a pool “Naorganized na po ang aming LCPC kaya lang ngayon
of trainers drawn from local lang kami magmimiting,” said one member of an
government, NGOs, and sector LCPC.referring to the day coinciding with the FGD.
agencies.
70.
LCPC plans and projects for children are generally ad hoc and disjointed, following
classic sector templates. There is little appreciation of the need for collective data on the overall
situation of children, of a shared cycle of assessment, and evidence-based programming and
reprogramming of agreed results. In most cases, the functional service delivery capacity of
various national departments now devolved at the sub-national levels have overshadowed the
members are aware of the 1percent of IRA allocation of the LCPC, however miniscule, it might figure out in the
budget or it might not. One or more members’ social awareness might cause them to want to do something for
children but does not know how and see no source of guidance. In any case, the LCPC submits compliance reports
to the local DILG and the latter would give a rating to the former as to its status as an LCPC. Based on the NBOO
criteria, our hypothetical LCPC would reach a rating of at least a MATURE LCPC. There are many variations in the
story but the ending is the same: unless the LCE is committed and takes a concerned role, unless the compelling and
enabling conditions as well as the incentives to perform and the disincentives to neglect are set in place, the LCPC
has little hope of delivering to the Filipino children.
11
In the research team’s meeting with DILG USEC Panadero, he recounted to the group the agony of the team that
prepared the MC 2008-126 as they debated whether they would go for results or for the process indicators. The
decision favored the latter and one sees the result of the decision. The USEC believes that a wise next step from here
would be to continue using the process indicators and to add only two results (maybe one in health and one in
education) to constitute the first award in CFA which would to be called the Seal of Functioning LCPC. The Seal
would then be a precondition to other DILG awards and the CFA. The strategy would serve to make functionality
the norm among the LGUs rather than the exception, following the success of the Seal of Good Housekeeping.
27
strategic rationale for LGUs to create the LCPC. Because the formative importance of a council
type of organization for children particularly in planning, policymaking and social mobilization
has not been emphasized, many LCPC simply choose to continue with the service delivery
systems in health, education, etc. which were already in place before the establishment of the
LCPC.
71.
It is only when sectoral agencies sit down and discuss problems of children that are not
addressed by the agencies in the LGUs (e.g., drug addiction, trafficking of children, child labor,
etc) that LCEs and the agencies themselves appreciate the value of collective assessment,
analysis, planning and policy actions.
72.
The focus group discussions and field interviews reveal that most provinces,
municipalities and barangays display weak capacities in planning, policy advocacy and
investment programming for children. This is despite the fact that at the national level, DILG,
CWC and other sectoral departments are fairly competent and the guidance for mainstreaming
the National Plan of Action for Children 2005-2010, and its implementing program framework,
Child 21 (2000-2025) as well as the Comprehensive Plan for Child Protection exist - all of which
are attuned to achieve the MDGs by 2015. Although DILG has recently anchored the
functionality of the LCPC on performing responsibilities of planning, advocacy and investment
programming, many LGUs have not been able to prepare the comprehensive local plan that will
be the basis for preparing their annual investment programs. Most annual investment programs
are based on individual submissions of sectoral departments (reflecting traditional programs on
health, supplementary feeding, etc.) and have little cross-sectoral issues of policy advocacy,
research and new problem areas that emerge.
In the initial phase of the research, there were no firm yardsticks and benchmarks against which
the current state of the LCPC can be assessed. A conceptual model of a well-functioning and
effective LCPC can be developed but whether it would be applicable to the Philippine context
would still be a question for some future time. In the course of data gathering, the research team
came across local LCPC experience mainly coming from the CFA recipients that proves that not
only is an LCPC workable – it can function well, be effective in delivering results for children
and more importantly, blends efficiently in the Philippine local governance context. Putting
varied experience together including those established earlier, brings out the basic requirements
for an effective functioning LCPC: LGUs and LGU teams receive orientation and support for
planning, child-concerns are mainstreamed not sectorally handled so that inter-sectoral concerns
also receive attention, LGU and agency staff expand capacities thru own experience and shared
learning, acceptable monitoring systems are set in place to track progress and detect emerging
problems and opportunities, the work of the council and initiatives are funded, community
members assume their role, children are fully involved. In addition, sanctions for nonperformance and rewards for achievements are sufficiently motivating to the LCE and the LGU
team.
28
H.
Enabling and compelling conditions are lacking
In areas where LCPCs are successful, DILG officials and LCEs mention a sense of mission
and the correctness of the focus on child rights, the political value of child-rights responsive
governance, or professionalism as motivation for ensuring the high quality of LCE results.
It will remain a formidable task to convince LGUs to establish the councils and comply
fully with the intents of the LCPC legislation if the compelling and enabling conditions are
not put in place.
73.
The reason why the compliance of LGUs to the above mentioned laws, PDs and MCs
on LCPC is low and variable is the insufficiency of compelling and enabling conditions to make
LGUs establish LCPC and manage their
work. The compelling and enabling
conditions were generally weak, disconnected
Box 3I - Highlights from Validation
and spotty, and not sustained.
Meeting
74.
Neither the LCPC nor protection of
children’s rights is included in the Local
Government Code. The circulars on Child
Protection came much later after the laws and
decrees that preceded them. They are not
funded mandates and LCPC came with a
small budget provision of 1 percent of IRA.
No sanctions were applied for noncompliance. The inclusion of Child Rights or
the functionality of LCPC in key governance
awards as a criterion is limited.
The NEDA Assistant Director
General for Regional Development
Marcelina Bacani emphasized at the
Validation Meeting that “whenever
NEDA
issues
an
important
memorandum, a support system to
back it up is mounted and
monitoring of compliance is
undertaken to ensure some degree of
success in the project”. She asserted
that this is the key to better
compliance of circulars.
75.
According to a senior DILG Officer,
the local DILG personnel at the LGU finds it
imperative to prepare the Executive Order for
the LCE to establish the LCPC after the
elections as this is one of the reportable items
in the DILG system. There were a few cases of LGUs visited where he/she failed to do so, citing
lack of time and competing tasks.
76.
But beyond the establishment of the LCPC, there is little follow up on its functioning.
77.
During the meeting between NBOO and the research team, Assistant Director Leo
Treovalo stressed that assisting LGUs to attain the first two levels of functionality – BCPC
organization and meetings – were clearly the responsibility of DILG. However, achieving the
higher levels of functionality – with policies, plans, budgets, accomplishments - were the shared
responsibility of participating agencies e.g., the interagency task force for monitoring, the DILG
and LGU. He pointed out that DILG has no coercive power over LGUs except for the provinces
– none over cities, municipalities and barangays. It can only seek to influence policy directions
29
through promoting “best practices” and recognition awards, peer-to-peer learning with
replication and re-entry plans.
78.
He further indicated that in accordance with the Memo Circulars, DILG facilitates the
organization of the BCPC by initiating talks with the local DSWD office, the mayor and city
administrator, and persuades them to create the MCPC. The executive order and the
Sangguniang Bayan resolution to create the Council are then enacted. However, after the
creation of the LCPC, the capacity-building for the substantive work remains unclear. Although
DILG and DSWD generally take the lead, he stressed that technical assistance should be
provided as an interagency effort.
79.
The sectors represented at the local level also do not have clear terms of reference with
respect to the LCPC – leading members to continue their respective sector’s work and report it as
part of the LCPC report.
80.
The incentives to perform and the
disincentives to neglect are not in place for
LCPC and child rights programming.
Box 3J - Voices from FGD
“Ang dami dami po naming priorities. Ang
mga issues around children are responsibilities
of sectors” said one LCPC member.
81.
LGUs
and
LCEs
mentioned
conflicting priorities and institutional demands.
Because of the large number of memorandum
circulars they receive, they are often unable to keep up with the releases and to see how they are
connected with each other. They face conflicting priorities and overlapping demands with the
slew of local institutions that they must establish, especially when these are related to children’s
issues. The Local Government Code spells out a number of institutions (councils, boards,
committees etc.) to be created by LGUs, including among others: Local Health Board, Education
Board, Peace and Order Council, Barangay Justice, Local Disaster Coordinating Council, etc. At
the barangay level, there are about 16 such institutions that need to be organized - including the
BCPC - invariably chaired by the LCEs. The task of creating and managing these have been a
challenge for the LCE, DILG, barangays and other sectoral agencies and units of the LGUs.
Some LGUs try to resolve their dilemma by combining meetings (e.g., BCPC with Barangay
Development Council) or combining / equating councils (MCPC with Municipal Peace and
Order Council). LGUs also comment that even without meetings, the different LGU units
concerned with the development of children have their plans, list of accomplishments, and
reporting systems anyway. Moreover, the organization of LCPC tend not to be seen as important
by the LCE, DILG and other sectoral agencies given that many of the other barangay-based
institutions have specific budgets provided in the LGUs’ Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses or from specific tax ordinances like the Health and Education Boards.
82.
Monitoring systems are weak. Monitoring systems for LCPC are generally weak and
problematic. The focus group discussions revealed that the LGUs’ knowledge of the LCPC
monitoring system is poor. Some of the LGUs do not even know their status. They say that the
monitoring system is felt by LGUs only when they are asked to submit their documents, but they
hear nothing after that with respect to their performance. Nonetheless they know that there has
30
been no LGU called to explain why LCPC does not exist or is poorly functioning. Many feel that
the higher level LCPC is only interested in getting their reports every year but is not interested in
the real functioning of their LCPC or in supporting it. The interagency monitoring task force
system did not appear to be functioning, as it is mostly DILG reporting. Serious gaps in nonreporting LGUs and gaps in the accuracy of reporting affect the ability of the system to use the
system for programme management. A few initiatives by LGUs to better monitor their LCPC are
not always sustained in the face of personnel, funding, and time constraints.
83.
The monitoring and reporting of NBOO on functionality are hardly compelling for the
non-reporting LGUs nor the ones categorized with basic and progressive LCPC. Incentives to
perform and the disincentives to neglect are not in place and disconnected initiatives in support
of LCPC are hardly apparent to the LGUs.
84.
Prior to the conduct of field research DILG Assistant Director Treovalo raised the
apparent need to revisit the index of functionality currently in use, to see whether or not it was
adequate and to rectify the mismatch between expectations and actual resources and capacity to
implement the criteria. He also expressed concern about the “mandate” assigned to barangays to
organize the BCPC, given the many things they are expected to do.
31
IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS: ELEMENTS OF A ROADMAP
85.
In his keynote address at the Validation Meeting, DILG Undersecretary Austere
Panadero outlined the parameters of a roadmap for action. He spoke of conditions that are ripe
for the LCPC to “move on” toward mainstreaming and making all LGU efforts child-friendly by
programming from the child’s lenses. In other words, LGUs should start implementing the
guidelines set forth in the MC 2009-170.
Figure 1 Validation Meeting Opening
Undersecretary Austere Panadero of the DILG at the validation meeting of the LCPC study held in NEDA Pasig on April
19, 2012, giving an overview of key issues that need to be addressed to strengthen the LCPC and child rights governance
in the LGUs. On his left are the UNICEF Representative Tomoo Hozumi and CWC Executive Director Brenda Vigo.
86.
He affirmed that LCPCs are viable and can be empowered to work better. To go beyond
current levels and dimensions of LCPC functionality means good performance tracking based on
results. Scaling up calls for incentives to demonstrate good performance, documenting and
replicating good practice, and creating a sustainable delivery system to reach and cover the
critical areas in the LGUs.
87.
The five recommendations discussed in this section aim to connect disparate efforts into
one collective national project to back MC 2009–170 Mainstreaming Child Rights Programming
which Undersecretary Panadero underscored as the principal MC on child rights programming at
the LGU. The five recommendations underpin the enabling and compelling conditions in support
of LGU efforts to make LCPC more effective.
88.
The areas correspond to a great extent to the recommendations of the Child Rights
experts group meeting held on 1 February 2012 as part of this study. Annex 5 lists the aspects
which the experts asked the study team to look into in terms of measures to activate LCPC.
89.
The findings and recommendations were discussed extensively in the Validation
32
Meeting held on 19 April 2012 and were well-received by the attendees. Convened by the CWC
Executive Director, the meeting called for a shared partnership among the stakeholders to tackle
the challenge of enabling LGUs to programme child rights and make their LCPC function.
Although an unofficial group, the entities in attendance (DILG, NEDA, CWC, DSWD, JJWC,
the Leagues of LGUs (Provinces, Cities and Municipalities) child rights agencies (UNICEF,
World Vision, Plan International, Child Fund, ERDA, Education, and selected LGUs) endorsed
the findings and enhanced the recommendations with operative details. CWC informed the
meeting that an expanded Technical Working Group co-chaired by DILG and CWC will be
expanded to follow up the recommendations in the study.
90.
A.
The recommendations indicate that actions must be formulated to:

Enable the entry of child rights issues in public debate as a compelling force for
LGUs to consider in their local decision making

Clarify the objectives of the LCPC, articulate the aspects and dimensions of LCPC
functioning, rectify mechanisms where needed, and delineate roles and
responsibilities at the LGU level of all stakeholders - to address the issues and areas
of confusion mentioned in the findings.

Reach the LCEs effectively on a continuing basis to convince him/her of the value
of doing good for children (translated as compliance to MC 2009-170 and
generation of results specified by Child Friendly Awards) as a critical public good
as well as political capital.

Equip his/her LGU team with knowledge of good practice relevant to his/her LGU
through accessible replication techniques that work among the LGUs, e.g., by
tapping the performing LCPC/LGUs as learning sites and mobilization loci.

Use the LCPC performance monitoring system as a reference for LGUs to show to
their constituents how well the LGU is performing

Reward the performing LGUs with ladder type recognition levels, ascending at
successive stages of improvement based on results on children.
The five recommendations
i.
Establish a replication strategy for wider compliance of MC 2009-170/Mainstreaming
Child Rights in the Rationalized Local Planning System (RPS). The strategy will include
the incentive system for compliance and the “knowledge hubs and network”. It should
create the demand to learn what and how to replicate as well the mechanism for sharing
knowledge at various moments and in various forms. The experience of the CFA Hall of
Fame and national and regional winners present invaluable resource for this purpose.
ii.
Unify, simplify and make the Child Rights Responsive Governance Award a mobilizing
incentive that is truly attractive to LGUs.
iii. Redesign the LCPC monitoring system for greater efficiency and improved reporting by
33
and feedback to constituent LCPC/LGUs. Use the same to mobilize lagging LGUs and
reward the performing ones. The new system will be included as part of the singular MC
on LCPC.
iv. Enact a singular coherent government directive/MC, into which existing relevant
corollary directives for LGUs and support sectors can be rationalized and amendments
and new provisos added as needed.
v.
As an integral part of advancing the objectives of MC 2009, develop a purposive
advocacy and mobilization plan that will place child rights in the agenda of LCEs and
their teams and in public debate at national and local settings, supported by the
government and child focused UN and non-government agencies.
91.
The five recommendations comprise a package that must be treated as a set of
inseparable components to obtain the intended result, i.e., child programming with results
accompanied by fully functional LCPC (MC2009-170). Any permutation without the full set will
not meet the twin conditions of being necessary and sufficient for results to materialize. Hence it
is important that the follow-up be done by a consortium that shares the manifold responsibilities
inherent in the recommendations. It is suggested that a five-year project be formulated and
implemented following the recommendations.
The recommendations are discussed in detail below:
i)
Establish a replication strategy for wider compliance of MC 2009170/Mainstreaming Child Rights in the Rationalized Local Planning System (RPS). The
strategy will include the incentive system for compliance and the “knowledge hubs and
network”. It should create the demand to learn what and how to replicate as well the
mechanism for sharing knowledge at various moments and in various forms. The
experience of the CFA Hall of Fame and winners present invaluable resource for this
purpose.
92.
A project to establish learning/replication centers or knowledge hubs in every region is
recommended to be organized by CWC and DILG. In partnership with the Local Government
Academy, Leagues of Cities, Municipalities and Provinces, the Galing Pook Foundation, and
international and national child rights agencies, CWC and DILG will select the CFA LGUs in
every region to compose the knowledge hub and ensure that there is a replicable experience for
cities, towns and provinces on MC 2009/170. The project will utilize the good practices of the
CFA participants, regional winners and the Hall of Famers as resource for replication. It will
engage support from stakeholders who will view the replication effort as a “project”
accompanied by clear objectives and strategies and affordable level of resources to sustain the
replication effort over time. It will leverage the assets of the sponsoring agencies particularly
those assets that attract the captive audience of LCEs and ensure that the system covers the
project costs and staff costs of knowledge center LGUs. It will ensure that such learning
34
opportunities will be available in all 17 regions.
93.
The project will design the curriculum in partnership with the chosen learning centers
and will allow variations in emphasis according to which good practice in the site can most
benefit the learner LGUs. The development of materials useful for sharing the good practice may
also be tailored for the learning centers. The project will seek partnership and accreditation with
the Development Academy of the Philippines (such as what League of Municipalities has with
some courses for Mayors) and other institutions for local leadership development such as
University of the Philippines, University of Makati and Ateneo de Manila University to make the
courses even more attractive to the LCEs and the staff of the LGUs.
94.
The replication strategy will combine tested approaches to reach first time LCEs at the
municipality, city and provincial levels, create demand from the LCEs and their teams and
provide intensive learning opportunities for LGUs who want to mainstream child programming
as outlined in MC 2009-170. The goal is to have LCPCs function like CFA awardees and
hopefully reaching the lagging LGUs.
95.
A consortium among CWC, DILG and the LMP, LCP, LPP, the Galing Pook
Foundation, the LGA and Child Rights Organizations will be formed to ensure such learning
opportunities will be available in all 17 regions. Leveraging CFA LGU experience into a
regional resource for replication is envisioned. The national Hall of Fame awardees can also be
learning sites for national level events involving LCEs, other government authorities and
lawmakers.
96.
The knowledge site for every region can be called “Child Rights Responsive
Governance Resource Center” (CGRC) consisting of the network of CFA and Child Rights
Responsive Governance awardees. The regional resource centers can be housed at the specific
CFA LGU Hall of Famer or the closest to this level. A learning center for PCPC will also be
established for provinces who wish to replicate the good practice of PCPC. The regional resource
center may be brought under the official auspices of the RSCWC and funded by the combined
resources of the government, UN agencies, NGOs working on child rights. A scanning of similar
existing resource centres, e.g., Local Governance Resource Centre, Gender and Development
(GAD) Resource Centre can determine whether they can be tapped for the purpose.
97.
Each regional CGRC will work with the Provincial Councils for the Protection of
Children (PCPC) to support MCPC and BCPC. The regional CGRC with the specific support
from DILG and CWC, the Leagues of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities and members of the
RSCWC would have the following functions:

Share good practices with LGUs in their region, facilitate the establishment of LCPC and
its functioning, including building LCPC capacity in planning and programming for
children; based on the curriculum demands in the region, organize conferences, seminars,
and symposia on sharing lessons and best practices related to governance and protection
among provincial partners in a region or among regional counterparts; provide guidance
on the use of planning, monitoring and evaluation tools related to children’s
35
programming and investment; develop multi-media advocacy packages to supplement
those developed for nationwide use by the national project management team.

Assume the responsibility for monitoring the LGUs in the region with respect to the
programming for children and the work of the LCPC. This implies maintaining a
database on child governance issues, policies, services, and best practices that will be
accessible to MCPC and BCPC in the region. This will specifically entail the evaluation
of LGUs that wish to be evaluated for child rights responsive governance in coordination
with the CFA awarding system. Under the auspices of the RSCWC, it can act as
secretariat to awards and incentive projects promoting the welfare of children. The full
authority for the evaluation and certification especially for the Seal of Functioning LCPC
would reside with the RSCWC.

Under the auspices of the RSCWC, coordinate the work of the cooperating NGOs and
CSOs in mobilizing regional and national resources to facilitate capacity building of
MCPC and BCPC by ensuring uniform mobilization strategy and the availability of
materials to the partners, as well as in targeting the LGUs to be mobilized.
98.
A network of NGOs and CSOs working on the rights of children should be deputized by
the DILG and CWC to be part of specific regional resource centers, with their respective staff to
be engaged in the work of the CGRU. Agreement can be inked at the national level when the
NGO or CSO is national in scope or in specific regions when they are region- specific. At the
same meeting with NBOO and the LCPC research team, the Assistant Director also related how
DILG is exploring partnerships with NGOs and mapping civil society organizations, and
partnering with Church and interfaith groups, for example in the NCR. They look to the NGOs
and the UN as organizations which can support the entire infrastructure and make sure that
things work better.
99.
The supporting agencies to the CGRC will create a project management team at the
national level to ensure that support is provided to the different resource centers. The project
management team will ensure that proper curricula and training materials are available, that the
right people are engaged in the centers, and that there is a work program capable of reaching the
goals set by the government. The team will ensure that media exposure of the good practices is
continuous and effectively reaching the LCEs. It will adopt the replication strategies already well
defined in the DILG, Galing Pook Foundation and others, such as the E-library of good practices,
adoption workshops, LGA courses, policy forums and media promotion, among others.
100.
A deliberate and systematic peer-to-peer approach is integral to the replication strategy.
LGUs should be similarly situated and the practices to be shared should be simple and doable.
The learning event should be demand-driven – and by enrolment – with both practitioner-host
and replicators willing to commit and enter into a Memorandum of Agreement. Participants to
the inception workshops are limited to the LCE and those directly involved in the practice to be
replicated (not the entire staff). Workshops are done on-site, and directly engage stakeholders
and their roles in the practice. More importantly, work plans are formulated before leaving for
home-LGU and the learning exchanges do not end with the workshop. The host LGU mentors
36
and coaches the replicators until the successful completion of the latter’s plans.12
101.
A platform developed by the League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) for
continuously reaching LCEs should form part of the solution. LMP oriented newly-elected
municipal mayors in 2007 (297 mayors) and 2010 (359 mayors) through a program aptly called
‘Orientation for Newly Elected Mayors’ (ONE-M). LMP
hopes to conduct ONE-M again in 2013 with the support of
the WB, AusAID and CIDA. Each ONE-M features sharing
of exemplary practices to newly elected mayors by mayors
(peer-to-peer approach) using a strategic management
framework. An exemplary practice on child rights and child
protection could be featured in the ONE-M module. The
shared practices can be listed in a menu of programs that an
LCE can take during his/her term. A training module on
child rights could earn credits under the LMP-DAP
equivalency program which could give mayors a masteral
degree in Public Management and Local Governance.
Figure 2 Interventions at the Validation
Meeting
Rommel Martinez Chief, Policy and
Programme Office, League of
Municipalities expressed full concurrence
for the replication of LCPC good practices
and pledged the support of the LMP.
102.
Moreover, LMP has regular venues for discussing
and articulating children’s issues such as its provincial
chapter meetings, national directorate meetings, island
cluster conferences (LVM), General Assembly, etc. Similar
approaches for the Leagues of Cities and Provinces and
Barangays must also be explored and leveraged.
103.
During the Validation Meeting, the NEDA
confirmed the crucial need for capacity-building not only
for LCEs but for the LCPC teams as well. The decentralized
structure of governance in the Philippines has resulted in difficulties in coordination. While the
effectiveness of the LCPC depends largely on the political will of the local officials and
commitment of other stakeholders tasked to protect and promote the rights of children, there are
also issues regarding capacities and competencies of the LGUs and other stakeholders. In a 2010
UNICEF Situation Analysis on Children and Women, it was reported that the Barangay Council
for the Protection of Children (BCPC), even when functional, are not always capable of doing
their functions effectively. The Report cited that many BCPC are the first agencies to receive
reports of child abuse but are not adequately equipped to handle such cases.
104.
Sub-national structures such as the Regional Subcommittee for the Welfare of Children
(RSCWC) under the Regional Development Council (RDC) are important for scaling up
successful models of intervention for children. Most of them need to develop their capacities for
managing inter-agency collaboration.
12
Methodologies for replication of good practices being used by institutions like the DILG, GPF, LGA and the
Leagues of LGUs are valuable, instructive and will be employed in the CGRC.
37
ii)
Unify, simplify and make the Child Rights Responsive Governance Award a
mobilizing incentive that is truly attractive to LGUs.
105.
There is a need to revisit and reform the Child Friendly Award to achieve the following:

Unify the awards that exist around child rights

Make the process of participation less onerous

The award becomes more highly coveted

More LGUs participate and become winners across the country

The Hall of Famers have further rewards to look forward to
Other incentives given by the DILG should include, whenever possible, as one of the conditions
the seal of functioning LCPC. It should also consider putting weight on winning in the CFA as
one measure in the awards for LGUs.
106.
The redesign of the Child Friendly Award should explore the following features:
a) There should be a unified award system on child rights – The Child Rights Responsive
Governance Award could consist of four awards, all Presidential awards, with joint assets and
mechanics set up by the GPF and the CWC.
The first two awards could be that currently spelt out in the MC 2008-126 and second would be
based on the requirements of MCs 2008 and 2009 with the key results of the CFA as central
feature. The third award will recognize innovative projects addressing child rights deprivation as
already being done by GPF. The fourth award is for outstanding performance as regional center
for replication (municipal, city, province level) among CFA winners and Hall of Fame recipients
to recognize specific innovation or success in replication.
Within the second award, it is envisioned that LGUs at the province, municipality and city levels
would be encouraged to provide their own awards to constituent LGUs as part of the
mobilization process.
b) The awards should be municipal, provincial and national. Except for the national level, which
is already defined, each LCE would provide the prize in cash or in-kind (like a day care center as
given, for example, by the Misamis Oriental Governor to outstanding LCPC in recent years).
This will ensure wider participation. The Mayors can do the same at his/her level for the
constituent barangays.
c) The invitation for participation in CFAs should be made by the consortium and always with a
member of the consortium which has the strongest pull on the LCEs.
38
Box 3K - Highlights from Validation
Meeting
d) Simplify the documentation requirements and regionalize
the process of screening with CGRC’s participation under
the auspices of the RSCWC and a screening consortium up
to provincial winners. National Screening team will still do
the evaluation of the national winners. National winners will
include the same four categories of cities and municipalities.
Participation of provinces will be invited as well and
additional resources for this addition will be made.
e) Increase the prizes particularly for lower income
municipalities including perhaps by securing endowments
from the private sector.
f) Engage the media in covering the stories of CFA winners
for wider social mobilization.
g) The new reference directive should detail the monitoring
and assessment mechanics and performance criteria. A good
model of the evaluation is that of the Galing Pook Award.
Monitoring would be only at the level of towns and
municipalities and provinces based largely on concrete
results for children obtained by the LGU rather on the
process indicators of the current monitoring system.
h) Also part of the monitoring and the evaluation for
certification is the extent to which constituent LGUs of a
higher level LGU are also able to advance in the same
results. Only recipients of the Seal of Functioning LCPC can
vie for the higher three awards.
107.
Work with DILG and other institutions to integrate
the LCPC as part of various awards currently being given
for good governance
The existence of LCPC can be made as a prominent factor
like the Seal of Good Housekeeping which earns 5 points
and is a precondition to the Pamana Ng Lahi Award and
other DILG awards13. The inclusion of the LCPC as part of
the scorecard of the monitoring of LGPMS is an important
step in some areas visited and should be more widely
practiced.
13
The National Economic and
Development Authority Director of
Social Services Staff expressed both
support and reservations about
revisiting the CFA: “On the Child
Friendly Awards (CFAs), we
support the recommendation to
revisit the existing tools used to
focus on results. We, however,
suggest that the current awards
under the CFA be retained. The
CFA has been an institution built
over the years since 1999. Special
awards for the municipalities and
cities with the most functional
LCPC though may be added. This is
on the condition that the present
NBOO
criteria
for
LCPC
functionality are
refined
as
suggested by the discussion paper
presented at this Validation
Meeting. What must be done at this
point is to intensify campaign for
the CFA to get wider participation
among the LGUs. This has to be
done in collaboration with the
various Leagues.
The LCPC
functionality may also be included
as one of the criteria for the Seal of
Good Housekeeping as suggested
by the study.”
See Annex 2
39
iii)
Redesign the LCPC monitoring system for greater efficiency and improved
reporting by and feedback to constituent LCPC/LGUs. Use the same to mobilize lagging
LGUs and reward the performing ones. The new system will be included as part of the
singular MC on LCPC.
108.
While the study suggests that the current process indicators in the MC 2008-170 can
Box 3L - Highlights from the Validation Meeting
As Undersecretary Panadero stressed at the Validation Meeting, incentives and
awards for scaling-up and creating a critical mass of effective LCPC will allow
progressing from awards for a select few to recognition of many more highperforming LGUs and LCPC. Linking LCPC more deliberately with Seal of Good
Housekeeping, Pamana ng Lahi, Galing Pook Award, and Performance Challenge
Fund are immediate examples.
still be used for the Seal of Functioning LCPC to create a ladder type of awards, there is a need
to revise the modality of assessing LCPC functionality on the ground. The following changes are
suggested:

The assessment for the Seal of Functioning LCPC will be done by the CGRC under the
auspices of the RSCWC with support from consortium agencies, support of the PCPC in
assessing municipalities and cities and RSCWC when assessing provinces. When an
LGU has not requested for assessment or has not been awarded it implies that the LGU
has not reached the standard.

The list of LGUs with the Seal of Functioning LCPC will be publicized and will be in the
DILG and CWC webpage permanently. Media support will be secured for the public to
understand the meaning of the recognition.

The Seal will require one result indicator each for two sectors (health and education are
candidate sectors) in addition to the functionality indicators in MC 2008 -126. The
sectors will choose the result to emphasize and attain nationwide. The sectors will pool
resources to finance the prizes for the Seal of Functioning LCPC.
109.
During the meeting between NBOO and the research team, the need to review the
index or measurement of LCPC functionality and look into the efficacy of the Inter-Agency
Monitoring Task Force (IAMTF) were pointed up. There is no clear delineation of
responsibilities among the agencies and much of the monitoring is limited to submission and
compilation of reports. There are also gaps in the database e.g. in identifying which LGUs have
yet to establish LCPC and in ensuring accuracy in reporting.
40
iv)
Enact a singular coherent government directive/MC, into which existing relevant
corollary directives for LGUs and support sectors can be rationalized and amendments and
new provisos added as needed
110.
There is a need to revisit the 13 Memorandum Circulars issued by DILG from 1990 to
2010 on promoting good governance and providing guidance on the organization and monitoring
of functionality of the LCPC. MCs issued in1990, 1991 and 1994 introduced the task of
organizing Local Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC) and the Revised Guidelines for
the Reorganization of Local Sub-committees for the Welfare of Children. Those that followed
particularly from 2000 onwards focused on enhancing the functionality of the LCPC as well as
establishing the monitoring and rating system for gauging performance of LCPC ( MC 2004-52,
MC 2005-07, MC 2008-126, MC 2009-170). Two MCs (2002-122 and 2009-170) were
specifically issued to call on LGUs to strengthen their efforts to support implementation of new
laws (i.e., ECCD Act/RA 8980; and Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act/RA 9344). The latter
legislation also introduced the allocation of 1 percent of the LGU IRA share to support the costs
of operations of LCPC.
111.
In 2009, DILG issued MC 2009-170 -Mainstreaming Child Rights in the Rationalized
Local Planning System (RPS) thereby highlighting the importance of embedding child rights in
the policy, planning and investment guidelines of the LGUs. MC 2009-170 encouraged LCEs
and Local Development Councils localize the national Child 21 and to mainstream child rights in
their Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) within the framework of the Rationalized Local
Planning System.
112.
The first proviso called on LCEs to “Strengthen and make functional the Local Council
for the Protection of Children (LCPC) as a standing committee of the Local Development
Council which shall be responsible for the promotion of the child and youth sectoral concerns.”
LCEs should direct LCPC to provide inputs in establishing and maintaining planning databases
relative to children and to undertake in-depth analyses of the situation of children. As part of the
LDC, the LCPC should participate in setting sectoral goals and identifying appropriate
interventions to address issues and concerns pertaining to child rights.
113.
The interventions and relevant legislation are to be considered and prioritized with the
Sangguniang Bayan as part of the Local Development Investment Programming. LGUs should
prepare budgets for LCPC as part of the LGUs Maintenance and Operating Expenses (MOOE)
i.e., for supplies, traveling expenses, materials/equipment through a specific ordinance. In line
with localizing Agenda 21, the LGUs are called upon to prepare the local investment plan for
children, the local code for children and the local state of children report.
114.
The memo circular cites the manual “Mainstreaming Child Rights in Local Planning: A
Guide to Localizing Child 21” as an essential reference guide and suggests that LGUs seek
technical assistance from the Regional Subcommittee for the Welfare of Children (RSCWC) and
its partners in the preparation of their CDPs. Their support can help in clarifying the technical
tools for child rights programming and LCPC functioning.
41
115.
As the LGPMS is increasingly referred to by the LGUs in their selection of priorities
and budgetary allocation, spelling out child rights as a distinct cross-sectoral item in the LGPMS
must be done. Monitoring of local programmes in the CDP related to Child 21 can benefit from
expanding and using Child Friendly Movement indicators and checklists. The manual on
localizing Child 21 also mentions the Subaybay Bata Monitoring Framework for monitoring and
evaluating the local development plan for children. LCPC can incorporate corporate communitybased monitoring and evaluation as part of their local plan of action.
116.
This singular reference directive should be focused on the central directives in MC
2009-170/Mainstreaming Child Rights in the Rationalized Local Planning System (RPS) which
highlights the strategic importance of embedding child rights responsiveness in the policy,
planning and investment guidelines of the LGUs.
117.
MC 2009-170 calls on LGUs to anchor their programs and initiatives for children based
on comprehensive development policies and plans that they need to prepare to implement the
national Child 21agenda. LGUs are directed to prepare the local investment plan for children, the
local code for children, and the local state of children report. It asks LGUs to prepare budgets for
LCPC that will be integrated into the LGUs Maintenance and Operating Expenses (MOOE)
through a specific ordinance. (See discussion in section below).
118.
In sum, combine and rationalize the circulars on child rights and LCPC with the
purpose of creating a single reference memorandum circular on child rights programming at the
LGU level and on the role of the LCPC in promoting child rights on the ground.
119.
Through a consultative, multi-sectoral, multi-level process, the singular reference
directive should:

Focus on results for children stipulated in the CFA as the main objectives of all the
provisos - which include the mainstreaming of children in the CDP and the AIP and the
establishment and the functioning of the LCPC.
This is the same principle espoused by NEDA in the Philippine Development Plan –
incorporating results-orientation in the planning, budgeting, implementation and
monitoring and evaluation processes of development. An accompanying document of the
PDP 2011-2016 is the Results Matrices consisting of indicators for evaluating results
corresponding to strategies, programs and projects. The focus of monitoring and
evaluating the progress of the Plan has shifted from inputs and outputs to outcomes and
sustainable impacts. The DBM is already applying the approach in coordinating the
budget preparation process. Development stakeholders including the LGUs are expected
to do the same to refine the accountability framework for results.

Define the national structure and reporting lines across all levels and delineate the major
roles and responsibilities of the local government units, DILG, DSWD and CWC in
sustaining the LCPC.

Rethink LCPC implementation under NBOO to correct a possible misalignment given
that LCPC function at provincial, city and municipal levels, and not just at the barangay
42
level where the NBOO operates

Establish LCPC secretariat and infrastructure (shepherd team) to undertake community
organization work to set up LCPC and allow flexible LCPC composition after assessing
local capacity e.g., by having NGO as vice-chair.

Issue instructions to LGUs beyond “enjoin/encourage” language

Task the higher level LCPC to rally their constituent LGUs to establish and ensure the
functioning of their LCPC

Ensure that sectors at the national level issue clear written instructions to their personnel
at the LGU level - whether devolved or not – about their role and functions in the LGU
child rights programming and in the LCPC.

Clarify the budget provisions. Currently 1 percent of IRA can be used for the work of
LCPC – this requires augmentation especially for low IRA LGUs. There are provisions in
the CFA that LGUs must spend considerably higher for children. Other options have been
tried by enlightened LGUs to identify additional resources for children. These include a
mandatory allocation for the protection of children in the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
budget, also suggested in the Validation Meeting, and other barangay sources, not
necessarily for the LCPC per se.

Reframe the criteria of functionality currently contained in MC 2008 126 making results
central. Redefine the process indicators of functionality to become the first set of
accomplishments in the ladder of functionality of LCPC and a bar for getting the Seal of
Functioning LCPC.

Define clear monitoring and assessment mechanisms – horizontal and vertical – and
revise indicators to reflect results-based programming. This means a set of simple tools
for assessing, reporting and monitoring to avoid confusion and to reduce the burden on
LGUs of too many reporting requirements. LGUs and other LCPC members must be
involved in the revision and harmonization, with DILG and CWC taking the lead and
working with the Interagency Monitoring Task Force. Side by side with the simplified
tools is a comprehensive dissemination and advocacy plan to make the LGUs not only
aware of the tools but sensitized about child rights issues and competent to manage and
monitor the relevant policies and programs. The roles and responsibilities of the
concerned national government agencies, e.g., DILG, DSWD and CWC, and others as
well of local Interagency Monitoring Task Forces and areas of collaboration among them
in monitoring the functionality of the LCPC should be clear. This clarity of collaboration
should cascade to the regional and local levels.
120.
The new MC to be issued will spell out the new monitoring system that will be
implemented. The new system will be region based following the model of the evaluation of
Gawad Galing Pook Award. It will monitor only at the level of towns and municipalities and
provinces and will be based largely on concrete results obtained by the LGU on children rather
43
on process documents submitted. Part of the evaluation for certification is the extent to which the
LGUs under its constituency are also able to advance the same results. The establishment and
evidence of functionality of LCPC will also be factored in. The system will publish the list of
LGUs certified for Child Rights Responsive Governance, those who are in process of being
evaluated and those who are not.
121.
Finally, when there is an opportunity for revising the Local Government Code, include
among the LGU responsibilities the protection of the rights of the child and the key role of the
LCPC at all LGU levels. This may take some time before it gets to be tabled again in Congress.
Most of the LGUs visited as part of the study refer to the Local Government Code for guidance
on setting priorities for local administration.
122.
It is interesting to note that in a discussion with Dr. Prospero de Vera of the UP NCPAG
on the subject of the Local Government Code and the LCPC, the Professor has this to say why
the creation of LCPC was not given priority in the Local Government Code compared to other
councils and boards like education and health, peace and order councils, SK, etc.: “at the time
there was no palpable advocacy initiative from sectoral agencies, LGUs, CSOs and even the UN
system for the inclusion of the LCPC in the Local Government Code when it was being
formulated. Attention appears to have concentrated on efforts to achieve the MDG goals relevant
to children through national programmes. It's only recently that the strategic role of the LGUs
and hence the LCPC have been highlighted as a key instrument to achieve numerous goals for
children."
v)
As an integral part of advancing the objectives of MC 2009, develop a purposive
advocacy and mobilization plan that will place child rights in the agenda of LCEs and their
teams and in public debate at national and local settings, supported by the government and
child focused UN and non-government agencies.
123.
A necessary element of the roadmap is a broad-based national drive to mobilize the
country to support in words, in deed, and in resources, the protection of the rights of children
which the Constitution and Philippine ratification of the CRC demand. All sectors at all levels of
society must be sensitized to the plight of children and be provoked into action to address the
pressing and critical needs and entitlements of children. Grounding LGUs around children’s
rights and protection can only happen when Filipino society as a whole and local communities in
particular generate enough concern and commitment to prod their local governments to initiate
and sustain the interest in LCPC and actions for children.
124.
The awareness-raising and advocacy actions recommended below are based on tested
strategies from local and global experience in mobilizing around child rights and supported by
key child rights stakeholders including child rights organizations:

Secure, engage, support and nurture the work of champions who speak out on children’s
issues in the country. For example, identify champions in both Senate and Congress to
facilitate passage of legislation on child rights. Former mayors, including CFA awardees,
44
now serve in Congress and other agencies that could raise child rights issues in public
forums. There are also champions among NGO, CSO, media, and religious leaders.

Partner with Leagues of Provinces, Cities, and Municipalities and the media to make
child rights promotion and protection part of electoral platforms, e.g., as campaign issues
in 2013 senatorial and local elections. Develop a speaker’s bureau or national
spokespersons on children’s issues and organize participatory forums and networks.

Publicize CHILD 21 – and revive public discussion at national, regional, and local levels.
This is particularly important for provoking LCEs and LGUs to “localize” Child 21 in
their respective constituencies.

Arrange for an annual survey of violence against children in important children’s spaces
and report the same to the media and Congress. The pulse-taking of public perception and
experience of violence against children can be billed as part of the country’s follow up to
the UN Study on Violence against Children and the ASEAN Congress on Violence
against Children for increased visibility. It could be the first institutional annual survey
undertaken in any country in the world that can be emulated by other countries. An
international child rights advocate from the UN and others can guest the annual event.
The annual study can be undertaken by research agencies or well known polling agencies
like SWS or Pulse Asia. The survey can be made less frequent in the future.

Commission the UP School of Economics or PIDS to undertake an annual assessment of
children in the government budget, syndicated annually during the budget period.
Staunch child rights advocates (individuals and funding institutions) might be willing to
support the initiative.

Undertake an annual review of the CRC Committee Report - Status of Compliance, in
which NGOs on child rights can actively participate. This can be done with
Congressional support and media coverage to permit widespread public debate.

Engage the support of alternative lawyers groups to take up cases and issues on child
rights and propel children’s issues into everyday media for policy and legal agenda. A
good number of such lawyers would be needed to take up cases in every significant
region or dialect in the country.

Explore various forms of an inclusive national program of voices of children and youth.
CWC can sponsor surveys among children and youth and project their views to the
public. Child protection networks can point out the issues raised by children and youth
when asked about their most pressing concerns. Among those frequently mentioned by
young people are problems of drug abuse and drug trafficking, street or neighborhood
violence, “destructive” behavior because of idle time and inability to go to school,
parental neglect or abuse. Young people are increasingly concerned about the “peace and
order” situation in their communities, calling for more protection, more public security,
even in their day-to-day living.
45
B.

The Voices of Children and Youth program can be organized by a network of child rights
agencies in coordination with CWC. An electronic form linked with regular media,
including social networking platforms for children and youth are keys for heightened
visibility. Opportunities in the school system (e.g., student government and school clubs)
can be leveraged.

Ensure a nationwide debate on issues on child rights among candidates during elections,
with young audiences doing pulse rating and child broadcasters preparing questions. A
national agenda for children must be manifested by the Voices of Children and Youth
program for all candidates to include in their campaign platforms. Local agenda for
children can be customized for local elections by children and youth organized for this
purpose in their respective localities.

Influence programming in drama and entertainment of major television channels to
ensure the continuous flow of messages on children’s rights to all stakeholders. A weekly
show that presents, reviews, and annotates the issues around children and their rights can
provide learning opportunities for child rights duty bearers and will be an important
advocacy channel for CWC.

Secure significant media partners that are organized to look at results for children – not
only publishing problems but reporting solutions. The Bayan/E Patroller and similar
groups for the different media giants can be organized together with the child rights E
network of CWC to ensure regular reporting of progress or problems to be addressed in
the LGUs on children’s issues.

With DILG enter into strategic partnerships with NGOs, CSOs, and with Parish Councils
and other faith based organizations that have a wealth of experience on LCPC and child
rights programming at the LGU level.
Immediate next steps
125.
Under the banner of shared partnership for child rights, the participants in the
Validation Meeting called for concerted action to pursue the recommendations of the study. The
CWC secretariat plans to share the findings and recommendations of the study with its Executive
Board and working structures. A consortium of agencies particularly those represented at the
Validation Meeting, expressed interest in supporting the direction of the recommendations. The
agencies that form part of the CWC network can be organized to prepare and oversee the
building blocks of the five recommendations and find the resources to implement the actions.
The consortium in whatever name it may come to be known is the key structure to pursuing the
actions listed in the study.
46
126.
To further this review and reform
process, DILG and CWC may over the threemonth period after release of this
report/roadmap
convene
consultative
meetings (national and regional) with the
Liga ng Barangay and with the Leagues of
Municipalities, Cities, and Provinces to work
out the details of the roadmap for
strengthening LCPC nationwide, based on
their own insights and experiences. The
results of the consultative meetings would
then feed into national-level policy
discussions among CWC, DILG, and
relevant
departments
involved
in
mainstreaming child rights in local
governance,
and
in
particular
in
strengthening LCPC.
Box 3M - Highlights from the Validation
Meeting
“The twin aim of mainstreaming child
rights in LGU plans and investments and
reinvigorating the LCPC across the
country is a herculean task. It is only
doable through the collective effort of
rights bearers. Shared partnership is the
singular way forward and I enjoin all of
our colleagues defending child rights to
join hands to take up this challenge,”
Brenda Vigo, CWC Executive Director
emphasized at the meeting.
127.
The consultations with relevant
departments and groups should lead to a strategic planning exercise led by CWC and DILG for
strengthening LCPC over the next five years – together with a work plan and budget proposal.
An essential part of the strategic plan would be the identification of expertise and financial
requirements and the drafting of specific proposals to obtain such support at adequate levels.
Related discussions should also be held with relevant members of the Senate and Congress,
particularly as these relate to legislative and funding decisions.
128.
Aside from national and local government and NGO resources, external funding support
should be sought from e.g., UNICEF and other UN agencies, child-focused NGOs, bilateral and
multilateral donors.
47
References
Child Protection in the Philippines-Philippine Resource Network (2007). Facts and Figures:
Child Protection Unit Network 2007 Statistics. http://www.child protection.org.ph/
factsfigures/index.html (date accessed July 24, 2011)
Cuenca, Janet. (2010). “Localizing Child Protection: Does the Local Council for the Protection
of Children Matter?” Policy Brief No. 7. The Filipino Child: Global Study on Child Poverty
and Disparities: Philippines.
Department of Interior and Local Government (2010). “Guideposts in Promoting and Sustaining
Barangay Good Governance”. Memorandum Circular No. 2010-122.
________________ (2008). “Revised Guidelines in Monitoring the Functionality of the Local
Council for the Protection of Children (LCPC) at all Levels and for other Purposes”.
Memorandum Circular No. 2008-126.
________________ (2005). “Guidelines in Monitoring the Functionality of the Local Council
for the Protection of Children (LCPC) at all Levels and for other Purposes”. Memorandum
Circular No. 2005-122.
National Statistics Office (2010). Seven in Ten Filipino Children Age 12-23 Months Received
All Basic Vaccinations Before Reaching Age One. Final Results from the 2008 National
Demographic and Health Survey
Paunlagui, Merlyne M. (2011). “Understanding the Non-organization and Non-functionality of
the Local Council for the Protection of Children in the Philippines: Evidence from Selected
Local Government Units”. UP Los Banos
Capanzana, M. (2008). 7th National Nutritional Survey. Research Institute.
http://www.fnri.dost.gov.ph
Special Committee for the Protection of Children (2006). “Protecting Filipino Children from
Abuse, Exploitation and Violence: A Comprehensive Programme on Child Protection, 20062010 Building a Protective and Caring Environment for Filipino Children”. Department of
Justice, Padre Faura, Manila. December.
UNICEF (2005). “BCPC that Work; Documentation of Experience with BCPC (Barangay
Councils for the Protection of Children in Selected Barangays in CPC 5 Provinces and Cities”
UNICEF (2006). “Child Protection Information Sheets”
Yacat, J. A. (2010). “Child Protection in the Philippines: A Situational Analysis”. Save the
Children Child Protection Initiative in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
Zamar, J. (2009). Orientation on the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children: A
Manual for the Orientation Team. Council for the Welfare of Children.
48
Annexes
Annex 1 – Presidential Award for Child Friendly
Municipalities and Cities
NATIONAL AND HALL OF FAME AWARDEES
YEAR
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2006
CATEGORY
NAME OF LGU
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
M’lang, North Cotabato
4th – 6th Class Municipality
Irosin, Sorsogon
Component City (CC)
Dipolog City
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Davao City
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
Alicia, Isabela
4th – 6th Class Municipality
Irosin, Sorsogon
Component City (CC)
Bago City
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Davao City
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
Alicia, Isabela
4th – 6th Class Municipality
Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur
Component City (CC)
Tuguegarao City
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Olongapo City
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
Alicia, Isabela (Hall of Fame)
4th – 6th Class Municipality
Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur
Component City (CC)
Tuguegarao City
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Olongapo City
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
Maitum, Sarangani
4th – 6th Class Municipality
Component City (CC)
Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur (Hall of
Fame)
Tuguegarao City (Hall of Fame)
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Olongapo City
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
Jordan, Guimaras
4th – 6th Class Municipality
New Lucena, Iloilo
HUC and ICC
Naga City
49
2008
2009
2011
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
San Mateo, Isabela
4th – 6th Class Municipality
New Lucena, Iloilo
Component City (CC)
Vigan City
Independent Component City
Naga City
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Makati City
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
San Mateo, Isabela
4th – 6th Class Municipality
New Lucena, Iloilo (Hall of Fame)
Component City (CC)
Vigan City
Independent Component City
Naga City (Hall of Fame)
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Olongapo City
1ST – 3RD Class Municipality
Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya
4th – 6th Class Municipality
Mariveles, Bataan
Component City (CC)
Vigan City (Hall of Fame)
Independent Component City
Santiago City
Highly Urbanized City (HUC)
Mandaluyong City
TOTAL - 38
50
Annex 2 – LGU Performance Awards
DILG places significant emphasis on promoting transparency, accountability and good
governance through awards and incentives to deserving LGUs. It will be noted, however, that
although DILG refers to LCPC functionality as an important dimension in nurturing good
governance, the LCPC status has not been considered a criterion in awards and incentives.
At present, there are three distinct Awards and/or incentive programmes that underscore the
importance of good governance in LGUs: the joint initiative Galing Pook Award, DILG’s Gawad
Pamana ng Lahi, and the Performance Challenge Fund award.
The Galing Pook Award began in 1993 and is a joint initiative of the Local Government
Academy-DILG, Ford Foundation and other advocates of good governance from the academe,
civil society and the government. The award was previously managed by the AIM until 2000,
after which the Galing Pook Foundation was formally established to sustain the awards
programme. It is a Presidential Award, the most recognized and respected on good governance.
The award proactively searches, identifies and recognizes innovation and excellence in good
governance, mobilization/participation and empowerment, emphasizes replication, transferability
and sustainability of innovations and encourages partnership of LGUs with civil society
organizations, the private sector and government agencies at the local and global levels. The
award promotes winning programmes as models of good governance for adoption and or
adaptation in other LGUs. Since its inception, the Galing Pook Award has been given to at least
230 programmes of 152 local governments throughout the country. Moreover, the Award has
worked with 81 provinces, 110 cities and 1,505 municipalities.
Three points of interest characterize the Award: 1) CSOs/NGOs operating in local government
areas can participate - participation not limited to government agencies.; 2) the Award is backed
by a solid support of public advocacy, audio-visual capacity, an e-library that houses its
knowledge products (i.e. replication kits/trainers manuals/workshops/ electronic copies of
exemplary/innovative practices in good governance, etc; and 3) Galing Pook Foundation is a
member of the Global Public Innovation Network, a collaboration of 10 public policy awards
programme. Although Galing Pook has not used functionality of LCPC as a criterion, it appears
that it cited some municipalities in 2001 for ‘Child-friendly governance’ and identified
exemplary governance practices in 2006 on Promoting Gender and Child Rights.
DILG’s Gawad Pamana ng Lahi will highlight exemplary performance in local governance.
Introduced only in 2011 through MC 2011-113, its first national award will begin this year. It
will be conferred to an LGU (province, city or municipality) based on exemplary performance in
administrative governance, social governance, economic governance and environmental
governance. Awardees will come from regional and national levels, each with its own award
committee (DILG regional director/line agencies/CSOs/NGOs/private sector at the Regional
Level and DILG Secretary /line agency Secretaries, etc at national level). The basic criteria will
include:1) Local Government Performance Monitoring System(LGPMS) Overall Performance
Index(OPI) – representing 80 points score; 2) Seal of Good Housekeeping(SGH) 10 points; 3)
Innovation(s)-5 points and 4) awards/distinctions received from respectable external institutions.
51
Note: the LGPMS is an electronic system designed to monitor performance of LGUs using
indicators of all aspects of governance (i.e. economic, social, administrative, and environmental).
Indicators will include status of organization of local councils and boards, like School Board or
LCPC to assess social governance; Seal of Good Housekeeping given to LGUs with good data
on management and finance. The LGPMS is filled up by LGUs and rated at the HQ level but will
be subjected to compulsory validation once LGU signals interest to participate in the Gawad
Lahi Award. It is not clear whether this will be a Presidential Award, but it will give out 5
million pesos award to 5 national winners each year and 150,000 each for three regional winners.
The DILG has also established a Performance Challenge Fund (PCF) to serve as an incentive to
qualified LGUs to align their local development projects with the MDGs, tourism and local
economic development, the objectives of the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Act of 2010 and the Ecological Waste Management Act of 2000. The PCF shall
recognize LGUs exhibiting good performance in internal housekeeping particularly in the areas
of planning, fiscal management transparency, accountability and performance management.
(Note: only LGUs that passed the good housekeeping and conferred with the seal of good
housekeeping (SGH) are qualified for the incentive. Priority will be given to less able LGUs (4th
to 6th class municipalities and 4th to 5th class cities and provinces. The PCF funds are effectively
matching funds of the National Government to investment funds of eligible LGUs for projects on
a 50-50 sharing basis. The maximum PCF subsidy will be as follows: 1) province-7 million, 2)
city-3 million 3) municipality- 1 million.
The operating guidelines are spelt out in DILG MC 2011-62.
.
52
Annex 3 - FGD Guide Questionnaire
FGD Guide/Gabay sa FGD
Unang bahagi: Warm-up at pagpapaliwanag
1. Pambungad
 Ako si __________ mula sa Alcanz, isang consulting firm na nagsasagawa ng
mga pag-aaral at mga proyekto sa Pilipinas at ibang bansa.
 Pagpapakilala ng mga respondents: Pangalan, ahensya o organisasyon, panguri na maglalarawan sa iyong personalidad o pagkatao. Gamitin ang unang
letra ng inyong pangalan sa pagsasalarawan ng iyong sarili. Halimbawa: Ako
si Panggoy. Ang unang letra ng aking pangalan ay P bilang “pogi”.
 Maraming salamat sa inyong pagdalo
 Ang inyong pagdalo at pagbibigay ng oras ay mahalaga upang intindihin ang
pamamalakad ng mga LCPC.
 Tayo ay magsasagawa ng talakayan. Pag-uusapan natin ang inyong
damdamin, pananaw/pagtingin, karanasan at kuro-kuro tungkol sa inyong
organisasyon.
2. Layunin: Malaman ang inyong karanasan sa pagbuo at pagpapatakbo ng inyong
organisasyon.
3. Proseso
 May mga itatanong ako sa inyo at ito naman ay sasagutin n’yo
 Ang lahat ng inyong opinyon o kuro-kuro ay confidential at iingatan
 Walang tama o maling sagot. Nais naming malaman ang inyong opinyon,
damdamin, karanasan at paniniwala
 Minsan, ang mga sagot na binibigay ng mga kasama sa talakayan ay yung
palagay nilang magpapasaya sa nagtatanong. Inuulit ko po. Ibig naming
malaman ang inyong opinion, pananaw, damdamin o kuru-kuro. Tinitiyak
namin na ang inyong mga sagot ay ‘di makakaapekto sa amin. Di po kami
mapo-promote o mawawaln ng trabaho dahil sa resulta n gating pag-uusap.
 Ito po ay isang malayang talakayan ng grupo. ‘Di ko na kinakailangan na
tawagin pa kayo para lamang sumagot o magsalita
 Maaari lang sana na paisa-isa ang pagsagot o pagsasalita upang malinaw itong
makuha ng tape recorder
 May mga katanungan pa ba kayo bago tayo magsimula?
Ikalawang bahagi: Top of mind association
 Ano ang una n’yong naiisip kapag naririnig n’yo ang salitang bata?
 Ano ang inyong gusto o nagustuhan sa mga bata sa inyong
siyudad/munisipalidad/barangay?
53
 Ano naman ang inyong ‘di gusto o ‘di nagustuhan?
Ikatlong bahagi: Pagtingin/Opinyon ukol sa LCPC
Sa mga di nag-organisa ng LCPC
 Ano ang katangian o character na hinahanap n’yo sa isang organisasyon?
 Anu-ano bang mga kadahilanan para kayo ay mahikayat na magtayo o sumali sa isang
organisasyong pang syudad/munisipalidad o barangay?
 Sa inyong lugar, ano sa palagay ninyo ang mga dahilan kung bakit di nakapagorganisa ng LCPC?
 May natanggap ba kayong circular tungkol sa LCPC?
 Anong nangyari pagkatapos matanggap ang circular?
 Anong sinabi ni Mayor? Ano ang ginawa niya?
 Sino ang naatasang magbuo ng LCPC? Anong ginawa niya?
 Ano pa kaya ang mga dahilan kung bakit di nakapag-organisa ng LCPC sa
inyong lugar?
 Ano sa palagay nyo ang mga kailangang gawin upang mabuo ang LCPC sa inyong
lugar?
 Ano sa palagay nyo ang kakailanganing suporta upang mabuo ang LCPC?
Sa mga nag-organisa ng LCPC
 Sa palagay ninyo, bakit naorganisa ang LCPC sa inyong lugar?
(Probe about SP/SB/SL resolution, first meeting)
 Paano na-organisa ang inyong LCPC? Saan nakapaloob ang LCPC sa struktura ng
probinsya/munisipyo/syudad/barangay?
 Sino namuno sa pag-organisa?
 Paano napili ang mga kasapi ng LCPC?
 Sa inyong karanasan, sino pa ang pwedeng makatulong sa inyong gawain sa LCPC?
Paano natin sila gagawing kasapi?
Paano mapapanatili ang mga magagaling na kasapi ng LCPC kahit na magpalit ng
Mayor?
 Narinig na ba ninyo ang iba’t ibang antas ng bawat LCPC? (Basic, progressing, Nonreporting, ideal and mature). Sa pagkaalam ninyo, anong antas na ang inyong
naabot?
 Sa palagay ninyo bakit ganung antas ang naibigay sa LCPC ninyo?
 Ito ba ay tumaas o bumaba mula ng nakaraang taon?
 Ano sa palagay ninyo bakit tumaas/bumaba ang inyong antas?
 Anu-ano ang nakatulong? Ano ang di-nakatulong?
 Ano ang mga mungkahi ninyo upang higit na mapaunlad ang inyong LCPC?
54
Meetings
Gaano kadalas mag miting ang LCPC?
Ano ang palagay ninyo sa pag takbo ng inyong mitin?
Ano ang mga karaniwang pinag-uusapan ninyo sa miting?
Pagpaplano
 Anu-ano na ang mga proyekto at aktibidad na naisagawa ng inyong LCPC?
Note: Probe if activities/plans are:





Sectoral agencies’ work plan
Advocacy
Legislation/policies
Mobilization
Other child protection concerns not currently responded to (drop outs,
trafficking, drugs, bullying, etc)
 Monitoring included as an activity in the WFP
 Paano napili itong mga proyekto/aktibidad na inyong ginawa?
 Mayroon pa ba kayong nakikitang pangangailangan ng mga kabataan na wala sa
inyong kasalukuyang programa? Anu-ano ang mga ito?
 Sino ang namili nitong mga proyekto/aktibidad?
 Sa pagpili ng mga proyekto/aktibidad, may partisipasyon ba ang:
 Mayor
 NGOs/civil society/religious
 Mga magulang
 Mga kabataan
 Iba pa.
 Ano ang naging kanilang partisipasyon?
 Ano ang palagay ninyo sa kanilang naging partisipasyon?
 Sino o ano pang mga organisasyon ang palagay pa ninyong dapat sumali sa
pagpapalano?
 Ano ang inyong mga mungkahi upang mas mapabuti pa ang sistema ng
pagplano ng mga gawain ng LCPC?
Pagsasagawa ng Plano
 Paano ang proseso ng pagpipili ng mga nagsasagawa ng plano?
 Maliban sa mga kasapi ng LCPC, may iba pa bang tumutulong sa pagsasagawa ng
55
plano?

Sa palagay ninyo, ano ang mga bagay-bagay na nakatulong sa tagumpay
ng pagsasagawa ng mga plano/aktibidad?
 Ano ang naging epekto ng proyektong ito sa kalagayan ng mga
bata/kabataan sa inyong lugar?
 Ano naman ang mga naging hadlang/balakid sa tagumpay na pagsasagawa ng inyong
mga plano?
 Ano ang inyong mga mungkahi upang maging mas matagumpay ang pagsasagawa ng
inyong mga plano?
Monitoring at Evaluation
 Sinu-sino ang naatasang mag-monitor sa mga gawain ng inyong LCPC?
Lokal, rehional o national na antas?
 Paano kaya mino-monitor? Sino ang gumagawa nito?
 Nagbabalik aral ba kayo pagkatapos ng bawat plano o aktibidad?
Anu-ano ang inyong nilalagom?
 Sinu-sino ang kasali sa paglalagom?
 Ano ang naging partisipasyon ng mga magulang, kabataan at iba pang sector ng
inyong lugar sa M&E?
 Nakatulong ba ang M&E sa gawain ng LCPC?
Sa anong paraan nakatulong ang M&E sa gawain ninyo?
 For PCPC/CCPC/MCPC: Sa paanong paraan kayo nakikipag-ugnayan sa mga lower
level LCPC?
Paano kayo tumutulong sa kanilang gawain?
Nung nakaraan, anu-ano ang nakita ninyong tulong na kailangan nila?
 Ano ang pwedeng magtulak sa mga LCPC para pagbutihin lalo ang kanilang mga
gawin? (Awards?)
 Ano ang inyong mga mungkahi upang maging mas makabuluhan ang kasalukuyang
sistema ng M&E?
Pagsasara ng FGD:
 Bago tayo magtapos, may nais pa ba kayong sabihin/ipahayag? Mayroon bang mga
dagdag na kuro-kuro o opinyon na nakalimutan n’yong sabihin/ipahayag?
 Balikan muli ang pattern, napagkasunduan/napagkaisahan at tunggaliang sumulpot.
 Muli, maraming salamat sa inyong pagdalo. Ang inyong oras na inilaan ay lubos naming
pinasasalamatan at ang inyong mga pahayag ay lubos na makakatulong sa research na ito
56
Annex 4 - Laws and Memorandum Circulars Related to
Child Rights and LCPC
Legal and Policy Framework on Child Protection
Laws
Provision
Republic Act No. 386, 1949 - Civil Code of the Philippines
 Article 359 provides that the government shall establish councils for the protection
of children which shall look after the welfare of children in the municipality.
Among others, the functions of the Council include fostering the education of every
child in the municipality, encourage the cultivation of the duties of the parents;
protect and assist abandoned or mistreated children, and orphans; and coordinate
the activities of organizations devoted to the welfare of children and secure their
cooperation.
Republic Act No. 4881, 1967
 Created the Council for the Protection of Children (CPCP) in every city and
municipality of the Philippines
 shall supervise and act as guardian for the health, education and well-being of all
the minors within the city or municipality
Presidential Decree No. 603, 1974 - Child and Youth Welfare Code
 Covers those who are below twenty-one years of age except those emancipated in
accordance with law.
 Article 87 encourages every barangay council to organize a local Council for the
Protection of Children that shall coordinate with the Council for the Welfare of
Children and Youth in drawing and implementing plans for the promotion of child
and youth welfare.
 Also created the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC), the central
coordinating agency of the Philippine government for children's protection, welfare
and development. CWC is responsible in coordinating and monitoring the
implementation of all laws and programs for children as well as in ensuring that
these are implemented within the context of the Code and the Philippine Plan of
Action for Children.
Republic Act No. 7610 (1992) - Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act
57
Laws
Provision
 Department of Justice and Department of Social Welfare and Development in
coordination with other government and private agencies were tasked to formulate
a comprehensive plan to protect children against child prostitution and other sexual
abuses; child trafficking, obscene publications and indecent shows; other acts of
abuse; and circumstances which endanger survival and normal development.
RA 8980 (2000) - Early Childhood Care and Development Act
 Section 8d states that the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC),
created under Presidential Decree 603, shall also function as the Barangay ECCD
Coordinating Committee. The BCPC shall be responsible for the proper and
effective implementation of public ECCD programs and maintenance of database
system at the barangay level. Pursuant to this, all barangays shall organize BCPC in
their respective areas.
Republic Act No. 9344 (2006) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
 Establishes a comprehensive juvenile justice and welfare system and creates the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council under the Department of Justice
 Section 15 states that the Local Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC)
shall be established in all levels of local government, and where they have already
been established, they shall be strengthened within one (1) year from the effectivity
of this Act. The local council shall serve as the primary agency to coordinate with
and assist the LGU concerned for the adoption of a comprehensive plan on
delinquency prevention, and to oversee its proper implementation.
The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) which is mandated to monitor and
evaluate the functionality of the local council for the protection of children had issued several
memorandum circulars since 1990. The most relevant of which are listed in Table 2. The most
recent issuance is MC No. 2008-126 in addition to providing LGUs and other concerned entities
with guidelines and evaluation tool in assessing the functionality of the LCPC has created an
Inter-Agency Monitoring Task Force (IMTF) from the regional down to provincial, city and
municipal levels.
58
Memorandum Circulars Issuances of the DILG related to the Council for the Protection of
Children.
Memorandum
Circular (MC)
Title
MC 94-14
Adoption of the Implementing Guidelines of Memorandum Order 39 and
the Revised Guidelines on the Reorganization of Local Sub-Committees for
the Welfare of Children
MC 2002-121
Revised Guidelines on the organization and strengthening of the LCPC
incorporating thereat ECCD Coordinating Committee at the provincial, city,
municipal and barangay levels.
MC 2004-52
Creation of a sub-committee of the Barangay Council for the Protection of
Children (BCPC) to be called as Sub-Committee on Bright Child (SCBC) in
every barangay
MC 2005-07
Guidelines in monitoring the functionality of the LCPC at all levels
MC 2008-126
Revised Guidelines in monitoring the functionality of the LCPC at all levels
MC 2009-100
Enjoining Local Officials to Support and Participate in the Conduct of the
Barangay Human Rights Program: Accessing Justice to a Gender
Responsive and Child Friendly Barangay Justice System
MC 2009-109
Guidelines in Monitoring the Functionality of Barangay Development
Councils
MC 2009-124
Model Ordinances to Implement the Intervention and Diversion Program
Pursuant to RA9344
MC 2009-170
Mainstreaming Child Rights in the Rationalized Local Planning System
(RPS)
MC 2010-122
Guideposts in Promoting and Sustaining Barangay Good Governance
Source: Zamar, J. 2009.
59
Annex 5 – Summary of Experts Group Meeting
EXPERTS MEETING: Going beyond ‘accidental successes’
On February 1, 2012, CWC and the study team met with a small group of experts to learn from
their experience with LCPC and to get their insights about ways to strengthen LCPC
effectiveness in light of the proposed study.
In summary, the participants identified the following issues affecting LCPC effectiveness:
1. There is a lack of understanding about what the LCPC is for and why it is organized. It is
viewed as “encouraged” not “mandated” because directives only “enjoin” compliance
2. The link between the LGU and the LCPC is weak, when it should be this link that pushes
the LCPC to function and be sustained
3. LGUs complain of having no budget and having multiple barangay committees with too
much to do, leading to confusion about what to prioritize
4. There is no “follow-through” after orientation has been given
5. There is no baseline information, which is critical for mobilization. Pertinent issues that
the baseline information would show are not addressed– e.g., drugs, violence. Without
the information, no consensus is reached.
6. Changes in leadership (election periods) affects functionality
The group agreed that important areas to explore to strengthen LCPC include:
1. How to systematically find or create champions

Identify people in LGU who are constantly present with full understanding of the
LCPC: may be e.g., planning officer, budget officer

Social worker as anchor at the local level
2. Mapping out the major national ‘players’ / leaders / forces that can be tapped to push for
LCPC

How to be functional even without the NGOs
3. Inter-agency work, delineation of roles and responsibilities, link with “good governance”

Strengthening civil servants; LGA training on policy for children

Convince politicians that focus on children is good politics, child-focused agenda
as election platform

Legitimize leadership from CSO, and increase public-private partnership
60
4. Community organizing, not just “memorandizing”

Rallying point for an active community – the parish council, senior citizens, the
social worker as a community organizers

Parenting as focus

Youth participation
5. How to reach down to the ground level. What tools?

Systematic awareness raising, finding spokespersons

Using the media effectively

Link to different awards – Child Friendly Award, Seal of Good Housekeeping

Partner with League of Cities and Municipalities
6. Update our thinking

Create guidelines of what can be integrated (content-wise) with the LCPC

Re-assess what issues need to be addressed

Re-assess what they can and cannot do (even with the funds and training)

Think of the LCPC in the context of children as citizens: urban constituents with
rights

BCPC as part of the entire LGU structure for good governance

Push for results-based planning
7. How to mobilize resources

Mainstreaming the budget

Tap Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) and Gender and Development (GAD)
The study team agreed with the group that this study and the resulting report should be a
compelling call to action, should generate debate, and should be reader-friendly for wide
dissemination and use.
61
Annex 6 – CWC Board Resolution No. 3 Series of 2012
62
Annex 7 – Summary of CWC Executive Board Meeting
Relevant to LCPC
63
The Alcanz Consult Research Team
Cecilio Adorna, Team Leader
Richard Prado,
Victoria Rialp
Rosemary Husin
Jose Victor Peñaranda
Merlyne Paunlagui
Luzeta Adorna
Research and operations support provided by Beatriz Lara Rialp, Karla Teresa Tulio, and Norma Tulio
Alcanz Consulting Group Inc.
alcanzconsult@gmail.com
64
Download