Civil Society

Civil society is the third sector of society, along with government and business. It
comprises civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations.
What Is Civil Society?
The concept of civil society, like that of democracy, has come to have worldwide resonance. But
what exactly is civil society?
The idea has ancient roots. From the earliest times, human communities required cooperative
behavior for survival, and it is clear that ancient patterns of social coordination imprinted
institutional practices and beliefs that still shape our contemporary world. Recent decades have
witnessed a great surge of new interest in civil society. Scholars, commentators, and political
actors of all stripes have debated the concept, universally acknowledging its centrality to the rise
of modern democracy while disputing its definition and function. It remains a contested and
elusive idea, simultaneously animating and complicating contemporary debates about the
nature of political life and the best paths toward solutions to social problems.
One fact is given. We are all members of civil society. Just as citizens relate to the state and
family members relate to domestic life, we all connect to each other in society through a network
of values and institutions that define us as actors in the civil sphere. The quality of our
participation in private and public life is in fact closely intertwined with the character of our
actions in civil society.
The term civil society evokes many meanings in the modern eraa mediating realm between
the individual and the state, the worlds of nonprofit associations and philanthropy, the network of
international NGOs, social relations of mutual respect, and, many others. Common to all of
these meanings, however, are two central ideas: pluralism and social benefit. Together these
ideas reflect the myriad interests and identities present in contemporary society and the task of
working to improve conditions in the world. In a social environment increasingly beset by
intolerance, threats to freedom of belief and action, and an inability to pursue common goods,
the prospect of strengthening civil society suggests a ray of hope in an otherwise
dishearteningly bleak picture.
This hope is justified, I believe, not just because the mores of civility suggest an aspiration
toward more harmonious social relations, but also because the historical development of civil
society has been a vital force in the creation of modern liberal democracy and continues to play
that role today. Civil society's complex framework of freedoms, rights, common commitments,
and procedures for peaceful dispute resolution is the source of its promise for the future.
While civil society provides an enabling framework for democracy, it contains at the same time
an intrinsic tension, a fragile balance between private and public interests. Maintaining this
balance is essential to finding solutions to vital challenges in modern democracies that demand
public resolution, challenges such as environmental degradation, fundamental educational
needs, ethnic and religious strife, and deterioration of public decision-making processes. These
are often described as issues of the commons, the resolution of which will determine the future
of humankind.
The concept of the commons is key to understanding civil society. It refers to a central tradition
in Western thought: the shared sphere of communal life where collective goods reside. These

goods include not only air and water, but also such public benefit ideals as social justice and
civic commitment, and they cannot be achieved by individual decision-making alone. Rather,
they are created and sustained by common action and by the frameworks of institutions and
norms that make such action possible. The commons are critical to the well-being and ultimately
the survival of the community.
Defining Civil SocietySeven Key Concepts
The modern evolution of the civil society idea is an extraordinarily complex story. It is a story
that has profound importance for the future of social and political change and, ultimately, for
democracy itself. The story emerges from the gradual intermingling of seven threads of
historical development in the world of ideas and the evolution of institutions that surfaced in
early modern Europe. Roughly from the beginning of the 16th century, these threads became
woven into the fabric of a new social form that spanned national and intellectual frontiers.
Each of the seven strands in this story is complex in its own right and has its own theoretical
justification. Four reflect institutional structures that have evolved through the course of Western
history to form the structural framework of modern civil society. Two of these organizational
structureslegal and philanthropic institutionshave existed through the past two millennia,
while the other twoprivate associations and a system of free expressionevolved in later
eras. The other three strands reflect social normscommitments to the common good, to
individual rights, and to tolerancethat appeared sequentially through a long developmental
process.
This conception of civil society, as a constellation of seven defining elements, draws upon the
work of many contemporary scholars and theorists. These thinkers reflect diverse cultural and
philosophical traditions, and their analyses of the nature and dynamics of civil society draw on
distinct traditions of social thought. Although among them we find broad agreement on the idea
of civil society at an abstract level, when we probe further into their content we find significant
differences. Nevertheless, it is useful to explore the areas of intersection among diverse
theoretical perspectives and to understand them in relationship to historical developments. What
follows, then, is a brief summary of the seven strands as identified by contemporary theorists.
Nonprofit and voluntary institutions. A widely shared view identifies civil society with the set
of nonprofit (in the United States) or nongovernmental (worldwide) organizations. As suggested
by Lester Salamon and Brian O'Connell, this tradition reflects a long history of social theory
viewed in institutional terms. 1 Private voluntary associations have, since ancient times, played a
vital role in achieving social purposes. The contemporary nonprofit sector refers to the realm of
society inhabited by such voluntary organizations, in contrast to both public sector governmental
entities and for-profit sector businesses. Especially in the United States and western Europe,
there is a well-grounded body of law that establishes the status of entities in each of these three
sectors, and the structure and behavior of nonprofit organizations can be described in terms that
are specific and comparable. Despite the clarity and concreteness of this definition of civil
society, however, its descriptive and analytical power is limited. Equating civil society with the
nonprofit sector excludes important institutional and normative dimensions that are of
fundamental importance to understanding its central role in political and social life.
Individual rights. A second thread of broad agreement among contemporary theorists focuses
on the rise of the individual and of individual rights as a distinctive characteristic of civil society.
For example, John Keane, Ernest Gellner, and Adam Seligman anchor civil society primarily in
the growth of a sphere of private action and individual rights that is defended against the state.

Keane, in particular, emphasizes the gradual separation of civil society from the state in a
classic study of the development of civil society thinking since the 17th century. Seligman
describes the emergence of the autonomous and agentic individual upon which the idea of civil
society rests in the West. 2
The common good. A parallel and, in fact, more ancient stream of thought is the conceptual
tradition of the common good. Among modern theorists who stress the significance of this
component are Helmut Anheier, Michael Walzer, Charles Taylor, and Amatai Etzioni, all of whom
emphasize the central importance of civic norms aimed at achieving communal ends. Anheier's
definition of civil society adopted by CIVICUS 3 places central emphasis on the advance of
common interests. Walzer views the various civil society traditions as sharing a commitment
toward the solution of problems in the public realm. Taylor describes the importance of the
Montesquieu stream of civil society thinking that views civil society as an extension of the
public realm and a complement to the state versus the Locke stream that emphasizes the
protection of individual rights.
The rule of law. Inextricably connected to both the defense of individual rights and the pursuit
of the common good is the rule of law. Ralf Dahrendorf, in particular, has emphasized the rule
of law as a defining characteristic of civil society in its capacity to establish fair and predictable
rules for the exercise of public authority. Although laws are set and enforced by governmental
bodies, they require a pre-political legitimacy that inheres in civil society and transcends the
authority of a given regime. As Dahrendorf and others suggest, the rule of law is essential to
guarantee other elements of civil society, especially the protection of individual rights, from the
arbitrary exercise of power. 4
Philanthropy. Robert Payton and Kathleen McCarthy argue, from quite different theoretical
perspectives, the critical significance of philanthropic values and practices to the constitution of
civil society. Closely related to the tradition emphasizing individual action on behalf of the
common good, philanthropy becomes an essential vehicle to realize this intention. Payton views
philanthropy as the central value of civil society, and McCarthy describes how a wide range of
groups animated by a philanthropic impulse shaped the emergence of American civil society in
the 18th and 19th centuries. 5
Free expression. The concept of free public communication has flowed into the stream of the
development of civil society since the early modern period. This concept, most notably
grounded in Jrgen Habermas's notion of the public sphere, is a prerequisite for the free
formation of public opinion that enables civil society to function effectively, i.e., to create a
reasoning public. Charles Taylor similarly emphasizes that a definitive characteristic of early
modern civil society is the emergence of a system of free expression. 6
Tolerance. Not as frequently invoked, but nevertheless widely understood as essential to the
gestation of the civil society idea, is the norm of tolerance. An outcome (albeit unintended) of the
religious wars of 16th and 17th century Europe, this normative element is implicit in the growth
of idea of civility. Dominque Colas brings tolerance to center stage in the development of civil
society (contrasted with fanaticism), describing its emergence in 17th century philosophical
theories as the essential, defining virtue of civil society. The notion of tolerance is also an
essential feature of descriptions of civil society in Ernest Gellner's modular man, Edward
Shils's concept of civility, and John Hall's explication of cultural adaptation to multi-polar
pluralism. 7
Synthesizing the Seven Strands

These seven strands appear in various constellations in the work of many contemporary
theorists. My central argument is that they are constitutive and interactive components that
together create the necessary conditions for the successful functioning of modern civil society.
They are mutually supportive and interdependent.
This approach views civil society as a singular social construct, comprising both institutions and
norms, that has historically evolved through the seven conceptual streams. The overarching
definition that best captures these integrated elements is one proposed by Helmut Anheier as a
modification of that employed by CIVICUS in its Global Survey of the State of Civil Society:
Civil society is the arena outside family, government, and market where people voluntarily
associate to advance common interests based on civility. 8
The seven constitutive elements complement and reinforce each other in the operation of civil
society. For example, private associations depend upon individual rights (specifically the right to
associate and to freely advocate points of view), legal protection of those rights, dedication to
common purposes, philanthropy, and tolerance of co-existing associations to carry out their
purposes. 9 Similarly, a system of free expression requires legally sanctioned individual rights
and an ethic of tolerating diverse points of view. Philanthropic institutions rely on a commitment
to pursue the common good (albeit interpreted in individualized terms), the right to express that
commitment through the contribution of money and/or time, a legal guaranty that a philanthropic
purpose will be carried out, tolerance for differing and even opposing philanthropic purposes,
and the ability to create a private organization to carry out a philanthropic mission.
What becomes evident in the way the seven elements interact is the centrally important
relationship among the three constitutive norms. Given civil society's equally significant
commitment to individual rights and to the common gooda dualism that can create
fundamental tension between individual and communal impulseswhat allows the two value
systems to find congruence in a coherent social agenda? The third norm. Tolerance has
become the connecting link that allows competing individual visions of the public good to coexist
and to reconcile the private and the public in civil society, albeit always provisionally.
Civil Society and Democracy
The development of modern civil society has been inextricably linked to the development of
liberal democracy. Robert Post and Nancy Rosenblum describe a consensus among
contemporary theorists that democracy depends on the particularist, self-determining
associations of civil society, where independent commitments, interests, and voices, are
developed . Civil society is the precondition for democratic decision making, whether
democracy is conceived as deliberation or as interest group pluralism, and this is true even if
the goal of democracy is to transcend particularism and arrive at uncoerced agreement or a
common will. 10
This close interconnection between civil society and the democratic state is historically rooted in
the fact that the concept of the individual and of individual rights emerged at the very time when
the idea of government itself was being radically reconceived in the early tug of war between
democratic and the absolutist theories of the state.
In the 17th century, James Harrington famously described this evolving complex of ideas when
he advanced an idea of government that was beginning to appear in the works of non-traditional
political writers: Government is an art whereby a civil society of men is instituted upon the

common foundation of common right or interest, or it is the empire of laws and not of
men. 11 Harrington was in the forefront of those developing the new theory in which government
is grounded in civil society as defined by the rule of law and an accompanying commitment to
individual rights. These, in effect, became the founding pillars of the newly emerging liberal
democratic state.
Balancing the Tension between Individual Rights and the Common Good
Contained in the new vision of a rights-based polity, however, is an inherent tensionbetween
the defense of individual rights (in the forms of private association, free expression, and other
freedoms), on the one hand, and the power of the state to act in pursuit of its mandate to
achieve the well-being of the commonweal, on the other. For Harrington and his
contemporaries, civil society was the arena in which this tension played out. It was there that
individuals came together through civil interactions based on trust, tolerance, and a shared
sense of public purpose, to form a natural community of common interest to pursue collective
purposes. Radically differing visions of spiritual or political ideals could co-exist in this arena
because it was the realm in which the free play of ideas produced public consensus that then
produced the basis for ultimate action by the state. Civil society organizations could propose,
but only the state could dispose.
Contemporary theories of liberal democracy have been strongly imprinted by that historically
determined structure in which civil society and the modern democratic state became mutually
interdependent. To sustain the conditions that support it, civil society requires an anchoring in
governmental authority, and, conversely, liberal democratic government requires a balancing of
private and public purposes that is the product of a robust civil society.
Theorists have highlighted two essential features of the concept of liberal democracy: that it is a
mode of social decision-making that flows from the popular will and that it limits the scope of
government by protecting pluralism and individual rights. Contemporary political theorist, William
Galston, further defines what is protected by limiting government through three key concepts:
political pluralism (multiple sources of political authority), value pluralism(qualitatively
different goods that cannot be rank ordered); and expressive liberty (freedom for individuals
and groups to lead lives they choose). The challenge for liberal democracy, then, is reconciling
these forms of pluralism with the legitimate exercise of public power. The more diverse and
differentiated a society is, the greater the challenge. 12
Liberal democracy inevitably gives rise to conflict between the protected realms of private belief
and action on the one hand, and the state's need to achieve goods that benefit the entire
community on the other. Galston finds that in a society that accepts and even promotes diversity
and pluralism, the norm of tolerance is elevated to a core attribute of liberal pluralist
citizenship. Civil society becomes the primary arena for fostering institutions and values
through which these conflicts can be resolved, a place where a variety of conceptions of the
goodincluding many that deviate widely from the beliefs of the mainstream majoritymay be
freely enacted. 13 To perform this task, civil society relies upon the seven elements elaborated
above: the norms of rights, common good, and tolerance, and the institutions of free
associations, a system of free expression, the rule of law, and philanthropy. 14
A major concern today is that the very impulse to protect and invigorate individual preferences
may diminish a broader sense of social bonds and trust necessary for collective action. The
growth of exaggerated individualism in civil society becomes clearly one of the preeminent
public concerns for liberal democracy. 15 The tendency in Western societies to accentuate want-

satisfaction over civic formation threatens the pursuit of public goods. The financier and
philanthropist, George Soros, shares this concern over what he expresses as the rising
dominance of the self-interest values of the market: Market values express only what one
participant is willing to pay another in free exchange and do not give expression to their
collective interests. 16
To the degree that civil society's ability to balance the pursuit of private interest with public wellbeing is diminished, to that degree is liberal democracy endangered. The health and evolution
of civil society thus has profound importance for the unfolding of political life in the 21st century.
Bruce Sievers is visiting scholar and lecturer at Stanford University and former executive
director of the Walter and Elise Haas Fund.
This article is adapted from extracts from the first two chapters of a forthcoming book by
Sievers,
Civil Society and the Fate of the Commons, to be published by the University Press of New
England.
Civil Society Participation
Aside from electoral participation, the citizens and their voluntary associations, enterprises and
other organizations can pressure government leaders to stick to their avowed services and
program of government. Modes of citizen participation include the following: citizen question
hour, community meetings and public hearings, citizens petition and objections, and citizen
referendum.

PHILIPPINE CIVIL SOCIETY: AN OVERVIEW

The basis for civil society in the Philippines comes from the Filipino concepts of pakikipagkapwa
(holistic interaction with others) and kapwa (shared inner self). Voluntary assistance or charity
connotes for Filipinos an equal status between the provider of assistance and the recipient,
which is embodied in the terms damayan (assistance of peers in periods of crisis) and
pagtutulungan (mutual self-help). The Western notion of kawanggawa (charity) may have been
introduced to the Philippines by Catholic missionaries.
During the Spanish colonial period, the Roman Catholic Church and the religious orders
established the first welfare organizations in the Philippines. They founded parochial schools,
orphanages, and hospitals that were mostly reserved for the local elite. The church also
established foundations and cofradas (brotherhoods), which encouraged neighborly behavior,
such as visiting the sick and helping with town fiesta preparations.
The American colonial government delineated the boundaries between state provision of public
goods, religious philanthropy, and private philanthropy. The Philippine Corporation Law of 1906
recognized the right to create private nonprofit organizations, and the government subsidized
the operation of some of these organizations. The American Red Cross and the AntiTuberculosis Society set up branches in the country. The American Methodist and Protestant
churches as well as the Church of England established schools and hospitals.
With support from the government, hundreds of farmer credit cooperatives were created in the
1920s and 1930s, soon claiming more than 100,000 farmers as members. At the same time,
dissatisfaction among peasants fueled growth in membership of the Congress of Labor
Organizations, a labor federation linked to the communist movement. The communist
movement stimulated a counterreaction from the government, religious organizations, and noncommunist organizations. The Catholic Church expanded its social agenda to direct
engagement with workers and peasants and the Jesuits. Protestant and other non-Catholic
churches expanded their services into rural development, cooperatives, and credit unions or
cooperatives, as well as agricultural development.
Then-President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 when there was little space for
civil society and almost no tolerance for advocacy nongovernment organizations (NGOs) during
his rule. In areas where the government bureaucracy could not deliver necessary social
services, other development stakeholders, particularly NGOs, had to step into that role.
However, some organizations either fled underground by joining the armed struggle of the
Communist Party of the Philippines, or sought shelter by affiliating with a university or religious
institutions. During the Marcos dictatorship, many civil society organizations (CSOs) built up
strong relationships with poor communities. The activism of CSOs eventually contributed to the
People Power Revolution of 1986 that ousted Marcos and brought Corazon Aquino to power.
President Corazon Aquino restored democracy to the Philippines, and several pieces of
legislation favorable to civil societys development were passed soon after, including the
Cooperative Code of 1990 and the Women in Development and Nation Building Act of 1992.
Government line agencies opened NGO liaison offices, and NGOs were permitted to negotiate

directly with bilateral funding institutions for financing. Many in the Philippine development
community began to welcome CSO management of overseas development assistance (ODA)
funds, recognizing CSOs as effective channels for funneling support to needy communities.
Owing to the favorable legal environment and the inflow of ODA funds to the country, the
number of CSOs mushroomed during the administration of President Aquino from 1986 to 1992.
The rapid growth of CSOs during the period may also be attributed to the governments move to
institutionalize civil society participation in national and regional development planning.
However, in addition to those with good intentions, organizations of dubious integrity engaged in
questionable practices. Some of these were established by politicians, businesspersons, and
bureaucrats to advance personal, rather than public, welfare. In response, 10 of the largest
NGO networks formed the Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) in 1991 to
promote professionalism as well as to expand the reach of CSOs and increase their
effectiveness.
Today, Philippine civil society organizations are widely seen as some of the most vibrant and
advanced in the world. The Philippines has the largest number of NGOs per capita in Asia, and
many believe that if civil society has contributed to democratization anywhere, it is in the
Philippines. Many of the key international NGOs and networks are based in the Philippines and
headed by Filipinos.
There are many types of CSOs in the country, but the more important types are peoples
organizations, development NGOs, and cooperatives. Peoples organizations are membership
organizations representing marginalized groups and often organized based on sector, issue, or
geographical area. Development NGOs act as intermediate agencies and institutions that
typically operate with a full-time staff complement and provide a wide range of services to
primary organizations, communities, and individuals. A cooperative is an association of persons
who have voluntarily joined together to make equitable contributions to the capital required,
patronizing their products and services and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the
undertaking in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.
It is difficult to put a definite number to all the CSOs in the country, partly because many are
unregistered, but also because there is no single official and updated database on those that
register with government agencies. In addition, studies that attempt to count civil society groups
use various definitions and may therefore include or exclude various types of CSOs. However,
one of the latest and most comprehensive studies puts the range of registered and nonregistered CSOs at 249,000497,000.5 It was estimated that 40% of these organizations were
non-registered.
CSOs in the Philippines engage in a broad range of activities, the most common being in (i)
education, training, and human resource development; (ii) community development; (iii)
enterprise development and employment generation; (iv) health and nutrition; (v) law, advocacy,
and politics; and (vi) sustainable development. It is worth noting that political activism takes on a
larger role for Filipino CSOs than elsewhere. Indeed, CSOs played major roles in achieving
Filipino independence from the Spanish and the Americans, in toppling the Marcos regime, and
in ending the administration of President Joseph Estrada.

GovernmentCivil Society Relations

Since the 1986 People Power Revolution, the government has always maintained some
openness to civil society. However, the democratic space for CSOs has been expanded or
constricted through the years depending on the inclinations of those in power (both elected and
appointed leaders and bureaucrats), the general political conditions, and the positioning of
CSOs with the incumbent political leaders, among other factors.
President Fidel V. Ramos, who served from 1992 to 1998, won the presidency by a slim margin
and thereafter sought to expand his base of support among various sectors of society, including
CSOs. He advanced the Social Reform Agenda to engage CSOs in national policy development
processes.
A section of the CSO sector campaigned for Joseph Estrada in 1998, and some of
the leaders were appointed to Cabinet positions. However, many other CSOs soon
became disenchanted with President Estrada over various issues, including
cronyism, corruption, inept governance, poor economic performance, and
limitations on press freedom.
This pattern repeated itself with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who came to
power in 2001 with strong civil society backing. GovernmentCSO relations,
however, soured after she was accused in 2005 of electoral fraud in her victory in
the May 2004 presidential election. Her declaration of a state of emergency in
February 2006 amid strong opposition to her administration raised concerns about a
threat to civil liberties.
Benigno Simeon C. Aquino was elected president in May 2010 with strong support
from CSOs and volunteer groups who were mobilized through the anticorruption and
antipoverty focus of his campaign platform and the legacy of his parents, the
martyred Ninoy Aquino, and former President Corazon Aquino. The assumption to
office of President Aquino marked improvements in the openness of the government
to CSOs based on constructive engagement both as watchdogs to help ensure
that government policies and guidelines are followed and as support groups helping
to implement government projects and deliver public services.
During this period, CSOs have clamored for increased accountability and
transparency in government.6 For its part, the Aquino Administration promoted
governance and anticorruption as the core priorities of its development agenda and
introduced reform measures which included the creation of a Cabinet Cluster on
Good Governance and Anti-Corruption chaired by the president himself. Under the
presidents leadership, the country also became a founding member of the Open
Government Partnership, a global multilateral initiative that aims to secure more
transparent, effective, and accountable governments.
In 2011, President Aquino approved the Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Plan
20122016 that includes a program to help strengthen the Department of the

Interior and Local Governments partnership with CSOs. Projects under the cluster
plan include the Citizen Satisfaction Index System, which institutionalizes citizen
assessment of local governments performance; and the Electronic Watch, which
creates a mechanism for citizens to provide feedback on the performance of their
local government units (LGUs) through the internet. The Government of the
Philippines has partnered with various CSOs for its Full Disclosure Policy, Seal of
Good Housekeeping for LGUs, and other programs aimed at promoting good
governance. CSOs are also monitoring the governments road and other
infrastructure projects, and closely watching and participating in the
implementation of the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program.
The government continues to open its doors to CSO participation not only in
national and local planning processes, but now also in budget preparation and
execution and in audit. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued
National Budget Memorandum No. 109 in 2011 to require six national government
agencies and three government-owned and controlled corporations to partner with
CSOs in undertaking a participatory process for the formulation of the national
budget for 2012.
The following year, National Budget Memorandum No. 112 implemented the
bottomup approach in budgeting and further expanded CSO engagement in budget
preparation for 2013. The DBM also created a CSO Desk that will monitor CSO
participation in budget preparations.
The government also promotes a system of public procurement that standardizes
procedures and increases transparency. The current procurement system allows civil
society to attend meetings of bids and awards committees and to be given access
to relevant documents.
The Legal Framework for Civil Society
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, forged and shaped in the aftermath of the
1986 People Power Revolution, clearly recognizes participation and empowerment,
including the important role of CSOs. This may be seen in several provisions of the
Constitution, most prominently in the following:

Article II, Section 23: The State shall encourage non-governmental,

community-based, or sector organizations that promote the welfare of the
nation.
Article XIII, Section 15: The State shall respect the role of independent
peoples organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the
democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and
aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. []
Article XIII, Section 16: The right of the people and their organizations to
effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political and

economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law,

facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
Many laws also recognize and promote CSOs and their role in the development of
the country. Among the most important is the Local Government Code (LGC) of
1991. The LGC devolves authority, assets, and personnel of various national
government agencies to LGUs to provide primary responsibility for basic services
and facilities. It further provides for the participation of CSOs in local government
planning and policy making and in the delivery of social services. The code
mandates the formation of local development councils, which play a role in local
planning, and it also provides for the formation of other local special bodies,
including the local health and school boards, all of which must also have CSO
members. In addition, several administrative orders of the central government,
implementing the constitutional provisions and the LGC regarding public
participation, require that all local councils in all levels should be represented by
various NGOs and peoples organizations such as farmers cooperatives and fishers
associations.
It is not legally mandatory for CSOs in the Philippines to register with the
government, and many peoples organizations and other small organizations do not
do so. However, only registered organizations gain a legal status that permits them
to enter into contracts and open a bank account. There are four government
agencies that provide primary registration, which gives a legal or juridical
personality to a CSO: the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
Many types of CSOs register with the SEC, including development NGOs, peoples
organizations, farmers associations, athletic and sports associations, social welfare
organizations, and civic clubs. On the other hand, the CDA registers various types of
cooperatives that may include savings and credit cooperatives, consumer
cooperatives, marketing cooperatives, and multipurpose cooperatives. The DOLE
registers labor unions, labor federations, and rural workers associations in
accordance with the Labor Code of the Philippines. The HLURB registers
homeowners associations (HOAs) based on the Magna Carta for Homeowners and
Homeowners Associations. At least five incorporators may organize and register a
HOA.
Civil Society Capacity
The strength of Philippine CSOs lies in their number, the extensive networking with
the sector and with other sectors or society, the experience and skills from many
years of development work, the dedication and creativity of CSO leaders and
workers, and the flexibility that is linked to the small size of most CSOs. A survey
conducted for the Civil Society Index11 (CSI) in the Philippines found that 46% of

the population considered themselves as active members of at least one CSO, 37%
were inactive members, and only 17% said that they do not belong to any CSO.12
Complementing this, most CSOs, especially NGOs, sector organizations, and
cooperatives, are linked together through provincial, regional, and national networks
or federations or coalitions.13 This may also pose difficulties in selecting the
appropriate CSOs with which to engage and could hinder having a unified
constructive voice from civil society.
Source: Asian Development Bank (Civil Society Briefs: Philippines)