Commission on Population: Review of its Mandate and Policy Shifts,

Institutional Performance and Resources∗

I. Introduction

This paper reviews the original mandate of the Philippines’ Commission on Population (POPCOM)
and the subsequent shifts in the population policy and programs as espoused and promulgated
under the various Philippine political administrations. A rapid appraisal of the performance of
POPCOM as an institution and the public resources allocated to the agency is also undertaken in
the context of its mandate, policy and program shifts or emphasis. This paper aims to provide
inputs to the formulation of a framework paper outlining ICOMP thrust to strengthen the strategic
competencies of POPCOM at the national and regional levels.

II. Review of Mandate and Policy Emphasis

Policy Context

In the late 1960s, population growth has been a growing concern of countries trying to gain or
sustain their momentum towards economic development. At that time, the Philippines was
registering an estimated annual population growth rate of about 3.1%, one of the highest in the
world. This was viewed as quite alarming since whatever development gains achieved would
always be negated by the increasing needs of the population. Development outcomes that are truly
felt by the populace will remain elusive, as these may not be able to meet the demands of a
constantly growing populace.

The Philippines, under then President Ferdinand Marcos, together with 17 other heads of state
signed the UN Declaration of Population in December 1967. The declaration states that: “the
population problem must be recognized as a principal element in long range national planning if
governments are to achieve their economic goals and fulfill the aspirations of their people.”1

Legal Mandate

The Commission on Population was created by virtue of Republic Act 6365 enacted on August 16,
1971 and amended by Presidential Decree No. 79 issued on December 8, 1972. It is the central
policy making, planning, and coordinating body for the Population Program originally attached to
the Office of the President, but has since been shifted and attached to various departments.

President Marcos, in issuing P.D. 79 elaborated and strengthened certain provisions of R.A. 6365
and directed both public and private sectors to undertake a National Family Planning Program that
respect religious beliefs and individual values. The mandate of POPCOM has been made
elaborate into the following functional objectives:

∗
Paper drafted by Jay Lacsamana for the International Council on Management of Population Programmes (ICOMP)
as input to Stream 2, Strengthening Strategic Competencies of POPCOM at the National and Regional Levels, 15
January 2007.

1 Alejandro Herrin, Population Policy in the Philippines 1969-2002, PIDS, September 2002, p. 13.
 (a) to formulate and adopt coherent, integrated and comprehensive long-term plans,
programs and recommendations on population as it relates to economic and social
development consistent with and implementing the population policy which shall be
submitted and approved by the President;

(b) to make comprehensive studies of demographic data and expected demographic

trends and propose policies that affect specific and quantitative population goals;

(c) to organize and implement programs that will promote a broad understanding of the
adverse effects on family life and national welfare of unlimited population growth;

(d) to propose policies and programs that will guide and regulate labor force participation,
internal migration and spatial distribution of population consistent with national
development;

(e) to make family planning a part of a broad educational program;

(f) to encourage all persons to adopt safe and effective means of planning and realizing
desired family size so as to discourage and prevent resort to unacceptable practice of
birth control such as abortion by making available all acceptable methods of
contraception to all persons desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies;

(g) to establish and maintain contact with international public and private organizations
concerned with population problems;

(h) to provide family planning services as part of overall health care;

(i) to make available all acceptable methods of contraception, except abortion, to all
Filipino citizens desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies.2

From the issuance of this decree, this set of objectives has been the purpose of existence of the
agency and has essentially remained as the legal basis for POPCOM’s operations up to now.
Subsequently with the onset of the 1973 Constitution, the role of government in population
concerns was declared: “It shall be the policy of the State to achieve and maintain population levels
conducive to the national welfare”.

The above policy statements have significant implications on the role of government and its
attendant interventions in addressing the population issue. In fact, these declarations have started
the policy debate on the population issue and government intervention in fertility choices of
couples. As assessed by Prof. Alejandro Herrin, the following are some implications:

1. Rapid population growth has negative implications to attainment of social and economic
objectives;
2. Free exercise of fertility decisions by couples is not consistent with the common good;
there are (negative) externalities in fertility decisions of couples; and
3. Given the foregoing statements, it is a matter of state policy to intervene in fertility
decisions and the mode of intervention chosen is family planning that “respects the
religious beliefs and values of the individuals involved”.

2 Presidential Decree No. 79

2
Major Policy Shift in 1987

The overthrow of the Marcos Administration and the subsequent rewriting of the Philippine
Constitution in 1987 paved the way for a significant shift in population policy. The 1987 Constitution
leaves out any statement regarding the role of government in “maintaining population levels
conducive to the national welfare”. The new Constitution emphasizes the “right of spouses to found
a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible
parenthood.”3

In contrast to the explicit statement of the previous policy in fertility reduction, the 1987 Constitution
has left a wider berth and spectrum of population policy choices. POPCOM thereafter issued the
policy statement on the Philippine Population Program as:

1. The ultimate goal (is the) “improvement of the quality of human life in a just and humane
society”.
2. Population concerns need to be “broadened beyond fertility reduction to include concerns
about family formation, the status of women, maternal and child health, child survival,
morbidity and mortality, population distribution and urbanization, internal and international
migration and population structure.”
3. Moderation of population growth was not explicitly stated as a policy; family planning was
viewed as a health intervention (i.e., promotion of maternal and child health), significantly
veering away from the previous policy of fertility reduction intervention.

Vision Statement

The following is the vision-goal statement of POPCOM:

“Well-planned, healthy and happy families, responsible individuals, empowered

communities, guided by the Divine Providence, living harmoniously and equitably in a
sustainable environment.”

Mission Statement

To achieve its vision, POCOM has formulated the following mission statements:

1. We are a technical and information resource agency, working in partnership with national
and local government policy and decision-makers, program implementers, community
leaders, and civil society.

2. We will be the leading strategic planners, policy and program advocates for the Population
Program.

3. We will create a favorable and enabling policy environment for Population, Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health.

3
Herrin, p. 19

3
Programs Areas
POPCOM’s program areas have evolved through the years. The evolution is consistent with the
prevailing policy emphasis of the various political administrations. The following is a matrix of the
program areas of POPCOM representing the different administrations and/or policy shifts:
Marcos Administration
1973 to 1981 / 1984 -1986
a. Delivery of family planning services –
Family planning services were offered nationwide
through clinics established all around the country
since the program started. There were two types
of clinic: 1) government clinics and 2) private
clinics. It is through these clinics that counseling
and recruitment of acceptors (of family planning
methods) are held and has served as distribution
points for various birth control paraphernalia for the
program such as pills, condoms, etc.
b. Training –
Training activities were held to prepare family
planning personnel for clinics and other innovative
services. Target beneficiaries include health
professionals like doctors and nurses, even
paramedics and midwives who have become part
of the program to prepare them on how to handle
potential acceptors.
c. Information, Education, Communication (IEC)
Program –
To reach a wider spectrum of audiences, of
different ages and social standing, production and
utilization of print and broadcast media were
maximize for purposes of the population program.
d. Research –
This has three objectives; a) to determine the
extent to which various sections and projects of the
program have achieved their immediate objectives;
b) to assess the degree to which the total program
has made a demographic impact and c) to provide
basis for policy making and project development
1981 -1983
a. Population Education –
As part of the agency’s IEC and made known as PopEd,
its goal is to inculcate positive social and cultural values
that are complimentary to the Population Program such
as responsible parenthood, family size and welfare and
delayed marriages. It was implemented at primary and
secondary school levels through the support of the
Department of Education;
b. Adolescent Fertility –
This relatively new area aims to address the fertility
awareness and related needs and problems of the Filipino
adolescent in order to reduce the incidence of early
marriage and teenage pregnancies
c. Family Planning –
Services included under this items are those provided by
family planning clinics and hospitals cited earlier and the
outreach program that aims to reach those that are
unable or have difficulty to accessing stationary clinics
including distribution of birth control paraphernalia;
d. Manpower Development –
This is the same as the training component of population
program used by the agency earlier. This involve
preparing new personnel for the tasks at hand and in
ensuring that old personnel are able to keep up with the
work demand;
e. Population Information and Dissemination
Establishing an extensive and systematic
information system is the goal of this program area.
Some of the items included under this area are the
setting up of population libraries under the
Population Information Network or POPIN,
production of IEC materials, sponsorship of
seminars and conferences and strengthening of the
management information system (MIS) through the
acquisition of new computers.
4
 Aquino Administration 1987 to 1992
1986 -1987:
Major policy shift with the passage of the 1987
Constitution.
Program focus was on clinic-based FP (DOH) and
community-based program under POPCOM.
Ramos Administration 1992 – 1998
The advent of the Local Government Code (LGC) which
mandated decentralization and devolution to local
government units (LGUs) in 1991 paved the way for the
transfer of front line services like health and family
planning to provincial, city and municipal governments.
Under LGUs:

1989 – 1993: Five-year Directional Plan a. Reproductive Health/Family Planning --

POPCOM Program Focus:
a. Policy coordination –
Overall coordination of population policy-making
b. POPDEV –
Integrated population and development
planning and programming
Under DOH (FP a component of total health program):
c. Family Planning services –
Service delivery of FP (as health intervention)
through DOH’s network of hospitals and clinics
d. Responsible Parent hood --
Advocacy focusing adoption of FP practices,
responsible sexuality, delayed marriage, child
spacing and small family size
Funding, staffing and administration of
reproductive health services and family
planning program was made a prerogative of
LGUs
Under POPCOM:
b. Management of the Population and
Development (POPDEV) Program -
• Integration of POPDEV interrelationships
into policy, planning and programming
processes at the national and local levels
• Advocacy of POPDEV concerns

It was in the Marcos Administration that the population program focused on fertility reduction
through family planning. This entailed provision of information and services with the advocacy for a
small family size as desirable. Family planning however took a back seat for two years in 1981 to
1983 when a conservative chair of the POPCOM de-emphasized fertility reduction in the program
package.

As cited above, the start of the Aquino Administration saw a major shift in population policy where
the focus was trained on the right of couples to determine the number of their children. As shown in
the matrix, the implication of the policy shift resulted in POPCOM focusing on policy coordination
and POPDEV integration in planning and programming. The family planning and responsible
parenthood programs have been integrated into the total health program of the Department of
Health (DOH). This implied the de-emphasis of FP as a fertility reduction (demographic) program.

Under the Ramos Administration, the promulgation of the Local Government Code of 1991 ushered
in the devolution and decentralization of the reproductive health and family planning services to the
various LGUs: provincial, city and municipal levels of governance. The program left to the
management of POPCOM is basically the population and development program, ensuring
integration of POPDEV concerns in policy, planning and programming and its advocacy at various
fora and different entities, both government and non-government.

The program areas of POPCOM have evolved around the major program categories as shown in
the Estrada and Arroyo Administrations. It is worthwhile to note that under the Estrada
Administration, as documented in the Directional Plan 2001 to 2004, the objective of fertility
reduction as a component of FP was revived. The programs are basically geared towards
integration of population and development concerns and its advocacy and rendering of technical
assistance for the uptake and/or cascading of the POPDEV approach among policy makers,
legislative and executive units of government and most especially among LGUs.

5
 Estrada Administration 1998-2001
a. Policy Analysis and Development –
Contain all initiatives made by the agency
pertaining to formulation of population related
policies such as inter-agency conferences,
seminars, planning and workshops;
b. Program Coordination –
Conduct of population related activities together
with other offices both private and government;
c. Program Promotion and Advocacy
Awareness campaigns to promote appreciation
and popularization of various agency programs
and projects on population;
d. Data Information and Management –
Collection, updating, validation, dissemination
and exchange of data and information including
the conduct of research related to population
and development; and
e. Technical Assistance –
Provision of other forms of assistance or
support services to other government units in
their efforts towards addressing issues related
to population.
POPCOM Structure and Operations
The Commission has a simple structure. It has its Board of Commissioners serving as the highest
governing body and a Secretariat that handles the operations, coordination and implementation of
programs and projects of the agency.
A. The Board of Commissioners
The Board is supposed to have 14 members, 11 coming from different government offices and 3
from the private sector4. It headed by a chairperson that is elected by its members.
4 http://www.popcom.gov.ph
Arroyo Administration 2001 - present
(Based on draft PPMP 2005-2010)
Four pillars of the population policy:
• Responsible Parenthood
• Respect for Life
• Informed Choice
• Birth Spacing
Program Services:
a. Policy Support –
Support in the issuance and passage of several
executive and administrative orders, legislative
measures and even religious decrees at all
levels of administration in support of the
Reproductive Health Program implementation.
b. Service Delivery ---
Continuous provision of RH/FP services to both
women and men by both the government and
non-government institutions through different
programs and projects with government and
foreign funding support.
c. Capability Building —
Undertaken with the support of the
implementation of the RH/FP program in the
areas of service delivery, advocacy/IEC, and
data and information management,
d. Advocacy/IEC –
Gaining support of various influentials for the
RH/FP program and create demand for family
planning and RH services, various advocacy
strategies were implemented. These include
networking, partnership, and alliance building to
vigorously promote measures on reproductive
health and rights including safe motherhood
and child survival.
e. Database and Information System –
Maintenance of and access to National
Population Database Information System and
Demographic and Socio-economic Information
System
6
Representatives from the private sectors are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure5, of the
President of the land. These are as follows:

Chairperson:

Secretary of Department of Health

Members:

The Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
Secretary of Department of Interior & Local Government (DILG)
Secretary of Department of Labor & Employment (DOLE)
Secretary of Department of Agriculture (DA)
Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Secretary of Department of Education, Culture and Sport (DECS)
Secretary of Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Secretary of Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
Secretary of Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
Director of the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI)

The composition of the Board of Commissioners had changed a number of times over the years.
When it started in 1969, the commission had 22 members. R.A. 6365 reduced the numbers to
eleven with six (6) coming from government agencies and five (5) from the private sector.
Moreover, when Martial Law was imposed, President Marcos reduced it further to five all coming
from the government, but based on the 1973 annual report, two representatives from the private
sector were appointed as commissioners by President Marcos.

By 1980, the Board already had ten members. Two additional government representatives were
appointed - the Secretaries of the Department of Labor and the Department of Local Government.
An additional representative coming from the private sector was likewise appointed to become a
board commissioner. The number of Board Members was further expanded to fourteen (14) under
the presidency of Fidel Ramos. Four more department secretaries (Agriculture, Agrarian Reform,
Trade and Industry and Public Works) were named to the commission.

At present, POPCOM is considered an attached agency under the Department of Health (DOH) by
virtue of E.O. 188 issued by President Arroyo in May 2003. Prior to the issuance of this directive,
the Commission is an attached agency of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
Before that, the agency was originally under the Office of the President and then DSWD.

When POPCOM was first created by virtue of E.O. 171 (followed immediately by E.O. 233), there
was no specific mention as to where this agency would be connected or attached for guidance and
supervision purposes or to whom it is supposed to report on matters pertaining to its work on
population. What were contained in these Executive Orders were the composition of the
Commission and the general structure it would take and its broad relations with other government
agencies or institutions. It was not until the enactment by the Philippine Congress of R.A. 6365
that clearly stated that the Commission was created under the Office of the President.

5 Ibid.

7
 B. The POPCOM Secretariat

As specified under Section 11 of P.D. 79, “POPCOM shall have such personnel as may be
necessary for the performance of its basic function”. The entire set of personnel, headed by an
Executive Director, is collectively referred to as the POPCOM’s secretariat. In essence, this
secretariat is the implementing arm of the Board of Commissioners of POPCOM and the Executive
Director is the one responsible for its operation again as mandated under P.D. 79.

The Secretariat has its own particular set of structure and has already evolved a few times to
accommodate additional personnel and to meet the demands of the agency’s workload. With only
about 163 employees back in 1973, it now has some 600 personnel working nationwide distributed
in 15 regions.

Core Competencies

The following are the dominant organizational and functional competencies of POPCOM:

1. Family Planning / Reproductive Health implementer, manager and advocate (1969 to

1988)

POPCOM, consistent with its original mandate, is basically an implementor and advocate
of family planning, particularly its non-clinical component and community-based services.
This is its predominant role during the whole of the Marcos regime (save for about two
years) and it has supervised and exercised oversight of the clinical aspect of FP as
administered by the DOH through its network of hospitals and clinics nationwide.
Monitoring and coordination of the FP program even in the years where POPCOM’s role in
FP was watered down, were also some of the competencies acquired by the organization.

2. Lead formulator of the Population policy and strategic and directional plans;
technical resource agency on population concerns

POPCOM spearheads the formulation of the population policy and medium-term plans as
mandated under its charter and adjusts the emphasis of the program according to the
inclination and directives of the national and its board leadership. As such, it has gathered
significant number of researches, policy papers and statistical databases on the population
issue, demography and other related fields. Its attachment to the NEDA in a greater part of
the Ramos and Estrada Administration and its tight coordination with the academe and
population-related institutes has enabled the organization to engage in policy and plan
formulation circles.

3. Population and Development integration and advocacy in national, regional and

local planning processes

In the late 1990s, POPCOM’s institutional competence in POPDEV planning has been
strengthened and enhanced. This came as a result of POPCOM’s exposure with NEDA
and other agencies in various POPDEV-centered foreign assisted projects from UNFPA.
With the various shifts in FP program implementation, transfers of POPCOM in agency
attachment and the mandated devolution of powers to LGUs, the emerging dominant
functional competency of POPCOM is POPDEV integration in planning processes
particularly in mainstreaming the framework in local governance.

8
 III. Program and Organizational Performance Review

This section summarizes the performance of POPCOM on two general areas: population program
outcomes and management of the population program. The former pertains to the key performance
indicator of the country’s population program, while the latter refers to the key performance of the
agency in implementing inputs and delivering outputs as mandated by its charter and as directed
by the national leadership and policy. The organizational performance review draws heavily from
the insights cited in the paper, Review of the Population Program, 1986-2002 authored by Orbeta,
Matro and del Prado.6 It has also benefited from the insights of POPCOM Executive Director,
Deputy Executive Director and POPCOM staff as gathered from the interviews conducted in
December 2006.

Population Program Plans, Outputs and Outcomes

Overall performance

The overall performance of the program as measured by fertility reduction is marginal compared to
the declines in total fertility rates of comparable Asian countries. Total fertility rate of the country
declined from 5.7 in 1968 to 3.7 in 1998. Based on the intermediate indicator of contraceptive
prevalence rate, the program has not caused increases in the indicator and in fact showed
declining trends. The proportion of those using modern methods, however, has steadily risen,
albeit still lagging behind comparable ASEAN countries.7 In terms of POPDEV integration, the
performance of this program has not been objectively measured. This component has produced
POPDEV-trained national, regional and LGU planners with very little objective assessment of how
“POPDEV-sensitive” are the resulting national, regional and local plans and investment programs.

A. Reproductive Health and Family Planning Component

1. Marcos Administration – It was during this time that fertility reduction as an integral
component of the FP program was implemented vigorously. Assessment and reviews
done on the performance of the program during this period yield the following, although
somewhat contradictory findings:

a. In 1978, it was viewed as necessary that the population program be integrated

with the health structure specifically with maternal and child health delivery
system.
b. After that, it was deemed necessary to detach the population program from the
health structure in order to “extend the link of clinic services and to utilize non-
medical personnel to motivate people to practice FP.”8

On the overall, organizational performance of POPCOM focused on FP as a fertility

reduction measure. This was only momentarily halted in 1981 to 1983 when a conservative
commissioner of POPCOM headed the organization. Shifts in delivery ranged from a pure
clinic-based service delivery of FP to a combined community and clinic-based FP/RH
delivery system.

6 Aniceto Orbeta, Jr, Jeannette Matro, and Fatima del Prado, Review of the Population Program: 1986-2002, PIDS,
December 2002.
7 Orbeta, p. 2.
8
Ibid

9
2. Aquino Administration – Review of performance of the program under this administration
can be summarized as follows:

a. FP became essentially a health program; fertility reduction was no longer its

primary goal but family welfare;
b. Program delivery was transferred to DOH therefore POPCOM’s handle over the
FP/RH program became limited to policy and lesser on operations.

3. Ramos Administration – Under this administration, the following are the assessments
that had bearing on the performance of the program:

a. Re-emphasis of the fertility reduction objective under FP without discontinuing the

family welfare component was enshrined in the 1993-1998 Philippine Population
Program Plan but was subsequently de-emphasized in favor of reproductive health
in the 1998-2003 PPMP Directional Plan;
b. Devolution to local governments of the program began during this period; and
c. Emphasis on specific concerns of women and special groups like adolescents
became prominent in this period.

4. Estrada Administration – Although short-lived, this administration came out with a clearer
and strong support for the program:

a. The population-resources-environment framework became the guiding outline and

incorporated into the Population and Sustainable Development Framework that
enabled POPCOM to pursue three objectives of: desired family size through
responsible parenthood, improving reproductive health, and support to policies
that balances concerns of population, economy and environment;
b. The program and plan cited specific key performance indicators; and
c. There was an adoption of an aggressive family planning program to achieve a total
fertility rate of 2.1 by 2004, implying that the program will go beyond the desired
fertility of couples (2.7) and thus pave the way for higher contraceptive prevalence
level.

5. Arroyo Administration – There as yet to be a comprehensive review of the program

performance under this administration. Based on the official statements and informal
pronouncements, the following observations have been raised:

a. Emphasis and focus of the FP/RH program is on the natural family planning (NFP)
mode and POPCOM advocacy have to be redirected to provide more “air time”
and space for NFP over the artificial FP advocacy;
b. FP program advocacy will be proffered to LGUs with a complete menu of FP
choices; LGUs will finally decide on the mode suitable to them; and
c. Aggressive fertility reduction postures in the FP/RH program (i.e., artificial
contraception modes) at the national level will suffer reduction in emphasis in favor
of NFP and responsible parenthood but will be differentiated when applied at the
local level.

10
B. POPDEV Integration into policy-making, planning and programming process

POPCOM’s performance in this component is assessed into two time periods representing
the pre-Local Government Code period and the post-LGC phase. POPDEV integration is a
program thrust aimed at comprehensive consideration of the population issue into the
broader aspects and elements of development like macro and sector planning,
environment and natural resources, land use and urbanization, migration, and local
governance. It aims to integrate the population issue in the various socio-economic and
sector policies, plans and programs of government at all levels.

1. Before decentralization and devolution to LGUs (pre-1991) – POPDEV activities

during this period focused on three activities: institutional capability building,
advocacy and innovative approaches. The following are some assessment points:

a. While POPCOM was the mandated lead agency of POPDEV, capability

building (and advocacy) was undertaken by the NEDA as the planning
agency. This was so because integration of POPDEV into socio-economic
planning processes was the priority. However, POPDEV integration at the
program level remains to be made operational.9

b. Innovative approaches in POPDEV integration were done in DENR’s

social forestry program, DSWD’s program for children and DA’s training
for extension workers, and women projects in pilot LGUs.10

2. Decentralization and Devolution – POPDEV integration continued during this

phase and have significantly shifted focus from the national to local governance
level.

a. POPCOM played the lead role in providing technical assistance in all

aspects of the population program particularly integration of POPDEV at
the regional and local levels;

b. POPDEV integration in to programmatic areas or in specific issues like

women status and adolescents and youth welfare; emphasis on
sustainable development; and consideration of migration and urbanization
issues became prominent in this period.

C. Program Management

This section will focus on the management of the population program and the implication
of the overhaul or shifts in policy to the overall effectiveness of POPCOM as an
organization. Successful program management lies in the stable operational mandates.
However, in the case of POPCOM, the perpetual shifts and policy changes attendant to
each political administration has hindered the overall stable management of the population
program. This is despite the fact that POPCOM has always been the overall coordinator,
planning and policy-making body of the program since its inception.

9 Orbeta, p. 8
10 Ibid.

11
 Reproductive Health and Family Planning

1. Program management of the RH/FP program during the Marcos regime rested at
the command of POPCOM. It was only in 1981 to 1983 where the program floated
primarily because of a conservative leadership at the helm of the POPCOM board.

2. Under the Aquino administration, profound changes in management became

apparent with POPCOM being transferred to one agency to the next and in 1988
where DOH was designated by the POPCOM board as the lead agency in the
implementation of FP/RH.11

3. The enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991 effected the devolution of
front line services to LGUs that includes health and family planning. From 1991 up
to the present, the prioritization of FP/RH programs became a prerogative of the
LGUs. This included planning, programming, funding and implementation of local
FP/RH programs.

POPDEV Integration

1. Management of the PODEV program has always been with POPCOM. However,
the capability building component of POPDEV was implemented by NEDA as lead
since technical expertise in socio-economic planning rested with it.

2. POPCOM’s assumption of the POPDEV integration became pronounced when the

LGC was passed in 1991. POPCOM is now into POPDEV integration at the local
level.

11 Orbeta, p. 11

12
 IV. Resources

Fund Sources

POPCOM’s financial resources basically originate from two sources: (1) the general appropriations
act (GAA) or the national budget, and (2) foreign assistance (loans or grant) from official
development assistance (ODA) sources.

POPCOM Secretariat Budget from the GAA

The resources coming from the GAA is mainly allocated to personnel services or the human
resource complement of the POPCOM Secretariat that has been established at the national and
regional levels. Other allocations go to the maintenance and other operating expenses of the
POPCOM office (Board and Secretariat). The budget for the POPCOM also serves as government
counterpart in accessing foreign funding from various international donors.

POPCOM Budget (GOP)

In Million Pesos
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
73 76 79 81 84 86 88 90 94 96 99 O1

The graph above shows the budget levels of POPCOM coming from the GOP/GAA. Budget
appropriation was highest in the early 1980s and manifested significant declines starting 1986 to
the mid-1990s.12

12Figures from 1973-1986 and 1995-2003 were obtained from available POPCOM annual reports (lacking years are:
1975, 1977, 1982, 1997 and 2002). The years 1987 to 1991 and 1994 were obtained from Orbeta (Table 4). There are
no records obtained for the years 1992 and 1993.

13
Program Financing for the Population Program

The population program is jointly funded by the Philippine government and the international donor
community.13 Foreign assistance has been traditionally the source of funding for the population
program’s major components: (a) FP and RH, and (b) POPDEV Integration. At the start of the
program in the 1970s, all financing came from external sources and there has been a declining
proportion of external financing that has been a major concern for POPCOM since the mid-1990s
to the present.

The graph below shows the combined GOP and foreign assistance resources allocated for the
population program from 1973 to 2003 (some year series are lacking). The proportion of foreign
assistance that started with a greater proportion of total resources in the 1970s have significantly
dropped starting 1995.

POPCOM Financial Resources

GOP and Foreign, in million pesos
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
73

19 4
76
78
79
80

19 1
83
84
85

19 6
95
96
98
99

20 0
01
03
7

0
19
19

19
19
19
19

19
19
19

19
19
19
20

20

Year
Foreign Aid GOP

The table below shows the percentage of combined foreign assistance resources for the series /
years covered. Note that the average foreign assistance financing for the first series (i.e., 6 sample
years, 1973-1980) had an average percentage of 38%. This increased in the next series (6 sample
years, 1981-1995) to about 43%. In the last series (6 years, 1996 to 2003), the average percentage
of resources for the population program coming from foreign assistance declined to 15%.

13Orbeta, p. 13. Usual donors are: USAID, UNFPA, WB, UNICEF, EU, AusAID, ADB, JICA, KfW, GTZ and the Ford
Foundation.

14
 Population Program Financing (GOP and Foreign Sources, in million pesos)
Average % of
Year GOP % Foreign Aid % Total Foreign Aid
1973 26.70 34% 52.83 66% 79.53
1974 58.40 54% 49.10 46% 107.50
1976 110.20 56% 88.00 44% 198.20
38%
1978 122.50 75% 40.40 25% 162.90
1979 134.00 74% 46.50 26% 180.50
1980 168.10 76% 52.00 24% 220.10
1981 185.10 65% 98.10 35% 283.20
1983 161.37 57% 123.45 43% 284.82
1984 146.20 55% 121.50 45% 267.70
43%
1985 110.90 45% 136.13 55% 247.03
1986 125.03 44% 161.16 56% 286.19
1995 73.50 76% 23.00 24% 96.50
1996 73.00 82% 15.90 18% 88.90
1998 103.94 79% 26.93 21% 130.87
1999 110.77 82% 24.90 18% 135.67
15%
2000 124.10 93% 9.40 7% 133.50
2001 114.13 89% 14.72 11% 128.85
2003 113.30 83% 22.80 17% 136.10

List of Foreign-Assisted Projects of POPCOM and the Philippine Population Program14

1. UNFPA – First to Fifth Country Program (5th Country Program Cost: US$30 million)
2. USAID

Population Planning Project I to III

Family Planning Assistance Project (April 1990, US$40 million)

Integrated FP/Maternal Health Program (1994-2000, US$90 million bilateral,
$60 million Central funds)

3. World Bank – Population I and II Projects (Phase II 1979-1988, US$40 million)

4. Asian Development Bank

Women’s Health and Safe Motherhood (on-going, US$54 million)

Integrated Community Health Services (1998-2003, US$51.1 million)

5. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)

Integrated Community Health Services Project (US$19.5 million)

Women’s Health Training Project (US$ 13 million)

6. German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ)

Supports the Philippine Health Sector Reform Agenda, National Health
Insurance Program
7. Ford Foundation

Six projects on Human Development and Reproductive Health from 1995 to
2001
14 Orbeta, pp. 14-22.

15
 V. Insights

The following are some insights by the author based on the review of literature, program and
organizational performance and resources of POPCOM. These may be serve as inputs to ICOMP
in formulating its strategy paper:

1. Program Emphasis. The current program emphasis of the Arroyo Administration

is to put forward Natural Family Planning as the emphasis of the FP/RH Program.
As such, at the national and even sector or regional level, it would be difficult to for
POPCOM as an organization to put forward the fertility reduction features (i.e.,
artificial and modern FP methods) of the FP/RH Program.

2. Locus of Feasible Intervention. Putting forward the FP/RH Program with the
complete array of methods for program acceptors may be feasible and politically
acceptable at the local level. Focusing on LGUs as the main clients (and eventual
recipient-decision makers) of the FP/RH diffuses possible political backlash on the
national leadership that may come from the traditional program oppositionists
(conservative Catholic Church and others). LGUs have the final prerogative on the
adoption of policies and programs within the framework and mandate of the Local
Government Code. Organizationally, it may serve the POPCOM well by focusing
on local governance as the entry point of the FP Program. Internally, POPCOM
(particularly the regions) may have to develop a criteria that rates and prioritizes
the LGUs that may be receptive to the program and are also major contributors to
the population program’s key result areas (i.e., highly urbanized cities, charter
cities, high population growth municipalities, etc).

3. Focus of POPDEV Integration is both local and program- and project-based.

Effort for POPDEV integration in the national, sector/regional planning, investment
programming and budgeting processes seems to have lost its relevance given the
ambiguous or (at worst) unfavorable policy pronouncement of current national
leadership on population issues. POPCOM (and the FP/RH Program) may benefit
from the models and framework of POPDEV if these are applied hands-on and on-
ground at the local level. This is not to recommend redoing POPDEV integration in
local plans, investment programs and budgets (this too may have become passé).
Rather, it may be more relevant to integrate POPDEV in specific demonstration
and model programs/projects of LGUs through learning-by-doing methodologies.
On-ground project showcases that demonstrates integration of the FP/RH with
local/community socio-economy and site-based indicators may be more relevant
that formulating and writing plans which may never see their implementation.

4. Benchmarking and monitoring of desired (demographic outcomes) at the

local level. The focus of technical assistance to POPCOM and subsequently its
transference to LGUs (i.e, local chief executive and the local legislature) may be
along the lines of local and community benchmarking (i.e., on fertility/
contraceptive practices, migration trends, local environmental quality) and relate
how these result in certain demographic and socio-economic outcomes.
Appropriate local interventions can then be designed, adopted (legally by the local
legislature) and financed/implemented by the local chief executive. While this may
be difficult to make operational given the short planning horizon of locally-elected
officials (i.e., 3 years), the commitment may be framed on a two-or three-termer

16
 local chief executive as legislated by the local legislature (i.e., Sangguniang Bayan
resolution).

5. Modeling for Policy Advocacy and Reform. The intermediate results of 3 and 4
approaches can be documented and made into a working demonstration of a
“community socio-economy and demographic” model that negates misconceptions
on the population issue. A concrete example of this is the notion that it would be
favorable for an LGU to have a bigger population size because IRA determination
which is pegged at population will be larger.

6. Advocacy, Cooperation and Pooling of Resources among LGUs and their

Leagues. POPCOM and the FP/H Program may find a formidable ally among
LGUs and their associations and leagues. As the past years show, LGUs leagues
have made their mark in the national scene by issuing joint statements that affect
national policy. The FP/RH program may benefit from this development as the
program may tap the leagues of provinces, cities or municipalities in joint
undertakings like accessing project grants and loans through partnership with
leagues (as a way of local counterpart and matching grants), unified procurement
of FP/RH materials and supplies, and other technical assistance that may be
facilitated by cooperative ventures among LGUs.

17
 References and Interviews

1. Herrin, Alejandro N., Population Policy in the Philippines, 1969-2002,

Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-08, Philippine Institute for Development Studies
(PIDS), September 2002.

2. Orbeta, Aniceto, Jr. C., Matro, Jeannette, del Prado, Fatima, Review of the
Population Program: 1986-2002, Discussioin Paper Series No. 2002-18, PIDS,
December 2002.

3. Selected Annual Reports of POPCOM 1973 to 2003.

4. Commission on Population, Population Policy Manual Volume 5, Compiled by the

Policy Analysis and Development Division, POPCOM, 2001

5. POPCOM, Philippine Population Management Program (PPMP) Directional Plan

2001-2004

6. POPCOM, Philippine Population Management Program (PPMP), 2005-2010 (draft

only)

7. Interviews with: Executive Director Tomas Osias and Deputy Executive Director
Mia Ventura, POPCOM Central Office, 21 December 2006

18