Category: Noynoy Watch

Into investigative reporting? PCIJ offers basic IR seminar

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

Basic IR web photo

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) invites mid-career and senior Filipino journalists, citizen media, and bloggers to apply for a three-day training seminar-workshop on Basic Investigative Reporting.

Applicants from print, TV, radio, and online media are welcome.

A series of four three-day seminars will be conducted in Luzon, the Visayas, Mindanao, and Metro Manila from June to September 2013. Fifteen participants will be invited to each of the seminars from across media platforms, gender, province of assignment, and media organization.

Through combined onsite and field learning sessions, the seminar aims to enhance the participants’ investigative reporting skills and practice and offer a framework for analyzing media killings and safety issues in the context of governance, the culture of impunity, and the presence of political clans and private armed groups in many parts of the country.

The seminar also seeks to highlight the role of the police and the Commission on Human Rights as vital sources of journalists. The seminar will feature lecture-discussions and workshops to identify potential risks and practical safety tips when covering dangerous assignments.

A Story Development Workshop will give participants an opportunity to pitch story proposals that the PCIJ may consider for fellowship grants and editorial supervision. Experts from the academe, national media organizations, the police, human rights agencies and organizations, and data repository agencies will lead the discussions.

The seminar graduates will be accorded priority slots in the subsquent Advanced Investigative Reporting Seminars that PCIJ will conduct in 2014.

This seminar series draws support from the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Who Can Apply? Mid-career and senior journalists with at least three years’ experience – freelance reporters, contributors, stringers, researchers, anchors, producers, editors, and news managers of print, TV, radio, and online media may apply. Citizen media and bloggers covering public policy issues are also eligible.

Funding The PCIJ will cover: Round-trip transportation from the participant’s place of work and/or residence to the seminar venue. Board and lodging during the three-day seminar. The PCIJ will also provide a modest fellowship grant for story proposals that will be approved during or immediately after the seminar.

Application Requirements Completed application form with two references (see attached). One or two samples of work discussing public policy, development, human rights, or governance issues.

Deadline for Applications Applications must be received not later than May 10, 2013, Friday.

Selection process Applicants will be selected based on the following criteria:

  • Track record or experience in covering public policy issues.
  • Demonstrated interest in doing in-depth reports on governance, development, and human rights issues.
  • Potential for playing a key leadership role within his/her organization or media community.

Successful applicants will be notified by May 31, 2013. Only successful applicants will be contacted by the PCIJ.

Sending your application: By email: Email address: training@pcij.org

Please state ‘Application to Basic IR Seminar’ on the subject line

Note: We will acknowledge receipt of all submissions. If you do not receive any reply within three working days, please resend your application and move a follow-up email or call (02) 410-4768.

Questions? Please contact the PCIJ Training Desk at (02) 410-4768 or training@pcij.org

Gov’t claims partial success with CCT dole outs

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

by Edz dela Cruz

POOR COMMUNITIES covered by the government’s Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program are registering higher attendance in schools than communities that are not part of the program, says the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

This, among other indicators, would show that the main targets of the controversial multi-billion peso program are already benefiting from the dole outs given under the CCT, said Social Welfare Secretary Corazon “Dinky” Soliman.

Soliman said findings from a recently completed Impact Evaluation Report of the CCT program by the Department of Social Welfare and Development showed that the program was “on track.” The findings were presented to the press by the DSWD and the World Bank last March 1, 2013.

Soliman says that a survey conducted by the DSWD on the target beneficiaries of the program showed significant progress in getting beneficiaries to avail of health and educational programs offered by the government in exchange for their participation in the CCT.

The CCT program, also known as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), grants selected indigent families a modest monthly amount provided the families send their children to school and regularly visit health centers. The cash grants include P500 a month per family to cover health and nutrition costs, and an additional P300 for every child who is sent to school for a maximum of three children. All in all, an eligible family can claim a maximum of P1,400 from the program.

The program is meant as a safety net of sorts to prevent poor Filipinos from sliding deeper into penury.

The findings presented to the public were based on a study of 1,418 households in Lanao del Norte, Mountain Province, Negros Occidental, and Occidental Mindoro.

Among the findings presented by the World Bank and DSWD to the media:

  • In Pantawid barangays, 76 percent of preschoolers are enrolled in daycare, compared to 65 percent in non-Pantawid areas.
  • Up to 98 percent of children in Pantawid barangays are enrolled in primary school, as against 93 percent in non-Pantawid barangays
  • Some 64 percent of pregnant mothers in Pantawid barangays had antenatal care compared to only 54 percent in non-Pantawid barangays
  • For deworming, 85 percent of children in Pantawid barangays have undergone the procedure versus only 80 percent in non-Pantawid areas
  • Lastly, 81 percent of children in Pantawid barangays have taken Vitamin A supplements as against 75 percent in areas not covered by the program.

“I am pleased to know that the children of poor families are indeed enjoying better and improving access to education and better health services through Pantawid Pamilya,” Soliman said in a statement distributed to reporters.

The program has been under fire since its introduction under the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in 2008. Criticisms range from the dole-out nature of the program to allegations that the selection of target beneficiaries are politically colored. Read the PCIJ investigative reports on the CCT program here.

The CCT program has been dubbed “the cornerstone of the government’s strategy to fight poverty” and attain the Millenium Development Goals that the country has pledged to achieve by 2015.

The CCT remains as the Aquino administration’s flagship program to alleviate poverty. In 2010, the program was given a P10.92-billion budget for 900,000 beneficiaries with another P21.19 billion to expand the program to 2.3 million beneficiaries in 2011. Last year, the government allocated P39.45-billion for 3.1 million beneficiaries.

This year, the budget increased to P55.97-billion, 12.2% higher than the 2012 allocation, triggering more debates among government officials and lawmakers, and raising questions on whether the cash grants were already being used as political leverage for this year’s elections.

Aside from the annual budget provided by the national government, the program is also supplemented with loans from the World Bank (WB) and Asian Development Bank (ADB), amounting to $805-million altogether. Loans from the WB will be repaid in 25 years, including a 10-year grace period, while loans from the ADB need to be repaid in 20 years, including a five-year grace period.

The massive cash inflow and the selective targetting of beneficiaries have raised quite a few eyebrows. During the open forum, a member of an organization for persons with disabilities asked for proof that all that cash was really resulting in improvements in the lives of those from the marginalzied sector: women, persons with disabilities, and indigenous people.

Another participant said the government should not just measure the success of the program based on the number of children being sent and kept in school and getting health services, but also on whether all that money flowing out was stabilizing living conditions and promoting self sufficiency among beneficiaries.

Soliman, on the other hand, explained that the assessment is only first of three sets, and adjustments are still to be made on the other two to measure the impact more accurately.

According to Pantawid Pamilya National Manager Rodora Babaran, the DSWD has already conducted re-assessment and validation surveys to correct inclusion and exclusion errors in targeting beneficiaries.

“There is no such thing as a perfect system.” Babaran added, noting that errors for programs such as 4Ps are unavoidable.

Of slabs of pork and bogus NGOs

mcmangahas Leave a comment

IT’S A RACKET that has not been busted from 10 years ago, and lingers on to this day.

A number of congressmen and senators have set up or hand-picked bogus and favored NGOs (nongovernment organizations) to serve as vassals of their pork barrel, or what has been dressed up with the fancy title Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

In the last of a five-part PCIJ report titled “Pigging out on Pork a La Pinoy” published in July 2012, the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) had revealed how pork has lined the bellies of many phantom and fly-by=night NGOs.

As of June 2012, in fact, the DSWD said the total pork funds that had been given to these NGOs via the DSWD central office had reached a whopping P1.4 billion from 2003 up to Dec. 31, 2011.

Of this amount, P388.9 million or nearly 28 percent remain unaccounted for as of June 2012.

Across all the DSWD’s offices, however, the total amount of unaccounted PDAF releases to NGOs by DSWD within the last decade or so today stand at about P770 million.

Eighty percent of that total, or P620 million, went to only 21 NGOs that were the most favored by congressmen and senators alike.

Among other findings, the report revealed that:

* Many NGOs had been purposely set up for only one purpose: “to get the money” or the pork. They would disappear as soon as their PDAF patrons have finished their term in Congress, and with them, the millions they had received from the pork barrel, according to DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman. In their unceremonious exit, they leave a trail of ghost projects.

* For every peso of pork funds that legislators have awarded to NGOs from 2003 to 2011, up to 20 centavos involved fly-by-night or bogus NGOs. Most of the time, these are NGOs that had been created, born, and organized apparently for the purpose of just getting PDAF shares.

* A handful of NGOs and foundations have apparent links to, and are precisely named after the spouses, parents or grandparents of the lawmakers who gave out the pork.

* The DSWD and the Commission on Audit (COA) have laid down rules to control the awarding, monitoring, and accounting of pork releases to NGOs and foundations. But intense pressure and meddling by lawmakers in NGO selection and project implementation, along with loose monitoring and reporting mechanisms within the government, have nevertheless allowed millions of pesos in pork funds to be funneled into bogus NGOs across the country.

Real and potential conflicts of interest and questionable arrangements between NGOs and their PDAF patrons have also gone unchecked.

All these have resulted in a lot of leakage of public funds in organizations that are supposed to augment the gaps in the government’s delivery of much-needed social development projects.

The DSWD figures cover PDAF transferred to NGOs from prior to 2003 until Dec. 31, 2011, or across four Congresses, from the time of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo up to the current administration of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III.

Read Part 5 of the PCIJ report,“Bogus, favored NGOs fail to account for P770-million pork.”

Read the rest of the PCIJ report, Pigging Out on Pork a la P-Noy here:

Part 1, PDAF racket rocks daang matuwid

Part 2, Bailiwicks, not poor towns, grab slabs of House PDAF

Part 3, Senators’ PDAF floods NCR, vote-rich provinces

Part 4, Binay bags P200-M PDAF: Pork train to Malacanang?

Sidebar, LGUs ride piggyback on pork

PH faces transparency test by independent OGP team

mcmangahas Leave a comment

TRANSPARENCY TRUE OR FALSE? Real or reel?

Is the Aquino administration fully committed in theory as much as in practice in fulfilling its promises to achieve transparency, accountability, and good governance? But what about its failure to lead the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in the 15th Congress?

This March, the answers will be known in part as the Philippines comes under review by a team from the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a network of 57 nations (governments and civil society) that was initiated by US President Barack Obama in 2010.

In December 2011, the Aquino government submitted the Philippines’ OGP Action Plan titled “Institutionalizing People Power in Governance To Ensure Direct, Immediate and Substantial Benefits to the Poor.” It pledged to implement most of its program commitments until December 2012.

Yet it seems like the govenrment has some catching up to do in regard to the pace and progress of promises it has pledged to fulfill under the OGP framework.

For one, the government — represented in the OGP by Budget and Management Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad — has not yet convened a steering committee of civil society leaders, as it had promised to do for the OGP. Abad sits in the nine-person OGP Steering Committee of government leaders.

But thus far, Abad has only convened in early 2012 an interim steering committee of three CSO representatives from groups familiar to or working closely with the DBM. The interim committee was expected to convene an assembly of CSO leaders who were supposed to elect the members of the regular CSO Steering Committee but this has not happened as of this writing.

In its OGP Action Plan, the government assured that it will “Organize a Philippine Open Governance Partnership” throughout the OGP process. It stated: “During the preparatory phase of this Action Plan, the Government will organize a Philippine Open Governance Partnership that will be tapped in plotting open government reforms in the medium-term, in monitoring performance and in surfacing broader areas where interventions need to be escalated. Government will engage a broad spectrum of national and local CSOs, business groups, academe and other stakeholders; as well as reach out to the Legislature, the Judiciary, Constitutional Bodies and Local Governments for them to take part in open government endeavors.”

Apart from the Philippines, seven other countries will be assessed by the IRM’s panels this year: Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Tanzania, United Kingdom, and United States.

The OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism is “a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.”

To become and remain eligible as OGP members, participating countries “must embrace a high-level Open Government Declaration, deliver a country action plan developed with public consultation; and commit to independent reporting on their progress going forward through the… IRM.”

The OGP said, “the IRM is a key means by which all stakeholders can track progress and OGP’s impact within participating countries. By tracking progress, it promotes strong accountability between member governments and citizens.”

“The IRM works primarily through annual independent assessment reports for each OGP participating government. Each report will assess country on development and implementation of action plans, progress in fulfilling open government principles, and will develop technical recommendations,” the OGP said.

A panel of “well-respected individuals, the International Experts Panel (IEP) directly oversees the IRM. The independent reports “will assess implementation of the commitments adopted by OGP participating governments in their country action plans.. with emphasis on development and implementation of action plans,” including:

* “The extent to which the action plan and its commitments reflect, in a country-specific way, the OGP values of transparency, accountability, and civic participation, as articulated in the OGP Declaration of Principles and the Articles of Governance.

* “Wherever relevant, IRM reports may reflect actions or measures relevant to the country’s participation in OGP that were not originally reflected in the action plan.

* “The degree to which OGP governments are following OGP process requirements and guidance in the development and implementation of their plans, in keeping with the (OGP) Articles of Governance.

* “Progress made on the articulation and implementation of each commitment and the plan as a whole, according to milestones laid out by the government in its action plan.

* “Technical recommendations regarding how countries can improve implementation of each commitment and the plan as a whole, as well as how to better realize the values and principles of OGP, with specific reference to the OGP Articles of Governance and the OGP Declaration of Principles.”

Budget usec writes OGP on PH failure to pass FOI

mcmangahas Leave a comment

OTHER priorities take precedence over the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, hence the failure of the Aquino administration to “to live up to its commitments by not making sure a freedom of information bill passed,” according to an undersecretary of the Department of Budget and Management.

In a letter to the OGP Steering Committee, DBM Undersecretary and Chief Information Officer Richard E. Moya said the Aquino government remains committed to pass an FOI law, said a report of the freedominfo.org, an online network of FOI advocates.

“Indeed, we expressed this acknowledgment in the Philippine OGP Action Plan for 2012. However, we must clarify that the government did not explicitly commit to enact the FoI within the Action Plan’s period,” Moya wrote.

Because Congress is “an independent branch of government,” Moya said the administration cannot make commitment to ensure passage, but that it “took important steps in pushing for the enactment of the FoI, including the official transmission to Congress of an Administration version of the bill.”

Nonetheless, Moya reported that the administration has managed to get Congress to assure “the passage of critical socio-economic measures,” but he did not say that this all happened on certification of President Aquino.

He wrote: “These include the Reproductive Health law, which was needed to address serious reversals in maternal health and other Millennium Development Goals; the Sin Tax (excise tax on tobacco and alcohol) Reform measure, to secure urgently needed resources for universal healthcare; and amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) to ensure substantial compliance with international anti-money laundering standards.”

According to freedom.info.org, Moya’s Feb. 13, 2013 letter assured that the government has taken other steps to increase transparency. The letter was sent to the members of the Steering Committee of the OGP.

The Philippines is a founding member and sits on the OGP Steering Committee through Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad. It is not clear why only Moya, and not Abad himself, wrote the OGP Steering Committee members.

Freedominfo.org noted that “that position of leadership was all the more reason that the government should have passed a FOI bill, a campaign promise by President Benigno Aquino, according to critics who asked the OGP to ‘signal’ its disappointment.”

Atty. Nepo Malaluan, co-convenor of the Right to Know. Right Now! Coalition and co-director of the Institute for Freedom of Information, and Toby Mendel, executive director of the Centre for Law and Democracy, in a Feb. 8, 2013 letter to the OGP “expressed the widespread view among FOI supporters in the Philippines that Aquino failed to do enough to encourage legislative action on FOI.”

“They said this was inconsistent with the Philippines’ OGP action plan, which did not promise passage a FOI bill, but called it a ‘critical’ component of the plan. OGP leaders also should be held to a high standard, the critics said,” freedominfo.org reported.

“OGP officials had told FreedomInfo.org said that the OGP Governance and Leadership Subcommittee, meeting by teleconference last week and in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Feb. 18, likely would discuss the subject,” the report said. “There have been no public statements from the OGP on the matter.”

“OGP officials have said that criticizing governments is not an OGP function. On one other occasion, involving a controversial ‘secrecy bill’ in South Africa, the OGP Steering Committee members from civil society organizations wrote a joint letter expressing their concerns,” freedominfo.org said.

In his letter, Moya said the Aquino administration “has taken great strides in ensuring that the principle of transparency is not only reflected in policies but is also practiced by institutions in their day-to-day operations.”

“Many reforms that make information public in an unprecedented way have been undertaken. For instance, for the first time, national agencies have been required by law to disclose their respective agencies’ budgets, procurement plans, awarded contracts, status of budget implementation and other such relevant information. We have likewise instituted the same disclosure policy for local government units,” Moya wrote.

“Rest assured,” Moya said, “that our government will continue to work hard towards the enactment of an FoI law within the remaining years of the present Administration. Moreover, recognizing that the Philippines has many well-crafted but poorly-implemented laws, we are committed to work with the FoI advocates in building the foundations for a meaningful access to information.”