Environmentalism Without Illusions:
When Good Intentions Fail Philippine Ecology
By Karl Garcia
Environmental protection is one of the few policy goals that attracts near-universal agreement. Plant trees. Recycle waste. Clean rivers. Ban incineration. These actions feel ethical, visible, and immediately reassuring. They signal concern and suggest progress.
Yet environmental policy, like public health or infrastructure planning, is governed by physical systems, logistical constraints, and institutional capacity. Good intentions alone do not produce good outcomes. When environmental action prioritizes symbolism over systems—visibility over engineering, aspiration over execution—the result is often inefficiency, displaced risk, or delayed harm rather than genuine protection.
For a country as environmentally exposed as the Philippines—subject to typhoons, flooding, seismic activity, and rapid urbanization—this distinction is not academic. Environmentalism that is not grounded in ecological science, engineering realities, and governance capacity risks becoming performative rather than protective.
When Environmental Interventions Work
Environmental interventions are not optional. When properly designed, they deliver measurable benefits.
Mangrove forests reduce storm surge, limit coastal erosion, support fisheries, and store carbon. Watershed forests regulate water flow, mitigate floods, reduce landslide risk, and protect long-term water supply. Reforestation in rural and upland areas, when based on native species and supported by local stewardship, strengthens biodiversity and climate resilience.
What these successes share is not visibility but fit: alignment with location, hydrology, species ecology, and long-term management. Problems arise when this fit is assumed rather than verified.
Urban Tree Planting: Context, Not Virtue
Urban tree planting illustrates how environmental goals can collide with physical reality.
Many Philippine cities have narrow sidewalks, shallow soil beds, dense underground utilities, and constrained drainage systems. In such environments, planting large or inappropriate tree species can damage pavement, obstruct drainage, interfere with utilities, and create safety hazards during storms.
Studies from dense urban environments show that vegetation can, under certain configurations, reduce pollutant dispersion at street level by restricting airflow in so-called urban canyons. This does not mean urban trees are harmful. It means their benefits are context-dependent and design-sensitive.
In cities, trees are infrastructure. Like roads or drainage, they require engineering judgment. Poorly planned infrastructure—green or otherwise—fails.
Lessons from Large-Scale Tree Planting
Large national greening programs elsewhere offer cautionary lessons. While aggregate forest cover can increase, inappropriate species selection, water stress, and weak post-planting management can degrade ecosystems rather than restore them.
These outcomes do not invalidate reforestation. They reinforce a narrower point: ecological restoration cannot be standardized across landscapes without regard to local conditions. Aggregate metrics can improve while ecological function deteriorates.
Mangrove Restoration: Hydrology Over Headlines
Mangrove restoration in the Philippines offers both success stories and failures. High failure rates are commonly linked to planting in unsuitable zones—areas with excessive wave exposure, incorrect sediment conditions, or ecosystems naturally dominated by seagrass or mudflats.
Ecological consensus is clear: mangroves regenerate where hydrology and sediment dynamics are correct. In many cases, restoring tidal flow or removing physical barriers enables natural regeneration without mass planting.
Restoration is not an act of force. It is an act of restraint guided by science.
Waste Management and the Limits of Moral Framing
Waste governance in the Philippines is frequently framed as a moral issue—consumer discipline, corporate responsibility, or civic virtue—rather than a systems problem involving materials science, infrastructure capacity, enforcement, and logistics.
Republic Act 9003 provides a coherent framework emphasizing waste reduction, segregation at source, recycling, and diversion from landfills. Its uneven results stem not from flawed intent, but from persistent implementation gaps, particularly at the local government level. Not every LGU is created equal. Some cities operate functional Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) with trained staff and dedicated fleets; many municipalities do not.
In this uneven landscape, junkshops and semi-authorized scavengers perform a critical but under-acknowledged function. They recover a significant share of recyclable materials—often at higher purity levels than formal systems—because their operations are driven by market incentives rather than compliance metrics. In many areas, junkshops function as de facto MRFs, aggregating, sorting, and baling materials that would otherwise enter landfills. Informal and semi-formal scavengers further reduce residual waste volumes by extracting high-value materials at the household level, collection points, and disposal sites.
Treating these actors as policy failures rather than system assets creates a category error. Excluding them from waste planning does not eliminate informality; it weakens recovery rates and increases landfill pressure.
A complicating reality is often ignored: not all waste is recyclable in practice. Market demand, contamination, composite materials, transport costs, and scale determine what can actually be recovered. Residual waste is not evidence of ethical failure; it is a physical consequence of modern consumption.
Ignoring residual waste does not eliminate it. It relocates it.
Segregation in Theory, Mixing in Practice
Following high-profile landfill failures, policy responses have emphasized stricter segregation enforcement, including “no segregation, no collection” rules. These measures reflect renewed efforts to operationalize existing law rather than introduce new policy.
However, segregation frequently breaks down beyond the household level.
Even where multi-colored bins are used, downstream handling often collapses these distinctions. Waste is commonly consolidated into single black plastic bags during collection or mixed during hauling. This practice is driven less by disregard than by logistics.
Collection crews operate under strict time limits, limited truck fleets, narrow roads, and fixed routing schedules. Extended collection times risk traffic congestion, missed routes, delayed waste clearance, and secondary flooding during the rainy season. To maintain throughput, segregated waste is often combined.
When waste arrives mixed at transfer stations or disposal facilities, recovery becomes impractical. Recyclables lose value due to contamination, organic waste becomes unsuitable for composting, and residual volumes remain high despite formal compliance.
This mismatch explains compliance fatigue. When households observe that carefully segregated waste is ultimately recombined, incentives to sustain disciplined sorting decline—not from apathy, but from rational assessment of outcomes.
Segregation succeeds only when household behavior, collection logistics, vehicle design, MRF capacity, junkshop networks, and disposal practices are aligned. Without that alignment, segregation becomes procedural rather than functional.
Global Waste Externalization and Historical Disputes
Waste mismanagement is not purely local. The Philippines has experienced the externalization of foreign waste through misdeclared shipments labeled as recyclables but containing household garbage. The high-profile dispute with Canada over shipping containers of mislabeled waste highlighted how regulatory arbitrage exploits weaker enforcement regimes.
Similar rejections of inbound waste shipments have occurred across Southeast Asia. These cases underscore that waste challenges are shaped by global consumption patterns and trade flows, not merely domestic behavior.
Landfills, Risk, and the Cost of “Out of Sight”
Landfills are not neutral endpoints. They are engineered structures with failure modes—particularly dangerous in disaster-prone environments.
The Payatas tragedy and the more recent landfill collapse in Cebu illustrate how excessive waste volume, weak engineering safeguards, and limited oversight compound environmental and human risk. Treating disposal as an “out of sight, out of mind” solution externalizes danger rather than managing it.
Recycling Programs and Their Structural Limits
Reverse vending machines and retailer-led recovery programs have improved collection rates for high-value materials such as PET bottles and aluminum cans. These initiatives contribute to diversion and public awareness.
They are not comprehensive solutions. They exclude low-value plastics, multilayer packaging, organic waste, and contaminated materials, and they depend on volatile recycling markets. Their impact is bounded by system-wide constraints.
Public disengagement often reflects rational response to inconsistency, not indifference.
Rivers, Cleanup, and Technological Intervention
The degradation of Philippine rivers was driven by untreated sewage, industrial discharge, informal settlements, and unmanaged solid waste over decades. Cleanup alone did not cause recovery; upstream systems did.
Recent initiatives using sensor-based monitoring, AI-assisted waste detection, and automated trash traps improve interception and data quality. Manual creek cleaning remains essential in flood-prone cities, particularly before the rainy season. These are public safety measures, not symbolic gestures.
The error lies not in cleanup, but in treating cleanup as sufficient.
Waste-to-Energy and Legal Precision
The Clean Air Act prohibits incineration that emits toxic and poisonous fumes; it does not categorically ban all thermal waste treatment technologies. Regulatory guidelines emphasize emissions standards and oversight.
Public skepticism is understandable given enforcement failures. But policy coherence requires distinguishing technology from governance capacity rather than collapsing all thermal processes into a single moral category.
The question is not whether a technology is pure, but whether it is competently governed.
From Aspirations to Governance
“Zero waste” is a legitimate long-term aspiration. As an immediate operational framework in dense, rapidly urbanizing regions, it often exceeds current capacity.
A more defensible approach emphasizes maximum waste reduction and minimum landfill reliance through a combination of reduction, segregation, recycling, controlled disposal, informal-sector integration, and—where appropriate—regulated technological intervention.
Outcomes matter more than optics.
Conclusion: Environmentalism as Competence
Environmental protection is not a contest of moral purity. It is a discipline of trade-offs, constraints, and accountability.
Trees remain essential. Rivers can recover. Waste can be managed more safely. But only when ecology, engineering, and governance are allowed to lead—rather than symbolism.
The Philippines does not lack environmental values. It suffers from a persistent gap between aspiration and execution.
Closing that gap requires a less photogenic commitment: evidence-based policy, institutional capacity, and acceptance that some problems require imperfect solutions managed well, rather than perfect solutions that do not exist.
That is not a retreat from environmentalism.
It is its maturation.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
Many would be against.my dislike of trees on the sidewalks and center islands
Segregated waste that works whwn theor is no time pressure in collecting but five mojutes can cause a gridlock. So everytging gets mixed up in a small truck that is if they are not mixed up from source.
Thanks, Karl….I don’t think environment is a high priority for a developing nation like the Philippines. Growing up there, even as a child, I noticed that any body of water was considered a dumping ground for trash.
It is just that we have too many priorities nothing gets done.
“It is just that we have too many priorities nothing gets done.” – Karl
For us talkers, it may seem like too many priorities. But for those given a task, it is not. For example, Flood Control is not a priority of Sec. Aguda who is in charge of Dept. of Information and Communications Technology. Pres. Marcos, Jr. apparently liked what he saw with Estonia’s X-Road so he basically instructed Sec. Aguda and Undersecretary Almirol to overlook implementation to fit the Philippine situation.
Now that is their priority.
I remember one of Marcos, Jr.’s priorities was to restore a stable relationship with the US especially in the military field. He accomplished that quickly, and went on to other priorities.
I’m sure the Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Customs, LTO, etc. etc. all have their own priorities.
Francis had a priority of making the Filipino rich. His theory is that doing that will greatly reduce corruption.
My theory is – reduce corruption and the Filipino stands a better chance of getting rich. Kanya kanyang approach.
What is your priority?
Of course many believe thar theory and the get rich first is an outlier type of a proposition.
I would argue that that theory is outdated and far too idealistic when faced with reality.
Corruption has always existed since the earliest human sedentary societies, as a more complicated societal structure leaves more gaps for both the rich and the poor to take what they are not due when no one is looking.
Those who “have more” tend to have an imperative to protect what they have. That’s why the rich have legions of lawyers, attorneys and influence politicians to protect what they deem is “theirs.” Increase what the average Filipino “has” and they will quickly figure out ways to protect it, one way of which is to demand reform including on corruption. For all the negatives of social media in mindless consumption, I could easily envision a scenario where Filipinos who now have something personal to protect would use social media positively to collectively pressure for reform.
Another way to put it is that the ideas of numerous generations of Filipinos have failed, from Revolutionary Generation to Silent Generation to Boomers to GenX to perhaps even to include Elder Millennials. If an idea, no matter how idealistic and proper in a perfect world, continues to fail when encountering the real world, why proceed on it? It is a time for new ideas. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Jusrice is only for the rich, if everybody is rich, there will still be corruption, you will still bribe the other one will only outbribe you so on this case justice is for the richer.
Francis was using “get rich” in the broad sense, which he later clarified as increasing the economic outcomes for most Filipinos. Corruption will always exist in societies bigger than a small wandering hunter-gatherer family group as corruption exists as a byproduct of complexity creating opacity. That doesn’t mean one should give up on reducing corruption via accountability measures. The best way for citizens to hold themselves and others accountable is to be more educated and to have more stuff themselves that they want to protect.
So he means higher GDP and trickle down. Them same o same o maambunan lang habol.
The takeaway I got from Francis’s comments is, no, he meant to raise the economic outcomes of the average Filipino. I further proposed the easiest way to achieve this outcome which is to attract some of the manufacturing that is leaving China. Trickle down economics is a tool of the business interests and has long been disproven. Raising individual economic outcomes would translate to higher GDP, yes, but in a more equitable and sustainable way. Not at least starting to do so will probably get the Philippines Duterte 2.0, 3.0 and so on.
Anti.trust laws did not stop monopolies it only created oligopolies. Strict procurement laws did not stop collusion and negotiated bidding.
This is a failure of enforcement problem. Fox guarding the henhouse and so on.
Corruption is oft repeated and is insane.
“That doesn’t mean one should give up on reducing corruption via accountability measures. The best way for citizens to hold themselves and others accountable is to be more educated and to have more stuff themselves that they want to protect.” – Joey
Exactly the attitude of the DICT and the eGov project of the Philippine government.
Their diagnosis of the corruption problem – the role of human interaction in facilitating it. They conclude that corruption occurs in a face to face transaction between two human beings.
Their solution was to create a system that reduces wherever they can, that point of contact between two human beings.
Their tool of choice: Computer Technology.
The project has been underway and is gaining traction. It is not just a plan anymore.
From an Inquirer.net report of July 2025, I learned this:
>>The Philippine government’s modernization efforts are receiving global recognition at the GovMedia Awards 2025 in Singapore where the (1) eGovPH Super App won the E-Governance Project of the Year and (2) e-Government Data Exchange Platform (eGovDX) as Digital Transformation of the Year.
These awards affirm President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s vision of bringing government services closer to citizens through secure, user friendly digital tools. He emphasizes that digitalization isn’t merely about convenience—it’s a powerful weapon against inefficiency, corruption, and red tape. Streamlined digital services also lead to faster planning, more reliable data, and enhanced coordination across government agencies.
The eGovPH Super App integrates both national and local services—covering digital ID, travel, health, public safety, and more—under one platform. To date, it has enabled over 150 million transactions and boasts more than 13 million users.
Meanwhile, the eGovDX platform, which links over 1,000 government services, has processed more than 500 million transactions. It was recognized as the “Digital Transformation of the Year” for its secure, interoperable ecosystem that enhances data privacy and promotes efficiency.<<
The numbers are up, according to DICT. As of September 2025 they report 14 to 18 million users and up to 200+ million transactions. In the eGovPH Super App. No update from Undersecretary Almirol or Secretary Aguda of DICT on eGovDX platform transactions. Now that is not a good sign. Techie people should be able to give an update daily.
“That doesn’t mean one should give up on reducing corruption via accountability measures. The best way for citizens to hold themselves and others accountable is to be more educated and to have more stuff themselves that they want to protect.” – Joey
Exactly the attitude of the DICT and the eGov project of the Philippine government.
Their diagnosis of the corruption problem – the role of human interaction in facilitating it. They conclude that corruption occurs in a face to face transaction between two human beings.
Their solution was to create a system that reduces wherever they can, that point of contact between two human beings.
Their tool of choice: Computer Technology.
The project has been underway and is gaining traction. It is not just a plan anymore.
From an Inquirer.net report of July 2025, I learned this:
>>The Philippine government’s modernization efforts are receiving global recognition at the GovMedia Awards 2025 in Singapore where the (1) eGovPH Super App won the E-Governance Project of the Year and (2) e-Government Data Exchange Platform (eGovDX) as Digital Transformation of the Year.
These awards affirm President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s vision of bringing government services closer to citizens through secure, user friendly digital tools. He emphasizes that digitalization isn’t merely about convenience—it’s a powerful weapon against inefficiency, corruption, and red tape. Streamlined digital services also lead to faster planning, more reliable data, and enhanced coordination across government agencies.
The eGovPH Super App integrates both national and local services—covering digital ID, travel, health, public safety, and more—under one platform. To date, it has enabled over 150 million transactions and boasts more than 13 million users.
Meanwhile, the eGovDX platform, which links over 1,000 government services, has processed more than 500 million transactions. It was recognized as the “Digital Transformation of the Year” for its secure, interoperable ecosystem that enhances data privacy and promotes efficiency.<<
The numbers are up, according to DICT. As of September 2025 they report 14 to 18 million users and up to 200+ million transactions. In the eGovPH Super App. No update from Undersecretary Almirol or Secretary Aguda of DICT on eGovDX platform transactions. Now that is not a good sign. Techie people should be able to give an update daily.
Your statement may be at-face valid, but again my original comment is misconstrued.
Arguing about streamlining civ-gov interaction and increasing economic outcomes of the citizen are connected yes, but the permanence of the former depends on the strengthening of the latter. Not the other way around.
“but the permanence of the former depends on the strengthening of the latter. Not the other way around.” – Joey
Again exactly. That is why it is important to get the program implemented as quickly as possible (without sacrificing quality) and benefitting as many citizens and residents as possible (even foreign tourists benefit but they are not the main target) as quickly as possible (like before the next presidential elections in 2028) so that you get critical mass buy-in….something you spoke about when we were talking about STRONG LEADER.
With overwhelming critical mass buy in, it becomes more difficult for the Gatekeepers to undo what has already been accomplished. Something the team of Almirol/Aguda at least on the surface realize. Not sure how committed Marcos, Jr. is. But really all we need from him is for him not to sabotage it.
This is the goal. Filipinos are in charge, people who you say do not know how to use the tools that they have. So we shall see if they can learn quickly.
All that being said, we can also talk about Filipino culture, Cargo Cult, PinoyThink, Heritage of Smallness, etc. etc. But forgive me for being excited about e-Governance for the Filipinos and not so much the other stuff.
Cool
I’m a pragmatic tree-hugger. i believe dams can add to environmental security. My son’s school just did a massive mangrove planting last weekend, so there is awareness here even as the unaware leave their trash behind at religious festivals, representing both moral and accountability collapse. It takes a long distance to turn a big ship.
Government is lousy at managing things. the Japanese formula used at my California bank they owned was: Plan, Do, Check, Act. Simple and effective. Philippine government (NEDA) plans in excruciating detail, does things in haphazard and uncoordinated ways, seldom checks progress, and almost never acts to correct deficiencies.
SMC is building an airport. Did they plant mangroves to counter balance those they ripped up, like they said they would? What happened to Dennis Uy’s projects in Clark Green City? What exactly makes up the 26 billion in non-performing assets at the (Whatever) Development Bank? Who fucked up?
Lazy managers at work. Danger!
Yes Danger!
A previous draft acknowledging SMC
Per usual I can be wrong of course.
Here’s a tight, neutral summary that keeps the core argument intact:
—
Summary
San Miguel Corporation (SMC) has faced strong criticism over its major infrastructure projects, particularly the Bulacan Airport and the Pasig River Expressway, which are often portrayed as environmentally destructive. While environmental scrutiny is valid, the critique frequently ignores a crucial context: these projects are taking place after decades of state failure to manage rivers, urban congestion, and infrastructure planning.
River cleanup and rehabilitation—especially of the Pasig River—is an expensive, politically risky, and technically difficult task that governments repeatedly avoided. SMC stepped into this vacuum, undertaking work that is unglamorous and controversial but long neglected. Cleaning a biologically dead river is not a public-relations exercise; it is a necessary and dirty job that few actors were willing or able to do.
Large-scale projects like the Bulacan Airport inevitably have environmental costs, but rejecting all major development is not a realistic policy option for a growing country. The real issue lies in governance: mitigation, regulation, accountability, and enforcement—not in the assumption that development itself is inherently anti-environment.
Acknowledging SMC’s efforts does not mean exempting it from scrutiny. The corporation must still comply with environmental standards, engage communities, and submit to independent oversight. However, reflexive demonization risks discouraging any private-sector involvement in environmental rehabilitation and infrastructure reform.
The argument calls for balanced judgment: hold corporations accountable, but also recognize when they undertake difficult work that the state and society long failed to address.
**River cleanup and rehabilitation—especially of the Pasig River—is an expensive, politically risky, and technically difficult task that governments repeatedly avoided. SMC stepped into this vacuum, undertaking work that is unglamorous and controversial but long neglected. Cleaning a biologically dead river is not a public-relations exercise; it is a necessary and dirty job that few actors were willing or able to do.** – Karl G.
Don’t we have a heroine to emulate on this matter – Gina Lopez?
Her story is amazing. There should be a monument to her somewhere to remind Filipinos of what they can be, and for the most part are not. Of course I understand…who wants to be reminded of that? hehehe
Agree. I’m an SMC fanboy actually. They do professional work as far as I can tell. But news reports seldom do follow-up. Who does the checking? I dunno. If SMC did and made sure Rappler reported on the new mangrove forests, SMC would have an easier time on their Pasig expressway project.
“Philippine government (NEDA) plans in excruciating detail, does things in haphazard and uncoordinated ways, seldom checks progress, and almost never acts to correct deficiencies.” – Joey N.
Yeah, kinda like an attention deficit disorder. We Filipinos seem to lose interest quickly, except of course at the “cock pit.” 🙂
We are aware of it. I remember it being taught in school, at least at high school level back in my day. It was called “ningas cogon” referring to that grass that when dry burns hot and fast but quickly fizzles out. It has been mentioned in this forum before.
We need to do better.
But we seem to settle for “puede na” too easily. What a waste.
Attention deficit disorder. Terrific description.
On point observations Joe.
Instead of the discussion being on magic bullets (e.g. “X-Road”) as fix-alls, how about if the Philippines could emulate something from Estonia that is far more impactful: Tying further disbursement of public funds to performance.
In Estonia there are two types of funding sources, Estonian public funds (from PIT and corporate income tax) and EU Structural Funds. Generally the way performance-based disbursement works in Estonia is proposed projects get an immediate 15% disbursement as start-up funds, then further disbursement is tied directly to clearly defined performance metrics. For example if an Estonian wants to open a business serving the public, the business would get 15% government matching funding via a refundable loan and subsequent loan refundability and loan disbursement is contingent on creating x number of jobs with salaries at or above the median sector salary (IIRC the first metric would be employing 30 workers). This creates confidence when an Estonian wants to take a risk to create something new through clearly defined policy.
I could see something like this working out in the Philippines environmental and fisheries sector. Groups and organizations closer to the local concerns would receive initial support and funding to replant mangroves and manage hatcheries, and based on their performance would receive more funding. There is no need to complicate things by framing the initiative based on typhoon resilience or fisheries resilience; it can be framed as fundamentally a simple economic matter for the local community (because ultimately it is when mangroves and fisheries recover).
I think it is important to use limited resources effectively and to create as many positive cascading effects as possible. Conversely, the prevention of negative cascade should also be at where the headwaters of funding flow from. Figuratively it is much easier to dam a river closer to the source to increase control than to try to stop floodwaters at the floodplain.
“Tying further disbursement of public funds to performance.” – Joey
Do we know how to use the tools that we have to execute on that suggestion? Tying disbursement of funds to performance is already policy in the Philippine government. That is why flood projects had to be reported completed. On paper, they were completed. In reality, many were never even started.
It points to the tools you said we do not know how to use, and you are right.
So how is this suggestion of yours (environmental and fisheries sectors) to succeed?
Note that in the current system in the Philippines (which on paper ties disbursement of funds to performance), by the time the government finds out that it has been defrauded, the money is long gone.
I believe that your answer to that question of mine is “first learn how to use the tools!”
Well, okay…but meanwhile, put a hold on your suggestion for the environmental and fisheries sectors until people have learned how to use the tools of management and governance. Right?
In Estonia the performance metrics are clearly defined because the metrics are 1.) simple 2.) enforced. Estonia’s government publishes all this information publicly, just like the Philippines government publishes government work products, which you may find on your own if you’re so inclined.
Filipinos have a tendency to overcomplicate what is easy and underestimate what is hard, both which individually contribute to failure and combined create multi-headed disaster. Come to think about it, maybe over complicating things is a feature not a bug as it allows “bahala na” after cursory and inadequate “pwede na.” “See, we tried but it was too hard because we are just simple Filipinos here.” That lethargy of the upper classes and their attendant laziness may have worked in the past to fool regular Filipinos in an isolated Philippines but it increasingly does not work when there is more access to outside information on the Internet. There is not need for complicated IRR frameworks that no one understands or would follow anyway. K.I.S.S. is a useful guiding principle.
The conclusion of your line of reasoning in your comment illustrates this tendency to overcomplicate. The obsession over the meaning of singular words and cure-alls over actually starting to fix a problem is not helpful. I also do not appreciate taking my previous tool metaphor out of context like a quoted Bible verse. I do not believe you are a stupid person, so are you purposely being obtuse to agitate?
“ just like the Philippines government publishes government work products, which you may find on your own if you’re so inclined.” – Joey
Explain how that led to the Flood Control Projects scandal. Apparently, the looting went on for about 10 years. How did the government published work products report the ghost projects?
Since I noticed that you avoid answering my questions, let me answer for you for the sake of other members of the Society: “the publications of government products DID NOT WORK. In fact, if anything, they were a tool to enable the plundering of funds. What you would find in the publications DID NOT REFLECT REALITY on the ground.”
“ just like the Philippines government publishes government work products, which you may find on your own if you’re so inclined.” – Joey
Explain how that led to the Flood Control Projects scandal. Apparently, the looting went on for about 10 years. How did the government published work products report the ghost projects?
Since I noticed that you avoid answering my questions, let me answer for you: “the publications of government products DID NOT WORK. What you would find in the government publications DID NOT REFLECT REALITY.”
So the tool, the publications, were not used properly, as you explained to us before. And that is why your current recommendation will also not work. It is as simple as that.
Now don’t forget my advice about a glass of wine, or an alcoholic beverage of your choice (a Manhattan perhaps?).
lol
SMART goals are the same thing if one is not a fan of hugot like Filipinos are. Char but the point is I think clear to all except CV haha.
He did mention flood control projects but for instance in German practice, a project is either signed off as finished, signed off as finished with defects that need fixing (which means that 15% of the project cost is kept as security, normal practice in construction over here) or NOT FINISHED.
I don’t get how in the Philippines, entire projects that are NOT DONE AT ALL get PAID at all. Just like nobody was able to give me a proper explanation on how the funds the Philippine military got for modernization after selling Fort Bonifacio, paving the way for BGC, JUST “DISAPPEARED”. I do see how artificial complexity in the Philippines in both laws and procedures is probably in service of certain kinds of “magic” there, in Tagalog “kababalaghan” aka “mystery”.
that style of “argumentation” is quite common especially among older generation Filipinos, even unto my generation.
One could find it in the halls of Senate and Congress or at UP Diliman faculty meetings. Not at Ateneo as the Jesuits didn’t take BS.
I wasn’t aware that the 2003 GPA had been updated with the 2024 NGPA. Anyway government procurements aren’t my typical area of interest but I had a quick read through both acts. The NGPA mostly stipulates changing payment into electronic means to increase transparency. Most of the flood control corruption occurred under the GPA.
2003 GPA:
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9184_2003.html
2024 NGPA:
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12009_2024.html
In both acts there is a maximum advanced payment of 15% requiring approval by the President, which is probably not the problem. There areas that seem immediately available to corruption were:
1.) Progress payments that are paid from the allotted project budget by the procuring agency are to be certified by the procuring agency. This can be a vector for “man-on-the-inside” corruption where the contractor pays a bribe to the certifier from the procuring agency in order to pass and proceed to the next tranche.
2.) 20% subcontracting limit for goods and 50% subcontracting limit for infrastructure. The main contractor could potentially just create new entities to get around this.
Get a man-on-the-inside, and viola, ghost projects are “completed” without the contractor actually having done anything. Clearly too much final sign-off power is placed in lower level inspectors. There probably should be spot checks by higher powers within the agency or department.
Then there was a huge section in the NGPA about ESG, which just made me smack my forehead.
***
I have found that sometimes there is more focus on “balos,” than focus on substance. My joke-not-joke about a bunch of tomador at inuman passionately debating and then fighting over topics they have no business or expertise in pretty much describes how I feel about that. It is a male version of chismosas fighting over chismis. Useless. I guess that’s why I do not drink much if at all when I am in the Philippines.
“My joke-not-joke about a bunch of tomador at inuman passionately debating and then fighting over topics they have no business or expertise in pretty much describes how I feel about that. It is a male version of chismosas fighting over chismis.” – Joey
Is this among the DE people that you teach?
Unlike some, I hold myself neither superior nor inferior to those I choose to interact with. That includes the DEs. in any case that behavior is more prevalent among ABs from my own observation.
“Unlike some, I hold myself neither superior nor inferior to those I choose to interact with.” – Joey
Let me quote a line from a wise Filipino that I admire: “Let us be the judge of that.” 🙂
Now where is that glass of wine? Ah, here….Cheers!
lol clearly you have completely misunderstood Rizal and del Pilar. What a joke.
“lol clearly you have completely misunderstood Rizal and del Pilar.” – Joey
Huh? I was quoting my wife’s brother in law. He is a retired fellow…lives in Oriental Mindoro. What’s this about Rizal and del Pilar?
“I don’t get how in the Philippines, entire projects that are NOT DONE AT ALL get PAID at all.” – Irineo
Wow, I am shocked you are not aware of how things work in the Philippines. Anyways, I see Joey told you how it is done. I’ll repeat it here:
“Get a man-on-the-inside, and viola, ghost projects are “completed” without the contractor actually having done anything. Clearly too much final sign-off power is placed in lower level inspectors. There probably should be spot checks by higher powers within the agency or department.”
Note: Joey probably doesn’t realize that the “higher powers” get their share. In fact, the common wisdom is that when a cover is blown, like in the Flood Control Project scandal, SOMEONE IN THE HIGHER POWERS DID NOT GET HIS SHARE.
The solution for the Gatekeepers is easy. Have a backdoor meeting of the “old boys club” and find out what happened with regard to someone not getting his share. Then make sure that fellow gets his overlooked share. Then feed the public the usual crap like “We have ordered a full investigation, created a special investigative Agency (like ICI), etc. etc.”
I heard fairly recently that at the Bureau of Customs in Manila, there are weekly meetings of all employees for distribution of “ill gotten gains” acquired through corruption. So everyone benefits, and nobody snitches because you are part of the crimes.
I grew up in QC in Marcos Sr.’s time and heard the stories about him being “Mr. 10%” and even more %, and I have heard STORIES (as I never was involved in anything that had to do with corruption) of projects in developed countries where allegedly, some people got their cut – BUT SOMETHING WAS DELIVERED.
My question about how total ghost projects pass was just logical, and of course if everybody at all levels are somehow involved as you imply, maybe the legitimate question can be asked: HOW CAN A LEADER ARISE OUT OF SUCH A SYSTEM THAT WILL FIX THE SYSTEM?
By all indications, PNoy was someone who tried to, but some say the corrupt system made sure no one could continue his work. So the question once asked by a Singaporean former contributor in the article below is legitimate, CAN THE COUNTRY EVER CHANGE?
So how can you seriously think that corruption can be solved over there?
Maybe Francis is right, get the country rich first to lessen the incentive for corruption.
But what if the corrrupt make sure the country never gets rich because their greed is endless?
Re the Estonian example, were you aware of how low the corruption is in Nordic and Baltic countries?
New tools will not simply change entrenched ways of doing things so I don’t presume to have any answers.
Clearly the questions into root causes are touchy subjects for many Filipinos as focusing on superficial negatives are much easier to deal with. A problem cannot be solved with band-aid solutions while the wound below continues to bleed. In business we would call this process “root cause analysis.” For most businesses failing to address the root cause is a likely death sentence of bankruptcy.
I find Prof. Stefan Dercon’s writings on the “elite bargain” to be useful here. In fact he used the Philippines as one of the illustrations in his books “Gambling on Development” and “Development and the Elite Bargain.” Prof. Dercon’s premise is countries that manage to get to middle-income are often controlled by a very corrupt elite, which inhibits the ability to escape the “middle-income trap.” In Prof. Dercon’s studies he observed that when a big enough subset of elites shift from protecting their own positions (often through corruption, state or economic capture) to gambling on a growth-based future, a country would be more likely to exit the middle-income trap. An important observation by Prof. Dercon is that that elite subset requires enough political capital from the populace in order to be more confident in their gamble.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2022/09/14/book-review-gambling-on-development-why-some-countries-win-and-others-lose-by-stefan-dercon/
Re Estonia: Another big part of the Estonian story aside from Estonia having a hundreds of years influence from Germanic governance through the Teutonic Knights,
Hanseatic League, and so on, is that much of the extreme corruption in Estonia (certainly in the 1990s) was driven NOT by Estonians but by Russian mafia and Russian criminal elements connected to the former KGB. The same Russian criminal elements (the St. Petersburg mafia that Putin and much of his circle came from) that captured the privatization of Soviet state enterprises. The same Russian criminal elements that attacked and undermined Ukraine and Georgia’s governments. So in large part the Estonians got rid of the criminals, who were “foreign,” which fixed the root-cause of their corruption problem. The tendency to oversimply hard things is a self-setup towards failure. Magic thinking.
That is what we are here for. I do not believe we are voices in the wind or the wilderness. We theorize act like debate teams trying to defend issues hypothetically but not for naught.
**In business we would call this process “root cause analysis.”** – Joey
The Estonians did not bother with the morality of the people with regard to corruption. They did not focus on sending corrupt Estonians to jail. They focused on creating a system that would eliminate as much as possible the OPPORTUNITY for corruption. And they determined that opportunity to be face to face contact between potential BRIBER and potential BRIBEE.
What is your critical thought analysis on that? Is it sensible, logical, or magic?
“So in large part the Estonians got rid of the criminals, who were “foreign,” which fixed the root-cause of their corruption problem.” – Joey
Wow…great idea…if you have corrupt people in your country, just kick them out of the country. No more corruption.
Makes sense (except for the mechanics of determining who are corrupt. But what the Estonians did do in addition to kicking out corrupt people, is they put in a system that made it difficult for morally upright people left behind to be corrupt….JUST IN CASE!
Of course that was unnecessary, right, because thanks to their Nordic, or Germanic heritage etc. etc. that would never happen.
Regardless, should anybody get any ideas, like maybe the 250 or so Filipino OFWs working there, they could easily be caught because of the X-Road system that the Estonians installed.
Pretty good for magic, eh?
At one time I thought you were LCPL_X trolling under a pseudonym, but that is clearly not the case as LCPL_X has a far greater sense of humor.
Alright, let the expert who purports to know the “solution” he has barely learned about go back to the Philippines that he abandoned and implement what he is clearly holds such expertise in. Imagine the history book entries! Put your money where your mouth is.
And before you attempt a “clever” balos, I have never once nominated myself as the holder of all solutions. I share from my experience helping DEs when time allows, personal experience which you have still not shared despite me asking numerous times. Surely you have some relevant experience to share as you have lived and worked in the US twice as long as you grew up in the Philippines, longer than I have even been alive.
“Put your money where your mouth is.” – Joey
Wait a minute. I asked for your opinion on the “root cause analysis” of the Estonians and that is your answer?
“Surely you have some relevant experience to share as you have lived and worked in the US twice as long as you grew up in the Philippines, longer than I have even been alive.” – Joey
Yes…but there is a time to share and a time for root cause analysis. Shall we stay with the issue? 🙂
Are you being obtuse on purpose? That is literally not my comment, as quoted, says. In fact quite the opposite. I have patiently replied to you for over a year while dealing with your deflection and moving of goalposts. What is the point of replying when you just disregard what you don’t want to hear then move onto your obsessions? I also tire of this fomentation of discord by trying to force others to be alyado while playing off the current foil as kalaban, sometimes switching things around, just to support your own positions. Let your views stand on their own merits. Let your views be supported by your own experience.
“My question about how total ghost projects pass was just logical…” – Irineo
Yes, but I am afraid things in the Philippines are not very logical. You’ve heard the expression “OITP” for “Only in the Philippines.” We were saying that even back in the Marcos, Sr. days.
“Re the Estonian example, were you aware of how low the corruption is in Nordic and Baltic countries?” – Irineo
Estonia was very corrupt during 50 years under the Soviet Union, probably even more corrupt than the Philippines is now. I would not be surprised if by the time of their independence, 90% or perhaps more of their population was born under the Soviet Union and knew nothing better than corruption.
That is the challenge they faced when suddenly they were independent of Moscow.
The Philippines is in a better starting position Estonia was in 1991.
“So how can you seriously think that corruption can be solved over there?” – Irineo
I am confident your question has been addressed in the Society of Honor. Has it? What answers were given? I know the link that you gave me had this conclusion:
>>It’s not nice to be a pessimist, but it’s my ultimate Boeing 747 gambit that in the short and medium term, it is unlikely the Philippines can have the economic success to modernize and uplift the people. A one-man-one vote system leads to the tyranny of the majority. If the majority prefers tainted politicians to lord over them, then democracy is dead, long live democracy.<<
“New tools will not simply change entrenched ways of doing things so I don’t presume to have any answers.” – Irineo
I agree. And as Joey rightly points out, we do not know how to use the tools we have. I wonder how good we would be with new tools?
I am excited about the eGovernment project that the DICT has embarked upon. Joey thinks it is “magic” thinking. He has other ideas like bringing Chinese manufacturing to the Philippines. I don’t see how one can do that if one does not know how to use the tools one possesses.
1.) CV, our Estonia and Soviet successor states expert.
2.) Which firms do you suppose owns the manufacturing *technology* and *process* behind the “Chinese manufacturing?” Who do you think trained Chinese workers in the Chinese SEZs? I referred to supply chain re-alignment as manufacturing flowing out of China, not “Chinese manufacturing.” Anyway in the last 5 years since Covid-19 and geopolitical induced supply chain shock, India, Vietnam, Indonesia captured most of that outflow. Thailand and Malaysia captured most of the rest.
**I referred to supply chain re-alignment as manufacturing flowing out of China, not “Chinese manufacturing.”** – Joey
Not a problem, thanks for the correction. Meanwhile, explain to us how the Philippines, who doesn’t know how to use the tools it has, can be expected to execute your suggestion to capture some of this “supply chain re-alignment.”
Can you do that for us?
People like you are why the Philippines lost so many chances. Go find another mule to do your work.
“People like you are why the Philippines lost so many chances. Go find another mule to do your work.” – Joey
You bring up so many good points, but you can’t seem to discuss them. When I bring them up, you dismiss them? ¿Que pasa?
You dismissed the eGovernance Project of the DICT labeling it a “magic” solution. You dismiss discussion on your idea of bringing to the Philippines Chinese supply chain mfg. from China despite Filipinos not knowing how to use tools (another issue you brought up). You dismiss discussion on root cause analysis, a term which you brought up.
Honestly, I wish others in the Society would pick up on the issues you dismiss. Maybe we can learn something. I think what we sometimes forget is that we are on the same side with respect to helping Inang Bayan. We just have varied points of view, which is a good thing. Else it would be unimaginative and boring.
Contrary to what Joey said that I have more patience,my replies to you are short, he replies with all bases covered so a question seems frustrating after a well thought out comnent or rebuttal
Even if it is just the few of us here, I still take note of the discussion and may or may not reblog it.
Perhaps others will entertain you with patience but mine is exhausted.
Joey, Karl and myself – and further commenters – have already discussed the stuff you mention here in a lot of detail.
You are either (a) too lazy too read what is being discussed so you basically want others to do your homework;
OR (b) your reading comprehension is low (a common issue for those coming from a messed up educational system) OR (c) BAKA bobo ka talaga
https://joeam.com/2026/02/04/environmentalism-without-illusions/#comment-506374 exhibit A, just after Joey mentions RCA (which is the term for root cause analysis in our profession of IT) he gives an example of possible root cause that MIGHT apply to the Philippines
Re DICT I have given inputs such as that the existing national ID system should be more comprehensively introduced, interoperability to existing systems should be built, cedula should finally be replaced as part of the system, and NBI clearance can also be automated as part of the effort. Karl has posted a comment about mainframes to present systems and is right. I found out something interesting speaking to a Polish IT colleague recently..
.. he told me Estonia has the advantage of being SMALL and having done everything from scratch. It is like Poland was able to build its digital cellphone network from scratch, unlike Germany which had to upgrade based on existing analog networks. A for e-Government, he told me Poland took 25 years to get to where it is today which is ahead of Germany, and that they fumbled and groped in the dark for the first 5 years.
Karl understands a lot because he has worked in IT – AND has been actively involved in lawmaking when he worked for a Congressman. Joe was a bank manager. Joey and myself are practitioners of IT at different levels of skill. Actually, I recognize that I could have reached Joey’s level of proficiency IF I HAD BEEN AS FOCUSED AND INTENSE AS HE IS WHEN IT COMES TO MATTERS HE DECIDES TO “APPLY HIMSELF” TO. I still have residual senyorito habits. But at least I know I do.
I don’t even know what work experience you had in the USA that you can apply here, as Western work experience usually teaches some degree of taking charge even if one is at middle levels, something the “senyorito and indio” old Filipino system doesn’t. But if you have at least watched Breaking Bad, you might know what Walter White meant when he told Jesse Pinkman: “APPLY YOURSELF”. Jesse Pinkman at least did, but you haven’t for the most part until now.
NOT READING THE ATTENDANT DISCUSSIONS – and then wasting everybody’s time with questions and nitpicking – is NOT applying yourself. You seem more like the kind of people in the Philippine Congress and Senate Karl once mentioned, the kind that treat specialists like servants. I wonder if you are the kind of Filipino migrant to America who spent his entire life in the USA in subordinate positions and wants to be the bosing back home.
Thanks, Irineo, and Karl, and Joey for your feedback.
We think differently, and speak differently. I don’t care for long winded replies and explanations. The Stoic Marcus Aurelius said: “Let your speech be brief and to the point.”
I am a disciple of that philosophy. I tried to hint at that with my anecdote about H. Ross Perot
Also, there is no need to bandy about one’s credentials, in my opinion. It will show in your writings. I am not a computer systems geek, and you will recall that since you mentioned that you were a systems person, I asked for your help in explaining the eGov program that the Philippines was installing.
Going forward, I will do my best not to display my ignorance of past discussions. Do you do that to encourage new members to join in on the Society’s discussions? Seems counterproductive. I believe that you said the Jesuits won’t take much BS. I actually found the Jesuits in the Philippines quite full of BS. It was nice to no longer be under their control so I could call them out on it if and when I had a chance to.
Let me tell you a true story I heard from an Atenean while he was still in college. This was in the 70s. He was an upperclassman, I was a freshman. He was gossiping about one of his professors in Theology, one of the Jesuits. I believe from his name that he was Irish…and older man already. Anyways, my buddy bumped into him in the one of the hallways so he took the opportunity to ask the good priest about something brought up in class. To my buddy’s surprise, the priest said to him: “Do you know how to read?” My buddy said “Yes, Father.” The priest then retorted: “Well then read, boy, read!”
So it is like your advice to me – read…read…read!
So you are in good company…good Jesuit advice.
I’ve read discussions in TSOH criticizing the system of rote learning in the Philippines. Well I don’t like rote learning, hence if I don’t understand something I like to raise my hand and ask the speaker to elaborate or explain further. If I disagree, I am likely to say so and to explain why and expect the fellow to show me why I am wrong, or maybe elaborate why I am right. I don’t take too well to simply being dismissed. I find that unimpressive…but that is just me. You will notice in my posts I never dismiss someone who has a genuine question about something I have said or a position I have taken. I am in fact flattered at the interest I am receiving in something I have said.
But that is just me.
The uneducated often think their own opinions quite important. This rush to play victim after you try to throw the first punch in an argument you instigated yourself is getting tiresome.
“The uneducated often think their own opinions quite important.” – Joey
True, but then I have also found that to be true of educated people. Have you noticed that?
we are paying attention to details here, which do matter in looking at actually getting things done.
“I don’t care about the details” is a typical senyorito statement.
what credentials? EXPERIENCE.
I theoretically have “better” credentials than Joey when it comes to IT, but his level in the profession is definitely higher than mine.
Karl is not a UP NCPAG graduate like one who once wrote here (Popoy) but he has practical exposure to the PH system.
try to follow present discussions, like someone in a conversation or a meeting. That is all.
Asking repeated questions about matters recently discussed is a sign of not paying attention.
so you have been paying SOME attention to the PRESENT discussions.
haha, so you had the same trauma that Rizal had with the Dominicans at UST. To each his own.
Rizal had friends like Padre Faura and generally was more positive about the Jesuits.
But every intellectual elite has its top people and its posers. Secular and clerical alike.
Joey took a lot of pains to explain stuff to you, and had a lot of patience.
I have been mostly watching this from the sides. OK, gotta log in to work in half an hour.
“we are paying attention to detail here, which do matter in looking at actually getting things done.” – Irineo
Of course. But then there are “long winded replies and explanations” and then there are “details.” The two don’t necessarily mean the same thing, right? I was referring to the former. I love details when they contribute to the discussion.
But I think it would be wise for us to follow Marcus Aurelius’ advice and keep it brief, even in the details.
“what credentials? EXPERIENCE.” – Irineo
Yes, experience is definitely a credential. We all have our credentials. No need to bandy them about. Was it Kasambahay or Istambaysakanto who recently brought up “pataasan ng ihi?” One risks doing that in a conversation if one is constantly bandying about his credentials, don’t you agree?
“Asking repeated questions about matters recently discussed is a sign of not paying attention.” – Irineo
It is also a sign that a person is interested in what is being discussed. Any contributor to TSOH should be glad when a fellow member shows interest in what he says. It shows he is paying attention. Don’t you agree? Those questions are actually springboards to deeper discussions on what you have to say. I totally encourage that. There are so few participants now…could it be because they fully agree with all the “solutions” we propose and are quietly just nodding their heads which we cannot see? Or have we lost their attention? JoeAm knows the answer to that. He sees how many look at the blog.
I would suggest that folk not be so defensive when someone shows an interest in what you have to say. Do you disagree with that approach?
“Rizal had friends like Padre Faura and generally was more positive about the Jesuits.” – Irineo
Yes indeed he did. Did you know that Padre Faura banned Rizal from the Ateneo campus? Indeed he did, but he had good intentions, I think. In a conversation they were having he warned Rizal that his political thoughts would “lead you to the scaffolds” I believe were his exact words. And to discourage him from continue on that road to perdition, he banned Rizal from the campus until he changed his views, or at least stopped expressing them.
“Joey took a lot of pains to explain stuff to you, and had a lot of patience.
I have been mostly watching this from the sides.” – Irineo
That is our loss, I think, your mostly just watching from the sides. You may have had something interesting to add, especially considering your credentials as a systems person.
In any case, I must admit I have enjoyed the feedback given by yourself, Joey and Karl. I don’t think we have discussed any subject as vibrantly, energetically and passionately as the subject of ME! Hehehe
But I do prefer that we go back to discussing ideas that the Society has been bringing up.
I think you are not the only person who decides what contributes to the discussion and what doesn’t.
In the end it is Joeam who decides who is a useful contributor here and who is banned as a nuisance.
There is a relatively long tolerance period as Joe usually lets things run their course.
It can be, but asking questions and then alleging there have been no solutions offered isn’t good style in discussing.
You have a number of times badgered Joey and alleged he had no solutions offered when he actually did in other comments.
I shall not detail those examples for the sake of brevity that you requested, but I can if needed.
Joeam, Karl, Giancarlo and myself all have administrative access to the blog. We know the stats way back and now.
We might like Pilosopo Tasyo in the Noli be writing for future generations – or just for ourselves, who knows.
Or we might just be the equivalent of an inuman session, who said that we know anything at all over here? Haha.
What I can definitely say is that this was and is one of the more tolerant places in the PH blogosphere or socmed.
Go to some places were the usual Pinoy groupthink is the norm and you will see where disagreeing leads you to.
P.S. for instance GRP or places where Orion Perez, formerly US-based IT expert and opinion maker, is present..
P.P.S. the number of views TODAY has vastly increased – could that be because Filipinos love drama more than discourse? Hehe.
“You have a number of times badgered Joey and alleged he had no solutions offered when he actually did in other comments.
I shall not detail those examples for the sake of brevity that you requested, but I can if needed.” – Irineo
Ah, that would be good. Please detail those examples so I can make a proper apology. I do recall badgering to take a solution he proposed (the one about bringing manufacturing from China to the Philippines) and see how it stacks up against his objection of “Filipinos do not know how to use the tools they have.”
But do please provide at least one example.
I don’t think I need to at this point, I just recommend that you re-read your own stuff and recent discussions, you will see I hope.
And as for whatever apologies, I think what is important moving forward is to try to be more of a help than an annoyance in discussions.
How that can be done has also been said several times and does not I think need to be repeated so yes let us return to the topics at hand.
I took CV off of moderation because he offers fresh insights, like the Estonia case study. But, indeed, he seems to enjoy trolling contributors more than discussing issues. And he is selective in his responses, as Joey pointed out, drilling far and wide with questions while respecting none of the contributor’s good faith efforts to address his questions. There is no end of the drilling and, in the end, it turns personal. With me, then Joey, now you. The common denominator is CV who reminds me of my long ago nemesis at Raissa’s blog, Parekoy. His overblown sense of self, lack of humility, and internal demons simply shut off objective hearing and generated an underlying nastiness to the debate. So here we are, illustrating the incapacity of intelligent people to be civil.
Corruption as an industry contributes to GDP if it is invested in the Philippines. Lowest and worst use investment, sure, but not lost money. So the nation chugs along. There are a LOT of productive enterprises here. The entire nation is not corrupt. The 9 senators who would sell the nation to China are worse than corrupt.
Yes indeed. Makes a whole lotta sense.
Along those lines, I do wonder if any constitutional attorney can find a way to tie LGU mandatory disbursements to performance. It seems to me that in less performant but populous provinces, especially in Mindanao, the local governments are okay with getting the minimum mandatory disbursement then make little effort to increase their own local economies and services. Sadly I do not know any constitutional attorneys in the Philippines unlike back here in the US where I know a number of constitutional lawyers and professors.
“Along those lines, I do wonder if any constitutional attorney can find a way to tie LGU mandatory disbursements to performance.” – Joey
Back in the day, during the Marcos, Sr. dictatorship years, there was an international convention of lawyers hosted by the Philippines. Back then, the Philippine International Convention Center was brand new…part of Imelda’s pet projects like the Cultural Center of the Philippines which was a stone’s throw away from the PICC. Then Sec. of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo gave the opening day remarks. He was purported to have said to this whole convention of lawyers: “In the Philippines there are two kinds of lawyers – those who know the law, and those who know the judge.“
It was Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo who instituted the LGPMS – Local Government Performance Management System.
no idea if it has been diluted after him.
Ah, good reference point. Thanks.
LGPMS was an IRR if I recall. LGPMS has been codified into law as Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG). I would consider SGLG to be separate from what I was referring to as SGLG is a “carrot” incentive, meaning the LGU is striving to be better in order to obtain an award local officials can tout to their constituents while also unlocking additional funding. I have seen more than a few LGUs where it seemed that the local leaders did not give a damn about local development and are quite happy with the mandatory disbursements they receive as it is “enough” to keep their hold on power. For the latter situation not sure what would be the solution as mandatory disbursement is baked into the Constitution and codified in law. I’m not for letting regular folks suffer by withdrawing funds, but perhaps for such LGUs more oversight needs to be conducted by the provincial and national level.
That is an excellent idea. Rather than routine or political allotments, have a base level plus kickers tied to performance. Measuring performance would have to have metrics and that is likely the biggest challenge. Taxes collected, storm prep, development progress. Tough but doable with enough attention paid to it.
I wonder how much pushback and anger such a policy would receive from LGUs that are used to getting their automatic money, do hardly anything at all, then conveniently blame a distant provincial capitol or Manila. Perhaps a carrot and stick method might work, with the carrot being juicy enough that it becomes the logical choice.
I will revise my tei-capital proposal with ritating division of labor each 3 regions have turns in becoming executive legislative and judiciary every 12 years or two presidents. With this local government code will be revised.
Maybe. There is risk of duplication and triplication though. How about having better transport infrastructure so that representatives and government employees can get around from Manila to provinces faster? That way auditors can also check more often as well, and not just a lower level agency agent having carte blanche authority to sign off on most things. For a small country it is remarkably hard to travel from province to province, or even within a province.
Could work.(what u said)
Makes sense.
What is the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA)?
The IRA (now technically called National Tax Allotment or NTA after the Mandanas ruling) is the automatic share of national government revenues transferred to LGUs (provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays).
It’s traditionally:
Formula-based
Population
Land area
Equal sharing
Unconditional
LGUs can spend it with broad discretion
—
What does Performance-Based IRA mean?
A Performance-Based IRA would mean that part of the LGU transfers depends on how well the LGU performs, not just on size or population.
👉 In short:
Better governance = more money
—
Why this idea exists
The current IRA/NTA system has three big problems:
1. No incentives for good performance
A corrupt or incompetent LGU gets the same transfer as a well-run one.
2. Soft budget constraints
LGUs rely on national transfers instead of improving local revenue.
3. Weak accountability
Citizens can’t easily see if money leads to results.
A performance-based system tries to fix that.
—
What “performance” usually means
Performance indicators typically fall into five buckets:
1. Fiscal Performance
Local revenue effort (tax collection efficiency)
Budget execution rate
Debt management
COA audit outcomes
2. Governance & Transparency
Compliance with Full Disclosure Policy
Open data / procurement transparency
Anti-corruption mechanisms
3. Service Delivery
Health outcomes (e.g., immunization, maternal care)
Education (school participation, classrooms built)
Water, sanitation, waste management
4. Development Outcomes
Poverty reduction
Employment generation
Climate resilience & disaster preparedness
5. National Priority Alignment
SDGs
Climate adaptation
Digitalization
Gender and social inclusion
—
How it could be structured (realistically)
Most proposals do NOT replace IRA entirely. That would be politically explosive.
A common design is:
80–90% formula-based (guaranteed)
10–20% performance-based (incentive pool)
Example:
> An LGU keeps its basic allocation, but earns bonuses for good performance.
This avoids:
Starving poor LGUs
Penalizing geographically disadvantaged areas
—
Philippine precedents (important)
The idea is not new in the Philippines.
1. Performance Challenge Fund (PCF)
LGUs that pass governance standards receive extra funding
Run by DILG
Limited scale, but conceptually successful
2. Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG)
Governance scorecard
Often linked to eligibility for grants
3. Mandanas Ruling context
LGUs now receive much more money
But capacity and accountability have not kept pace
Strengthens the case for performance-based mechanisms
—
Key risks and criticisms
This is where your earlier critiques of Philippine institutions really matter.
1. Elite capture
Well-resourced LGUs perform better on paper
Poor LGUs risk being left behind
2. Metric gaming
LGUs may optimize for indicators, not real outcomes
3. Capacity gaps
Small municipalities may lack staff to comply
4. Politicization
Performance scores could be manipulated or weaponized
Some members of the House of Representatives are lawyers by profession. They contribute their legal expertise to drafting, debating, and reviewing bills (including constitutional ones) and often sit on key committees such as the Committee on Justice — which has jurisdiction over legal and constitutional matters. � Wikipedia Examples of lawyer-members of the House (20th Congress): Leila de Lima – Lawyer, human rights advocate, and House Deputy Minority Leader. � Wikipedia Lorenz Defensor – Lawyer and Representative of Iloilo’s 3rd District (also part of the House impeachment prosecution team). � Wikipedia Erin Tañada – Lawyer and former House Deputy Speaker. � Wikipedia These members use their legal background in legislative work, especially when dealing with constitutional law, legal frameworks, and justice issues. However, as legislators they cannot practice law in courts or tribunals while in office because of Article VI, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution. �