Harnessing open data for fiscal transparency in local governments in the Philippines Erwin A. Alampay and Pauline Bautista

Abstract

National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines

This research attempted to transition traditional ways by which CSO’s interrogates, audits and participates in local governance by modeling the information gathering systems they undertake in ‘following the money’ and actively getting involved in planning and budgetting, into an open data fiscal transparency model at the local level. This research was done by documenting four cases of CSOs that audit or participate actively in budgetting and auditing processes at the local level. From these cases an open-data ecosystem for local fiscal transparency was diagrammed. The model was validated against websites of eight local government units (LGUs) to determine existing information gaps in ‘open-ness’ in LGUs that need to be addressed. For the local fiscal open-data ecosystem to transition from the traditional ways of CSO engagement, will require: (1) continued national government support to implement responsive open data policies that will continue to incentivize complete, timely and machine-processable fiscal open data in LGUs; (2) national laws that will sustain the Open Data initiatives of the previous administration; (3) a government-wide open data capacity-building through the newly established Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT) that will systematize open data requirements across all levels of government while also providing the needed infrastructure to make it work, and finally (4) building understanding at the grassroots, starting with the K-12 curricula, of how the local government works, especially the local budget process, so that fiscal data that is eventually made open can be found, understood and used by every citizen of the country for whatever purpose they require.

Introduction E-Government, Open Government and Open Data In the quest for better government services and higher accountability of government, many countries are turning to information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve governance. Some refer to this as e-government. This concept has also evolved from from the exploitation of ICTs as a means to enhancing government operations and services towards the expansion of the democratic space through transparency, accountability and citizen participation (Velkovic, et.al. 2014). Through the of internet technologies, e-government has now given rise to open government where government agencies open new channels of communication and information exchange with citizens (Martin & Bonina 2013; Parycek and Sachs 2010). This is seen as potentially providing for new spaces for openness, transparency, participation, service provision and accountability (Parycek and Sachs 2010; Martin & Bonina 2013)— and is focused on building trust on and responsiveness of government (Velkovic, et al. 2014). Open government holds to the principle that citizens have the right to access documents, proceedings, information, etc. of the government to allow for effective public oversight. It has five components: (1) government transparency; (2) data transparency, (3) participation through open dialogue; (4) collaboration; and (5) open data (Velkovic, et al., 2014). Open data refer to ‘freely and easily accessible, machine readable, and explictily unrestricted in use” (World Bank 2016, p.270). Government is a source of open data on

population, public budgets, infrastructure and other services (Velokovic et.al. 2014). The subject of open government data then involves the disclosure of datasets that are valuable for re-use and civic engagement. This requires complete, primary and timely government data be made accessible, processable and sharable, free from licenses and should be non-discriminatory (Velkovic, et.al. 2014). Hence, open data is complementary to the values of transparency and participation that has defined good governance. At present there is growing exploration on how the publication and use of open and linked data can impact governance, economic growth and the delivery of services (Davies & Edwards 2012)

Open data at the national and local levels

Some trace the origins of the open data movement to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in the United States in 1966. This came about through the growth of an increasingly nontransparent post-World War II federal bureaucracy and the idealistic motivations for an informed citizenry (Tauberer 2014). The FOI Act set the standards for the opening of government documents for access to the public. Today, many countries are committing to proactively disclosing information, though the discussions and commitments have largely been at the national level (Canares and Shekhar 2015). In the case of the Philippines, it was one of the eight founding states of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011. There are also national programs in the Philippines that further encourage greater transparency, such as the DILG’s “Seal of Good Housekeeping” program (Ona, et.al. 2014). In 2014, the Philippines’ open data portal (data.gov.ph) was officially launched. It is managed by the government’s Open Data Task Force and is anchored on access to public sector information, data-driven governance, public engagement and practical innovation (DBM 2015). The portal hosts datasets 1 from different national government agencies which are accessible, and sharable. In this respect, a catalogue of available open agency data are already available from a number of departments and agencies. 2 Capacity building is being done on both the demand and supply-side, but most are Manila-centric and interrogates national data (Canares et.al. 2015). For instance, while the national government’s Open Government task force is continuing to collect open data from national government agencies, the efforts have not yet cascaded to local government units (LGUs). As such, attaining the expected benefits open data enabled e-governance may require new forms of intermediation that will bridge the information gap between government and its citizens (Alampay 2002).

Transparency, participation and open data at the local level

In 1991, the passage of the Local Government Code (LGC) was intended to strengthen LGUs and promote social development through the decentralization of power. It devolved basic services to the LGU and empowered it to increase local financing to make it more self-reliant (Alampay 2006). This was consistent with similar reforms in other countries for greater decentralization (Brillantes 2003). The passage of the LGC came at a time when the ICT revolution was beginning. Hence, complementary to its call for reform and better governance was the emergence of electronic government in the country (Alampay 2006). This provides the connection between e-government and people’s particiaton and its continued evolution in the local level. 1 2

Data formats are in CSV, TXT and XLS formats. This can be accessed at http://data.gov.ph/catalogue/dataset/agency-data-inventory.

At the local level, there is demand for local government data in the Philippines from various stakeholders. The national government, for instance, requires regular reports to monitor LGUs. Academic researchers and civil society organizations also require data for research and independent third-party assessments. Moreover, the Philippines’ LGC has enshrined the participation of citizens and civil society through local special bodies which plan each LGU’s development programs. In such cases, active participation requires access to local data, especially financial data, so that plans are evidence-based. In relation to open data, the Full Disclosure Policy (FDP) is a national government initiative that incentivizes the disclosure of LGU financial data, and is a logical starting point when discussing the state of openness in local governmental data (Canares 2014c).

Research Questions

Given the above background, this study investigated the following:

1. What are the needs of CSOs for financial data with respect to their work in dealing with government? 2. What is the state of ‘openness’ of LGU related financial data in government at the national and local levels? 3. How can government financial data at the local level be made more open, useful and accessible to stakeholders?

Methodology

Matching existing data to possible uses or existing users can help in the data structure design (Figure 1). It must consider the perspective of current and potential users of the data to make the data valuable (Zuiderwijk 2014). For example, open data on funding or disbursements for development projects has limited use if this could not be analyzed due to undisclosed local census data. It would be difficult to compute for per capita allocation or proportional allocation corresponding to the size of particular sectors. Also important is raising awareness of CSOs that such initiatives exist (Canares 2014a), whether this be at the national or local level. As such, to come up with an open data model at the local level for finance-related use, the collection and modeling of the data CSOs require was first done. Subsequently, the model was tested in some LGUs vis-à-vis how open these financial data were at in their official websites. The first step was done by investigating financial sector-focused CSOs that require LGU financial data for their work. The assumption is that workable models for strengthening government transparency and accountability through open financial data in the realms of Bottom-Up-Budgeting (BuB), Participatory Budgeting and Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA) can be a springboard for collaborative and complimentary initiatives in the design of open data initiatives at the local level. This is premised on the idea that the design of how data is disclosed can limit citizen participation and use (Canares & Shekhar 2015). Three main sources were documented, compared and analyzed. First, was the financial information that the national government agencies have of LGUs; second was the information that civil society organization (CSOs) need to get from LGUs with respect to its finances; and last was the information that

LGUs already have, make available and provide in various forms (whether open format or not) to the public (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Mapping Information Needs, Requirements and Availability

Organizing these data then involved (1) mapping requirements for documents to be posted imposed by national agencies/programs regarding fiscal transparency and reporting. The study put particular focus on DILG’s FDP requirements, given the FDP’s critical value for bringing the open data discourse at the local level (Canares 2014c). Table 1: List of Follow-the-money Cases Follow the money Project Alternative Budget Preparation Bottom-up Budgeting/Participatory Budgeting at the local level Participatory Audit BuB Monitoring and Evaluation Check-my-school

CSO involved Social Watch CODE-NGO ULAP INCITE-GOV CCAGG ANSA-EAP

Canares and Shekar (2015, p.20) argued, that if data serve socio-political, or economic ends, it will always be sought by those who need them regardless of whether it is open or not. As such, the next step required (2) identification and documentation of CSO ‘Follow-the-money’ projects and mapping information requirements related to it. Among these are projects like bottom-up-budgeting (BuB) and citizen’s participatory audits. The case studies of existing initiatives of Follow-the-money projects that were covered for this study were the following (see Table 1): As such, the analysis of the various cases was intended to lead to the development of an integrative model of the data and information needs of the various CSO initiatives. This is because most CSO initiatives are often stand-alone and not connected, and reflects the different

roles and contexts intermediaries play with respect to open data (Canares and Shekhar 2015) and participation in governance in general. The CSOs involved in the selected cases, are data intermediaries that can potentially hasten open data use at the local level. Social Watch is a network of over 100 CSOs and individuals, advocating citizens’ participation in public finance; CODE-NGO is the country’s biggest network of non-government organizations; the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) is the umbrella organization of all the leagues of LGUs and leagues and federations of local elective and appointive officials; Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government (CCAGG) is the Philippine pioneer in social audits; Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP) works with the Commission on Audit for “i-kuwenta”, COA’s Citizen’s Participatory Audit; INCITE-GOV, International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Governance, convenes uniquely positioned reform advocates for discourse and capacity building in Public Fiscal Management. Their work is consistent with the rationale for engaging citizens in accountability and budgeting (Boncodin 2007) . Last, (3) there are local government data that are available that are not required by DILG under the FDP, but needed by CSOs for their work, whether in open-format, or not. As noted by Canares, et. al (2015, p.11), among the challenges for accessing local government information in the Philippines include approval protocols, duration for request to be addressed, outdated data, personnel for retrieving information among others. To map this, content of LGU websites were analyzed. This was done to identify where there is a large overlap in the intersection of the three sources which would represent the level of fiscal data openness in that LGU. In this report, eight LGU websites (3 cities and 5 provinces) were documented. The eight are: Iloilo City, Naga City, Quezon City, Iloilo Province, Bohol Province, South Cotabato Province, Camarines Sur Province, and Abra Province. However, these were not randomly selected. 3 Recommendations for improving the opennesss of fiscal data in LGUs were based on this process of looking at the availability of information in the websites of these LGUs. Operationalization of data openness Fiscal data openness can be viewed in terms the level of “openness” the datasets possess. According to Velokovic, et. al.(2014), openness pertains to the quality of the data and the infrastructure on which the data is hosted or disseminated. The three most sensitive open data principles are “complete”, “timely” and “machine processable.” Open data is most complete as it progresses from availability of description to being downloadable, to be being machine readable, to linked data. Timeliness factors in the length of time period covered in the data, the frequency the dataset is updated and the last time it was updated; while the degree of being machine processable relies on the format whether it be static (PDF, JPG, non-editable), processable proprietary (XLS) or open source/non-proprietary (CSV), and machine readable and interoperable (RDF, XML) (Velkovic, et.al. 2014). Hence, the less encumbrances in the processing of data, the more open it is.

3

Quezon City, was selected because it was the location where CLRG-NCPAG operated, whereas Abra province was the province where one of the CSOs (CCAGG) operated in. Bohol and Naga, on the otherhand, were known LGUs for their e-government initiatives.

FINDINGS

Civil society organizations (CSOs) engage government with respect to financial matters in various ways. This section discusses findings based on selected cases involving CSO participation in the planning, implementation and audit process. The cases present the types of data/information required from government in performing their function. The discussion of the findings are structured in three parts. First is a discussion of open data at the national level through the example of Social Watch. Second, a discussion of need for local government financial data based on cases of local CSOs engaging with government at the local level. This is illustrated through the case of CSOs participating in bottom-up-budgeting (BuB). Third, is a discussion of cases that interrogate both national and local data, thereby illustrating how information at the two levels inter-relate, both in terms of information, and also in terms of fiscal transfers.

Open Data at the National Level, and CSO Interactions with open data

Social Watch Philippines (Social Watch) is a network of NGOs with a reputation as a budget watch-dog. Set-up in 1997, its objective is to increase the public’s awareness and promote social development concerns in government. Its network has grown to more or less 100 CSOs and individuals. 4 At the national level, it interrogates the national government with respect to the national budget. It reviews the national expenditure program (NEP) and the GAA, and even proposes an ‘alternative budget’ that it aggregates through their own consultation with other CSO members in their network. National budgets and appropriations are of interest to other organizations within government. Departments, agencies, and other units of government, for instance, need to know the funds appropriated in the budget. Furthermore, the interphase of national to local in terms of financial information generally revolve around fsical transfers involving the internal revenue allotments (IRA), and departmental budgets that get downloaded to the LGUs such as menu of projects allowed in bottom-up-budgeting (BuB).

Case 1: Social Watch and the Alternative Budget Initiative Social Watch’s Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI) uses data from the national budget to critically engage the national government vis-a-vis an alternative budget it crafts in behalf of its network of NGOs. These affiliated NGOs, in turn, deal with national departments/agencies in their preparation of their budgets (Figure 2). Mr. Alce Quitalig of Social Watch says that their “natural ally is the opposition.” This suggests a natural tension between the administration, that provides data, and Social Watch which ‘fiscalizes’ the administration. They engage with whoever wants to engage with them, and they are “willing to give data.” In fact, according to Mr. Quitalig, some lawmakers (e.g. Senators) request for briefings from Social Watch. 4

see http://socialwatchphilippines.weebly.com/about-us.html

Figure 2: Social Watch Alternative Budget Preparation

“Alternative Budget Initiative (ABI) is our engagement and our method of engagement is partnering with CSOs and also with government in terms of the budget preparation. We partner with program officers. But, our engagement in budget preparation is uneven for different clusters” according to Mr. Quitalig. Their engagement might be affected by the type of relationship of their network NGOs, with the various agencies of government, and the agencies’ openness to share data and allow participation. For instance, they find it easier to get data from the Department of Health (DoH), whereas, with the DSWD and DepEd, participation requires a more formal process. In some cases, CSOs may also be knowledgeable of the country’s United Nations (UN) commitments (e.g. health, climate), they can interrogate the plans based on these commitments. “We also propose the financing sources, we know the budget ceilings, those sources of financing comes from the contestable budget items, like lump sums, that we see should be re-aligned or re-allocated, reducing the lump sums.” However, proposed items that CSOs successfully include in an agency budget may still end up being cut in the technical budget. In turn, CSOs complain, if these get removed in the budget. As, for Mr. Quitalig, any change in ‘language’ or terminologies from one step to another becomes a problem for them if they want to track budgets they proposed. Use of open data At the national level, there are already some documents that can be accessed online. The GAA/NEP can be Downloaded in .pdf, .xls, and .csv form in the Department of Budget and

Management (DBM) website. The DBM also has data on the BuB. 5 There’s also the FDP portal lodged with the DILG, and the BuB Portal, and the PhilGeps portal. Some of the organizations whose cases are discussed in this paper are also cognizant of the open data initiatives by the government. Social Watch, for instance, has also been trained by DBM on the use of open data, according to Mr. Quitalig. In 2015 Social Watch was unable to get a hardcopy. However, they were already able to get it from the website. However, he said, downloading these files could be problematic. Some files, even just 2-3 pages long, could take so long to download because of how ‘large’ the files are. This was echoed by Ms. Czarina Guce, of ULAP, who also added how more difficult it is in the provinces where internet services are even slower. Hence, Mr. Quitalig still prefers to use ‘print outs’ and hardcopies which he says is ‘easier to understand.’ He still copies data into Excel, before transferring charts to PowerPoint. He finds .csv not ‘user-friendly.’ To check for accuracy of the items he re-encodes, he compares the computed totals, and if it is incorrect, he manually traces back where the error occurs. Other open data at the national level Currently available open LGU-related financial data available in national websites include data from the Department of Finance’s (DoF) Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF), and the Department of Interior and Local Government’s (DILG) Full Disclosure Policy Portal (FDPP). In some instances, the FDP, has resulted in the provision of local financial transaction related information in some provincial government websites (Canares 2014b).

DOF-BLGF’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditures and the DILG’s Full Disclosure Policy Portal The DOF-BLGF’s data on the State of Receipts and Expenditures (SRE)—formerly Statement of Income and Expenditures (SIE, 2001 to 2008)—are datasets that contain fiscal data from local governments as submitted through the BLGF’s eSRE system. The eSRE uses software where local government treasurers are able to input the amounts directly into the system. The SRE is done by Provincial/City/Municipal treasurers. It follows guidelines for financial information needed for economic forecasts and evaluation of the LGU’s financial performance. If an LGU’s treasurer does not have online access, they submit a printed copy of their financial reports to the DOF-BLGF regional office, who then encodes this into the system. The SRE is also partially compliant to the International Financial Reporting Standards which are generally accepted by international financial institutions. The SRE contains data that can measure the LGU’s cash position and a snapshot of its annual spending. A portion of the eSRE is accomplished by the Assessors—the Quarterly Report on Real Property Assessments. On the other hand, the DILG’s Full Disclosure Policy Portal (FDPP) contains LGU documents that includes details on procurement, and fiscal related data. The FDP policy required the LGUs to disclose data that they already prepare regularly, whether in spreadheet For 2016 BUB see: http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/Our%20Budget/2016/BUB/FY2016%20BUB%20Detailed%20Project%20List%20%20Version%201%20As%20of%20July%2028%202015.pdf 5

files, budgets, procurement plans or utlization reports (Canares and Shakr 2015:17-18). Most of its financial data is at the micro-level compared to the aggregated data in the SRE (see Table 2). The FDPP was set-up by the DILG’s Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLGS) to facilitate the mandatory posting of LGU financial data as required by law and DILG directives. There are now sixteen (16) reports that all LGUs post in the portal (see Table 3). Unlike the SRE—which is done by the local treasurers, these 16 documents are sourced from a number of local government offices, particularly those of the accountant, budget officer, general services officer/bids and awards committee, human resources officer and treasurer. Although templates are provided, actual reports posted vary in terms of format (using LGU letterheads or adapted formats) while some post in different file formats (PDF, word or JPG). Table 2 : Comparison of SRE and FDPP data SRE Items Current Operating Income • Local Sources: Tax revenue and non-tax revenue • External Sources: Internal Revenue Allotment, Shares from national tax collections, inter-local transfers, grants/donations/aids Total Current Operating Expenditures • Education, culture, sports & manpower development • Health, nutrition, population control • Labor and employment • Housing and community development • Social services and social welfare • Economic services • Debt service Non-income Receipts • Capital investment receipts • Receipts from loans and borrowings Non-operating Expenditures • Grant/loan to other entities • Debt service • Other non-operating expenditures

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

FDPP reports Report on the utilization of the 20% component of the Internal Revenue Allotment (Development Fund) Abstract of bids as calculated Annual budget report Annual Gender and Development Accomplishment Report Annual Procurement Plan or procurement List Bid Results on Civil Works, Goods and Services and Consulting Services Items to Bid Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund Utilization Manpower complement Quarterly statement of cash flow Report of Special Education Fund Utilization Statement of Debt Service Statement of Receipts and Expenditures Supplemental procurement plan Trust fund utilization Unliquidated cash advances

It can be observed that the details on expenditures in the eSRE do not correspond to individual departments or offices. Services are clustered into what are considered “planning clusters” and are aggregated. Hence, the eSRE does not reflect the expenditures of each local government department. The expenditures of the individual departments are clustered under seven expenditure categories. As an example, where the expenditures for the Office of the Municipal Agriculturist is placed is unclear. Is it included in category of Economic Services or General Public Services? This makes it difficult to analyze LGU spending patterns (i.e. agriculture), and hence, the eSRE is not sufficient as an open data set. This finding is consistent with other studies which say that full analysis cannot be done with budget data when it is described in a generic way or presented in aggregation(see Canares and Shekar 2015:21).

On the other hand, the financial reports under the FDPP are focused on the utilization of specific funds or trust funds. While there is a Statement of Receipts and Expenditures report, this is a summary of the more detailed SRE in the possession of the treasurers and the BLGF. Table 3 shows the sources of the reports under the FDPP. Table 3: Source for FDPP reports •

•

Sources of Reports Accountant

General Services Officer / Bids and Awards Committee

• • • • • • • • •

•

Budget Officer

• •

FDPP reports Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund Utilization Report of Special Education Fund Utilization Trust fund utilization Unliquidated cash advances Abstract of bids as calculated Annual Procurement Plan or procurement List Bid Results on Civil Works, Goods and Services and Consulting Services Items to Bid Supplemental procurement plan

Annual budget report Report on the utilization of the 20% component of the Internal Revenue Allotment (Development Fund)

Even as there are already LGU financial data open at the national-level, additional policy may have to developed if there are other local government data that stakeholders require and open- format. As such, local governments will also have to adopt local policies, if in case they would like to host open data in their own websites, to facilitate better participation and transparency from local CSOs. Also, capacity building is an issue for any new functional assigments passed on to local governments. As a matter of policy, priority for opening data has to be established. However, data professionals do not immediately gravitate towards working for LGUs, especially in financially-limited LGUs (i.e. third to sixth class municipalities). Provision of open data also has to compete with service delivery functions that are supported by finite resources. Slow data release is not necessarily a consequence of unwillingness, but simply because data release is not part of the regular work of data professionals (Conradie & Choenni 2014)—more so LGU personnel who are not data professionals. As such, mapping existing datasets in local governments may help in defining and standardizing data that should be opened beyond those already required under the FDP.

Use of FDP documents at the local level: DATAGov and BuB

Some of the Full Disclosure Policy (FDP) documents are particularly useful for local CSOs participating in Bottom-up Budeting (BUB). One example is the Data Access Towards Accountable Governance (DATAGov) Project that the CODE-NGO was implementing at the time of the study. The DATAGov project aimed to enrich citizen participation in local governance by assisting civil society organizations (CSOs) to more effectively use government data towards evidence-based agenda building, advocacy and planning, including CSO-participation in BuB.

To do this they built capacity in partner CSOs to analyze six (6) budget documents (wherever available from the FDP Portal or from the LGUs themselves). They developed guidelines 6 for local CSOs engaged in the Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process, Budget Advocacy and Monitoring, and participatory governance in general. Their goals in doing this was to: 1. facilitate familiarity with their LGU’s budgets and spending priorities; and 2. standardize basic, easy-to-follow guide in understanding and analyzing LGU budget documents, primarily the Annual Budget, Statement of Revenues and Expenditures, Utilization reports on the LDF, GAD Fund, SEF and the LDRRM Fund.

Figure 3: Analyzing the Annual Budget and Statement of Revenues and Expenditures

Diagram based on CODE-NGO (2015) Guidelines

Four of the six documents are part of the FDP, with the LDF and LDRRM Fund not among those mentioned in the FDP. There are also specific information that need to be extracted from the documents, from which CSOs can base their analysis. Among the analysis that can be done include reviewing mandated allocations; reviewing maximum allowable allocations; analyzing revenues generated; and breaking down indicative budget priorities (See Figure 3). The gender and development (GAD) fund, for instance, can be further analyzed to check compliance to lawfully mandated allocation for Gender and development.

Case 2: Bottom-up Budgetting – Participation among CSOs (CODE-NGO)

CODE-NGO’s project helped highlight issues with respect to accessing data from the LGUs based on the field experiences of their partners who were participating in bottom-up budgeting. For instance, in Dipolog, one of their partners reported that what they see in the FDP portal is not the same as the hardcopies they were given. Another feedback was that sometimes submitting on the portal ends up as ‘for compliance only,’ and hence the quality of 6

From CODE-NGO’s “Guidelines in and Standardised Approach to Understanding and Analysing Local

Government Budgets” (Working Draft as of October 2015)

the information is sometimes compromised. This was also something we validated from our observations when we looked through the data available in Quezon City’s website. Other participants mentioned difficulty understanding the terminologies used in the official documents. Online posting was also limited by absent if not poor internet access was also apparent in a number of cases we documented from key informant interviews. This was validated based on the experiences of people from various CSO representatives 7 interviewed.

Case 3: Bottom-up Budgetting – Intermediation by CSOs (ULAP)

Compliance with the FDP is important for LGUs since this is one of the requirements for the ‘Good Financial Housekeeping’ core component of the DILG’s Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG). Getting this seal allows LGUs to access or download additional funds from the national government. Examples of these, according to Ms. Czarina Guce are: the bottom-up budgeting (BuB) programs that are LGU-implemented, the KALSADA 8 program, and technical assistance with respect to disaster risk mitigation.

Figure 4: ULAP’s intermediation between NGAs and LGUs on financial matters It is in this area where the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) helps intermediate between the DILG and LGUs. ULAP assists DILG inform ULAP members about SGLG components their respective LGUs are still uncompliant with (see Figure 4). ULAP also assists LGUs understand how to access additional funding from the national government, such as the BuB program. With respect to the FDP, they also provide guidelines to build capacities of LGUs with respect to their internal Public Fiscal Management systems. These systems generally involve the local Treasurer’s Office, Budget Office, Planning and Development Office, Engineering office, BACs, and the office of the Local Chief Executive (LCE). In terms of specific data ULAP uses with respect to Bottom-up budgeting (BuB), many of these come from national agencies, which they then inform or feedback to the leagues and LGUs. Specific data on the BUB is also available in the BUB Portal 9. The data there however, has limited usefulness for ULAP. Executive Director Czarina Guce of ULAP says that it (BUB in particular from CCAGG, CODE-NGO, ULAP and INCITEGOV. Subsidy to provincial roads management and implementation 9 see http://openbub.gov.ph/data 7 8

Portal), the portal was designed with a national government perspective. “Initially the purpose of the Open BUB portal is for the NGA to track the LGUs gastos (expenses) of the na-download na pera (downloaded funds).” As such, she says what you find there is not so useful (for LGUs and communities). “The BUB portal only had budget allocations vs release, it doesn’t actually show you actual expenditure.” She adds that “the magnitude and scale of the data there is not CSO- nor municipal officer- friendly.” Among others, they’ve found that accessing it requires good internet speed. Second, the amount of data is really meant for the national implementor. She further adds that “They (the Portal administrators) try to have a feedback and response protocol but only national can give feedback.” Hence, ULAP wishes that the BUB portal become friendlier to the users in the communities. As of March 15, 2016 there were already number of downloadable data in the portal. These include downloadable quarterly BuB reports from 4th quarter of 2014 to end of 2015. The joint memorandum circulars (JMC 1 to 7) that provides the annual guidelines for BuB implementation (including menu of projects) and specific BuB Project lists in the GAA from 2013 to 2016. It was notable that both the BUB reports and the BuB GAA project lists are in open format (csv or xls) and searchable. The BuB project list has the region, province, city/municipality, program name, project name, targets, agency and amount. The BuB reports are more comprehensive, including project quarterly status (e.g. complete, dropped), project reference for the report, quarterly disbursements, status of reports of quarterly accomplishments, and whether reports have been published, among others. The BUB projects are also searchable in the portal itself by agency, location, year, status, budget type and budget.

Other Cases: using both national and local data

In other cases, CSOs require looking through data from national agencies and from local government. Some of these pertain to the monitoring and audit work of CSOs with respect to how projects are implemented at the local level (see Case 4 and 5).

Case 4: Social Audit- ANSA-EAP’s Check my School Project

Some CSOs, such as Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA–EAP) and the Concerned Citizen’s of Abra for Good Government (CCAGG) do nationwide auditing and use various sources of data at the national and local level. This is in line with the process of ‘social accountability’ which Ms. Selosa of ANSA-EAP defined as the “constructive engagement between citizens and government in monitoring government’s use of public funds to improve service delivery, protect rights and improve citizen welfare.”

Figure 5: ANSA-EAP Check my School Program

In their Check my school program, for instance, they monitor over 44,000 schools (see Figure 5). This requires cross validating information from different sources, some of which are available online, with some in open data format.

Case 5: Citizen’s Participatory Audit - CCAGG

The CCAGG engages in community organizing, participatory monitoring & auditing, social audit, concerns for the indigenous cultural communities, development programs, conservation and protection of biodiversity, and peace building. 10 Among its current ongoing and completed projects in fiscal transparency are: the pilot Citizens Participatory Audit (CPA) of road works; monitoring of planning and implementation of Bottom Up Budgeting (BuB) of water systems in Abra; and the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of Conditional Cash Transfers of Project i-Pantawid 11 . CCAGG, pioneered the citizen’s participatory audit (CPA), particularly on road projects (see Figure 6). In their case much of the information they collect and cross-validate are from national agencies such as the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and agencies that have roadwork in their budget. Examples of these are farm-to-market roads implemented by the Department of Agriculture and school buildings, national roads, and bridges constructed by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). It’s also possible there are some budgeted infrastructure projects by the LGU. It is their strong presence on the ground that allows them to systematically monitor implementation of these public works and their validation feeds into the audit report that they submit to the Commission on Audit.

Figure 6: CCAG Citizen’s Participatory Audit of Road works

CCAGG gets documents and information from various agencies (e.g. DBM, DA, DPWH) and levels of government. They also get information from the LGUs with respect to data about projects that are in their local budget. However, CCAGG’s approach is largely done ‘offline’ requiring hardcopy printouts of documents. This is partly because the digital data infrastructure 10 11

from Key Informant Interview with Pura Sumangil, December 9, 2015 see http://www.ccagg.org

in Abra is problematic in terms of access and also in terms of quality of local content available. For instance, the website of the Provincial Government of Abra’s status is “suspended.” 12 Based on the DILG Regional website for the Cordillera Autonomous Region 13, of the 27 municipalities in Abra, only two have websites: Dolores 14 and Malibcong 15 however, documents entitled Program of Works could not be found on either website. Data CCAGG needs from National Government Agencies is relatively more accessible in comparison. (1) The website of the Department of Public Works and Highways 16 has an icon on Program of Works which leads to a search engine. 17 Scanned Program of Work documents are downloadable in PDF format. It provides filters for Calendar Year (from 2012-2015), Region, Project Name and Cost. However, there is no Program of Work under Abra listed. (2) The website of the DBM 18 has an icon “DBM Publications” which leads to a page that presents a listing of Content Pages. Clicking on “General Appropriations Act of 2015 with UACS” leads to a listing of National Government Agencies 19. Clicking on DPWH leads to a 918-page pdf file listing of the allocated amounts for operating costs of DPWH and its programs and projects classified by region. CCAGG then cross validates the data they collect to come up with an Audit Memo (see Figure 5). The audit memo is then inputted into their social validation process. In the social validation process, they interview government officials and beneficiaries to determine the true status of implementation. As Pura Sumangil explained, “CPA is more technical and (sic) Social Audit engages the community. As such, CPA requires an engagement with the Open Data Ecosystem while social or participatory audit requires an engagement with the physical and social processes of auditing.” 20 In other words, there are some things in their work that can not be captured by open data alone. CCAGG Chair Pura Sumangil also stressed the importance of “proper data curation” in the innovation towards government’s transparency and delivery of public information. She emphasized the need for simplification of terminologies and basic illustrations. She observed that some of the language being used is “hardly understood by laymen”. 21 She said that CCAGG intends to learn and be familiarized with the Unified Accounting Code System (UACS) of the government to heighten understanding on government transactions 22.

State of Openness of FDP in LGU Websites

The requirements for documents that are to be disclosed by LGUs under the Full Disclosure Policy (FDP) at present, does not require it to be posted in the LGU website. But, in assessing the state of open data at the local level, the availability of these was done for a few websites. A scan of local government websites revealed various states of compliance with the FDP.

http://abra.gov.ph/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi http://www.dilgcar.com/index.php/2015-07-10-04-38-51/province-of-abra 14 http://doloresonline.gov.ph 15 http://www.malibcong.gov.ph 16 http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/infrastructure/index.htm 17 http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/infrastructure/program_of_work/index.asp 18 http://www.dbm.gov.ph/ 19 http://www.dbm.gov.ph/?page_id=11744 20 from Roundtable Discussion of the CPA Capacity Building Workshop held on November 29, 2015. 21 Key Informant Interview with Pura Sumangil, December 9, 2015. 22 SuriDiwa, 9 December 2015 12 13

Table 4: Open Data status of FDP documents in 7 LGUs (as of 15 June 2016)

Legend: Green Red

: Required Data is Available : Current Data is unavailable. Date of most recent data is identified.

FDP Documents (DILG MC 2010-83)

Date (DILG MC 2011134)

Annual Budget Report

Current Year

Annual Procurement Plan or Procurement Special Education Fund Income & Expenditure Estimates

Current Year

Current Year

Statement of Debt Service

Current Year

Annual Gender & Devt Accomp Report

Current Year

Statement of Receipts & Expenditures

Current Year

Statement of Cashflow

1st Qtr Current Year

Report of SEF Utilization

1st Qtr Current Year

Trust Fund (PDAF) Utilization

1st Qtr Current Year

Bid Results on Civil Works and Goods and Services

1st Qtr Current Year

Abstract of Bids as Calculated 20% Component of the Internal Revenue Allotment Utilization Supplemental Procurement Plan, if any

LDRRM*

1st Qtr Current Year 1st Qtr Current Year

Current Year

ILOILO CITY

2015 XLS 2015 XLS, 2015 XLS,

ILOILO PROV

2016 XLS Linked to FDPP 2016 XLS Linked to FDPP 2016 XLS Linked to FDPP

NAGA

2013 PDF

None

2016 XLS IN FDPP

2014 None as of 061516

2016 XLS

2013 PDF

None

None

2016 Q1 PDF

2015 None As of 061516

2015 Q3 XLS

2013 PDF

2013 PDF

None

Certificate of No Debt Service 2013

2016 XLS

2014 PDF

2013 PDF,

None

2016 XLS

2014 PDF

2013 PDF

None

2016 Q1 PDF

None

2016 XLS

2014 PDF

2013 PDF

None

2016 Q1 PDF

Feb Jun Sept Dec 2015 PDF

2015 Q1-Q4 XLS,

2013 PDF

2013 PDF,

None

2016 Q1 PDF

2015 Q3 XLS,

2015 Q4 XLS

2013 PDF

2013 PDF

None

Not found as of 061516

2014

2015 Q3 XLS

2013 PDF

2013 PDF

None

2015

2016 Q1 PDF

2013 PDF

2013 PDF

2013 PDF

None

2015 XLS, Linked to FDPP 2015 XLS Linked to FDPP 2015 XLS, Linked to FDPP 2015 XLS Linked to FDPP 2015 XLS, Linked to FDPP 2015 XLS Linked to FDPP

Not found as of 061516

2016 Q1 XLS

ABRA (CCAGG)

2014 PDF

2015 XLS,

2016 Q1 XLS

CAM. SUR (Naga)

2016 XLS

2016 Q1 PDF

2016 Q1 XLS,

SOUTH COTABATO

2016PDF

2014

2016 Q1 XLS

BOHOL PROVINCE

2016 PDF

2014 XLS

2015 XLS

QUEZON CITY

2014

2012

None

None

NONE FOUND

2015 PDF,

2013 PDF

None

2016 Q1 XLS

2015 XLS Linked to FDPP

None

None

2015 Q4 XLS,

None

2013 PDF

None

2016 Q1 XLS

2015 XLS, Linked to FDPP

None

None

2015 Q4 XLS,

None

None

None

2016 Q1 XLS LINK TO FDPP

2015 Q4

2016 Q1 PDF

2013 PDF

2015 Q4 XLS

2014 PDF

2013 PDF

None

*LDRRM was not part of the FDP

Table 4 presents the compliance status of eight focal LGUs vis-a-vis the Ammended FDP. The eight are: Iloilo City, Iloilo Province, Naga City, Quezon City, Bohol Province, South Cotabato

Province, Camarines Sur Province, and Abra Province. Often cited as a model of e-governance has been Naga City and it does provide a large amount of information that is current and is downloadable. However, many of these are only in pdf form, and therefore non-machine readable. In this regard, Bohol Province, provides a better benchmark of openness, since they already provide data in excel format, albeit this is a proprietary format. In majority of the LGU websties, the data is not available, or not current, and if made available are in pdf. It was noted that the timeliness of the FDP Documents in LGU websites were sometimes one to two years behind. Further to the compliance to the Ammended FDP, it was observed that the LGUs had varying ways for presenting the FDP Documents. The variations could be in locating the in the websites, in how the files are labelled or named, and in how the formats for the reports/documents are presented. It was observed that the non-standard ways by which LGUs website were designed made it difficult to easily locate FDP Documents. Also, the FDP Documents were put under different headings, and were not always consistent with the FDP Document Name. In some cases some downloadable PDF files were not decipherable due to the size of the font or the quality of the scanning.

DISCUSSION Needs and Nature of CSO engagement

CSOs are agents that act in the political-economic sphere in pursuit of their conception of the public good (Holmes 2012: 143-144). The public goods that they are expected to push for include, among others: accountability of public officials; 
 inclusive representation; equitable development; and, 
 its own autonomy. 
 Towards these ends, they engage government to secure democratic and redistributive reform. More specific to the budgeting and public accountability process, Boncodin argues that the rationale for engaging with citizens (and CSOs) is to (1) demystify the budget process; (2) respond to basic needs; (3) improve budget allocation and facilitate fund distribution procedures and (4) prevent financial corruption and enhance accountability (Boncodin 2007). It is in line with this, that the cases discussed in this study engaged government in fiscal transparency for different reasons; be it for advocating budgetary reforms; participating in planning; act as service providers; or for social audit. As such, if CSOs’ goals vary, so does the data they require of government. How government views them (as a partner, as a critique, etc.) lead to varied relationships and levels of trust with government, which also factor in their ability to access data, especially if the data is not open. Advocating for budgetary reforms, or allocations for specific advocacies, for instance, requires access to the national budget. Participation in the budgetary process, requires participation in agency level deliberations and sector-specific information. At the local level, it requires specific information and evidence needed in the crafting of local poverty reduction plans. For those with a monitoring and audit role, data from the national, especially from agencies, and agency implementation at the local level is needed to be cross-validated with funds at the local level. Hence, data is not limited to data required of LGUs from the FDP. On the otherhand, those who are directly involved in service delvery, often require information on how to participate, access, and track funds. This might also require CSO intermediation, especially when the information and data is difficult to navigate, especially for new programs government is initiating that requires fiscal transfers (e.g. BuB).

State of Open of Government Financial Data at the local level

This investigation has seen more data and information about local government finance being opened in the Philippines, especially at the national level (see Table 5). For instance, The DOF has aggregated LGU financial data on their statements of receipts and expenditures (eSRE). While the data is machine-processable, the data is not complete. The e-SRE does not provide access to bulk raw data because the method of input to the system follows the prescribed templates of the BLGF-DOF. Data has already been aggregated particularly for sectoral expenditure items (i.e. general public services, economic services etc) These sectoral expenditure items have primary sources that reflect the expenditures of individual local government departments (i.e. office of the municipal agriculturist, local economic enterprises office etc.). These primary sources are not available at the eSRE system and are, often, also not open at the LGUs’ website. Data in the eSRE is also not timely, since the eSRE system only provides access to aggregated data for each year with the latest being 2014. The DILG, on the otherhand, provides a portal (FDP portal) for the financial documents it incentivizes LGUs to post under the FDP. However, data here is also incomplete. There is no access to the “entire data set.” The data is not primary. In some cases, the reports posted do not follow the same format, which would also complicate aggregation in the future. 23 Other postings on the various LGU trust funds are very simple but still have varied formats in their presentation. Others reflect just the amounts released while others include other details such as % of completion of project. Also, many LGUs do not post on time. Furthermore, most of the documents in the FDP Portal are in PDF format. 24 In other cases, documents are in JPG format— these being photographs of the documents. One reason for this is that many LGUs want to present a fully authenticated document that shows the signature of the reporting officer (i.e. treasurer, accountant etc.). This happens in spite of the DILG templates available for each document required for posting. In addition, the 2016 General Appropriations Act (GAA) is already open, accessible, and more detailed. 25 The level of detail includes information on some allotments that go down to LGU levels, and some even down to the barangay-level for some infrastructure projects (like in evacuation centers). The Bottom-up-Budgeting (BUB) portal also now provide more detailed quarterly reports of BuB project, distilled from the GAA, and does go down to the municipality/city level on a per project basis. As the detail go down to the LGU-level, this provides opportunities for stakeholders (e.g. CSOs, citizens) to interact with their LGUs in various stages, whether it be in project planning, implementation or monitoring.

23 For example the 2014 SRE of Batangas City follows the prescribed format of the BLGF-DOF, while Quezon City’s SRE posting follows the PS-MOOE-Capital Outlay format with trial balance. 24 There are documents that were converted through “Print to PDF” function while others are photos or scanned

documents converted to PDF. The previous being considered “searchable” while the latter is not “searchable.” But, both are not machine processable. 25 The 2016 GAA is also thicker and has more volumes.

Table 5: Open Government Financial Data at the National Level

Case/Doc National National Budget/NEP

BLGF’s eSRE

FDPP

BuB Portal

Completeness

Yes Downloadable But no meta data on the data Size of file may make it difficult to download • Linked to DBM No • No meta-data on the file • Not disaggregated • Reported by treasurers • • •

• •

• • •

No Quality is suspect But more detailed than BLGF, no aggregation Incomplete Not useful for LGUs More internal tracking Quarterly reports from 2014end of

Timely

Machine Processed

Yes But only for this year; not comparable from year to year

Yes Available in pdf (but not searchable electronically), .xls, and .csv

No, Late (2014 latest) Annually reported Not quartely

Yes in .xls, .xlsx manuals and procedures are available in pdf Varies Some files are jpg, most are pdf

No (not on time), Not quartely Only as far as 2012 Partial/Limited difficult to compare from year to year

Yes In .csv and .xls

At the local level, the state of open data remains spotty. The posting of FDP documents on websites are not yet the norm, and if they are posted, they are not complete, current or ontime with documents mostly non-machine processable, or use proprietary format. Table 6: Open Data at the Local Level Case/Doc Completeness Timely LGU Data (based on Table 4 and feedback from CODE-NGO conference) FDP in LGUs Varies Varies/Inconsistent Submission in FDPP only for compliance • incomplete access • information quality varies • internet access varies LDRRM Low number of posting Varies/ Most Not timely National Agency Data in Local or Regional offices Per Agency: BuB Menu of Requires intermediation (see No, incomplete; Projects/requirements OpenBub.gov.ph) requires queries to -call center operations are agencies; no FAQs requested generated templates per agency is needed on process; partly because of the newness of program -key implementors not linked (DBM, DILG, NAPC) (policy coordinating and monitoring) DILG: compliance with No No SGLG - requires intermediation Agencies: DPWH No No (Kalsada) Hardcopy from regional offices or national office

Machine Processable

• • • •

Varies mostly pdf if open access, is proprietary (.xls) some are hardcopies presentation varies; not standard - mostly pdf No

No No Hardcopy only

Note that internet access would be necessary for posting and accessing financial data that is available online. Unfortunately, the quality of internet access varies, especially as one goes farther from socio-political and socio-economic centers in the country. Hence, some CSOs are still heavily reliant on getting information the traditional way. In other words, getting hard copies of the needed data from the various offices that implement projects in their communities. Furthermore, access to information requires more than having Internet access. There are a number of pre-conditions and contexts necessary to make this happen. Work is still needed on the “analog complements” which includes developing workers’ skills to the demands of the new economy, and by ensuring that institutions are accountable (WDR 2016). To some extent this study has shown some of the analog complements that need to be worked on, such as: policies on freedom of information and human resource capacity. According to Canares & Shekhar: context extends beyond the description of national situation or local idiosyncrasies and becomes a description of relations between different actors across various level of state governance (2015, p.28). This was supported in some of the cases, as it was shown that ‘relationships’ can be both an enabler and a barrier to accessing information. INCITE-Gov for instance gave the example of establishing good relationships with LGUs as this helps them gain access to data. CODE-NGO said they sit down with LGUs, to have a better understanding of the financial data they provide. Our own experience, also required interacting with an LGU’s webmaster, to help navigate websites and locate needed information. But even gaining access to that information, required assistance from other people to better understand the content. The absence of these (policies and capacity), in turn, also create spaces that CSOs fill-in, whereby they end up as ‘intermediaries’ in understanding the budget process, in processing available information, and in facilitating compliance of LGUs with national government agencies.

Conclusions

One of the digital dividends brought about by the internet is the ease of access to information given how it helps overcome information barriers (WDR 2016) . In connection to this, the objective of this research was to encourage more fiscal transparency at the local level by making LGU financial data openly accessible to citizens. Openness in government in the Philippines still needs developing. It still requires laws to make compliance mandatory. However, a freedom of information bill has yet to be passed in Congress. Despite this, the Aquino administration has had made inroads in making more data available through open government and open data initiatives, and incentives through the fulldisclosure policy (FDP). The FDP at present, however, does not require web-posting nor providing it in an open data form. Requiring LGUs to post these online and in an open data format can enhance its accessibility and usefulness for CSOs. In fact, there was a pending bill in the last Congress that proposed amendments to Sec 352 of the local government code. 26 The main points of the proposal require OTHER INFORMATION, and making this an accountability of LCEs (Governors, Mayors and Vice-Mayors) and posting these in WEBSITES. The same basic documents in the FDP are mentioned but no longer limited to a calendar year, the spirit of which assumes that previous years are also provided as a basis for comparison and trending, and in more detail (not just summaries). Better information, would then lead to better 26

HB 19 and HB 186 by Rep Leni Robredo and Rep Winnie Castelo.

decisions. This, though has not been passed, but should be re-considered in the next Congress to make open data a sustained institutional policy in future administrations. There is also room to expand the idea of openness not only to government, but also other non-governmental actors, consistent with how society ascribes to a concept of governance that is more inclusive. In relation to this, some CSOs openly said they can share data (e.g. Social Watch; CODE-NGO). Some stakeholders however were cautious because the data might have been given in confidence or with restrictions (e.g. ULAP), while others also had to consider legal protocols (e.g. audit finding, non-disclosure agreements). From this research, there were three perspectives highlighted in how data is reported: (1) National Government templates; (2) Local Government operations; (3) CSO interests 27. It echoes the multiple ways in which data and information is appreciated. As Brown and Duguid (2000, p.18) says: “it is people, in their communities, organizations and institutions, who ultimately decide what it all means and why it matters.” However, if data, at present, is reported in different ways, this then becomes as barrier for people’s capacity to understand them. This means what is found online should be the same the official document. How these are reported, named, or referred to should be consistent all throughout (and in all levels of government). In order to build capacity to understand financial data at the national and local level, data quality must be prescribed. In the Philippines, compliance by LGUs with the FDP was high at more than 80% when it was first implemented – made possible by the fact that data required to be disclosed under the policy come from financial systems with clear data collection, aggregation, and reporting procedures (Canares & Shekar 2015, p. 17) however upon examination in this study, format and quality of compliance varied. The implication is that compliance to the FDP must be refined to make sure the data that is opened and posted is useful. The current initiatives can be improved by putting in place more specific regulations and rules that help standardize how data is reported (data architecture), how files are named, and where in LGU websites they can be found (even standardizing the look of LGU websites). This would make it easier for stakeholders to find needed data, develop applications for processing data into more understandable figures, and allow aggregation of data in higher levels of government, perhaps even without human intermediation. Hopefully, this is something that would be addressed by the recently created Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT), as part of their mandate is developing a coherent e-government framework for all levels of government to follow. In making refinements in these fiscal reports, it is also essential not only to have LGU representatives, but also CSO representatives to align expectations, planning, aspirations of the community, and how LGU performance are assessed. This means agreeing on a common metric for performance evaluation, putting common fields in the financial templates and agreeing on where these are found in all LGU and related national agency websites. These will help in developing numeracy capacity among stakeholders to understand data. It can also assist in easily developing applications for processing data in LGUs and aggregating them in provincial, regional and national reports. 27 Example of which is the CODE-NGO guideline.

Also, for non-governmental stakeholders, the challenges also requires better understanding of the processes involved, whether this be in budgetting in general, or bottomup budgetting processes in particular. It also requires understanding some of the terminologies used in government budgeting and finance (e.g. UACs), which is also complicated by LGUs’ inconsistency in using templates and terminologies. These process of understanding how local government work should be known to all citizens, and could be incorporated in current initiatives to revise basic education. In summary, there is still much to do in the Philippines to have documents more open, and accessible. At present, there’s limited local fiscal documents that are accessible, timely, and in open-access form. This is why the proposed revisions to the FDP that provides open data should be supported. This can be done by making it standard, and having a template that can then be easily taught. Capacity building can be done by larger CSO networks which can become intermediaries in this undertaking. However, this should also be cognizant of the reality that certain CSO roles are by design supposed to be independent of government. As such, the irony is that even as ‘Follow-the money’ CSOs may share a common interest in the budget and planning process, their objectives require some independence from each other. Nonetheless, central to this is the data, to which keeping everyone linked, regardless of affiliation, relations, etc. has to be open. As such, for the local fiscal open-data ecosystem to transition from the traditional ways of CSO engagement requires: (1) continued national government support- to implement responsive open data policies that will continue to incentivize complete, timely and machineprocessable fiscal open data in LGUs; (2) congressional laws that will sustain the Open Data initiatives of the Aquino administration; (3) a government-wide open data capacity-building through the Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT) that will systematize open data requirements across all levels of government while also providing the needed infrastructure to make it work. This though, should also be complemented by (4) building understanding at the grassroots, starting with the basic education curricula, of how the local government works, especially the local budget process, so that fiscal data that is eventually made open can be found, understood and used by every citizen of the country for whatever purpose they require.

References

Alampay, E. (2006) ‘Incorporating Participation in the Philippines’ e-LGU project,’ Regional Development Dialogue, Vol. 27, No. 2, Autumn 2006, United Nations Centre for Regional Development, Nagoya, Japan, pp. 189-199. Alampay, E. (2002) ‘People’s participation, consensus building and transparency through ICTs: issues and challenges for governance in the Philippines’ KASARINLAN Vol. 17 No. 2: 273-292. Boncodin, E. (2007) ‘Citizen engagement in Budgeting and Public Accountability’ (slides) presented at the 6th Session, Committee of Experts in Public Administration, April 10-17, 2007. United Nations. New York. Brillantes, Alex B. Jr. (2003) Innovations and Excellence. Understanding Local Governments in the Philippines. Center for Local and Regional Governance. National College of Public Administration and Governance. University of the Philippines. Canares, M. and Shekhar S. 2015. “Open Data and Sub-national Governments: Lessons from Developing Countries”. Step Up Consulting: Tagbilaran City

Canares, M., Marcia, D. and Narca, M. 2015. “Enhancing Citizen Engagement with Open Government Data” Step Up Consulting: Tagbilaran City. Canares, Michael (2014a). ‘Assessing Open Governance Data in Bohol,’ in Insights into Open Local Governance, February 2014 , Vol. 1, Issue 1. A Product of the Open LGU Research Project. Canares, Michael (2014b) ‘Why Local Governments are Apprehensive to “Open Data”’ in Insights into Open Local Governance, February 2014 , Vol. 1, Issue 3. A Product of the Open LGU Research Project. Canares, Michael (2014c) ‘Opening the Gates: Will Open Data Initiatives Make Local Governments more Transparent?’ This case study research was done under the Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries (ODDC) research project, funded by the World Wide Web Foundation supported by grant 107075 from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, 2014. Davies, T. and Edwards, D. (2012) 'Emerging Implications of Open and Linked Data for Knowledge Sharing in Development', IDS Bulletin 43 (5) 117-127 Holmes, Ronald D. ( 2012 ) ‘The Curious Cases of Philippine Society and Decentralizaton’ in Miranda, et. al (Eds.) Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy. Commission on Human Rights. Quezon City, pp. 139-181. Martin, A.K and Bonina, C.M. (2013) Open Gvernment and Citizen Identities: Promise, Peril and Policy. Open Development. Smith, M.L. and Reilly, K.M. (Ed.) Networked Innovations in International Development. MIT Press and IDRC. Ona, Sherwin; Hecita, Ian, Ulit, Estefanie (2014) Exploring the Role and Opportunities for Open Government Data and New Technologies in MHCC and MSME: The Case of the Philippines. Dela Salle University. Parycek, P and Sachs (2010). Open government-information flow in Web 2.0. European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 1-70. Veljkovic, Natasa, Sanja Bogdanovic-Dinic and Leonid Stoimenov (2014). “Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective.” Government Information Quarterly 31, 278-290. World Bank (2016) World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends: 2016 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Zuiderwijk, Anneke (2014). “Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison.” Government Information Quarterly 31, 278-290. Department of Budget and Management (DBM) (2015) Reference for Open Data and Fiscal Transparency Practices in the Asia-Pacific. APEC Fiscal Openness Working Group.