Citizen participation in pursuit of government

accountability
Maria Pilar M. Lorenzo April 18, 2018
Photo by Arnaud Jaegers on Unsplash
One of the more recent solutions introduced in the Philippine government to curb
corruption is the Commission on Audit’s Citizen Participatory Audit project. It capitalizes
on participatory citizenship to help monitor government projects. This article tackles the
present gains and issues about the program.
The Philippines has been plagued by corruption issues for many years: from the colonial period
to present time, this issue has persisted. During the past years, the Philippines has maintained a
relatively similar score in world corruption rankings and research, (the scale being 0 to 100, the
latter figure being very clean), but still low: 36 in 2013, 38 in 2014, 35 in 2015, 35 again in 2016,
and most recently, 34 in 2017 (Transparency International). From last year’s 101th ranking, it
slipped down into 111th this year (out of 180 countries).
One of the answers that has been brought to the table in order to combat corruption is the
involvement of people and their need to report abuses, suggest constructive government
mechanisms, take part in government processes, among many others. Simply put, it is
encapsulated in the theme called citizen participation.
The most supreme audit institution in the country, the Commission on Audit (COA), takes the
issue on corruption to heart, since it was formally established through the 1973 Constitution
(although COA has its roots way back in 1899 with the existence of its predecessor, the Office of
the Auditor for the Philippine Islands). It continues to be at the helm of guarding public funds –
ensuring that public money is spent where it should be and that it is spent appropriately; in other
words, there is value for money. This mission is reflected explicitly in their mandate. COA
“upholds the people’s primordial right to a clean government and the prudent utilization of
public resources, founded on the premise that public accountability can prosper only with a
vigilant and involved citizenry, for the promotion of transparency and effectiveness (COA
Operational Guidelines, 2015)”.
In line with the new approach of citizen participation in conducting better governance, the COA
has introduced the Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA) project to make room for greater
transparency and accountability in the government since its formal launching on 26 November
2012. It is a partnership between COA and Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East
Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP), through the funding of Australia’s Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade. Sometime after its official launch, the Philippines’ Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) included the program as a reform in the country’s commitment to the Open
Government Partnership.

The goal of the program is to allow a safe space for ordinary citizens to get involved in auditing
government projects and programs. The citizen-auditors usually come from the ranks of the
accredited Civil Service Organizations (CSOs) which collaborate with COA in the auditing
process. There is a Memorandum of Agreement that is signed between COA and accredited
CSOs that will signify the specific audits that will be undertaken by the latter (COA-UNDP,
2002). Through this program, the COA was able to launch a strategic partnership to incorporate
the civic sector in auditing processes. It is to give the citizens, to whom the government is
accountable, the capacity to monitor the utilization of public funds.

Concrete examples of citizen participation in government audits include: trialing new methods of
data gathering, such as when citizen enumerators were able to get information for a Solid Waste
program (because they were more familiar with the place), improving methods to gather service
user feedback (through community scorecards, evaluated by the patients of Marikina Barangay
Health Center), promoting collaboration among involved stakeholders (such as introducing
community-based meetings in evaluating a project called CAMANAVA). Other ways involve
participation in capacity-building workshops, identification of scope and methodology during
audit planning, design of survey tools, and crafting of the audit report (Aquino, K., 2014;
ANSAP-EAP, 2014).

Findings from initial projects reveal interesting data. For instance, there was an audit conducted
on the Tourism Road Infrastructure Project (TRIP) in Surigao del Norte, in particular the
construction/improvement of access roads. Conclusions of the study indicate that the project
complied with the procurement process of the government, and that the project truly existed and
was implemented based on the approved plan. However, there were noted deficiencies in the
project site as manifest in road cracks, surface irregularity, and lack of core test for thickness
determination. Another audit report (on the Solid Waste Management Program of Quezon City)
shows that the majority of the respondents gave an overall mark of their community as “clean”.
However, it was observed that there were “instances of non-compliance in regard to the review
and updating of the Plan and the composition and operation of the City Solid Waste Management
Board”.
The CPA project, given its promising performance, has to be well maintained, if the COA likes
to create a truly lasting social impact in the purview of citizen participation vis-à-vis government
accountability. The notion of “citizen participation” is to be continuously formed, implemented,
and sustained. Further developments could include third party monitoring and evaluations of the
completed citizen participatory audit projects.

The CPA project has been a refreshing project to see in the Philippines, a country that has
suffered from severe and interminable corruption. Having a history of well-entrenched
corruption, it is a consolation for the citizens that the COA has bagged the Bright Spot Award in
a forum of the Open Government Partnership in London last 2012. The CPA project has been
discussed in various international platforms, and the experiences have been shared with other
countries as well. Initial feedback obtained from the citizen-auditors were also on the positive
side.

Sherry R. Arnstein (1969), in her framework called the Ladder of Participation, classified the
degree of citizen participation in various types, depending on the intensity of the participation. In
total, she came up with eight rungs: manipulation (lowest level), therapy, and informing are part
of the sub-group called Non-Participation; informing, consulting, and placation form part of the
sub-group called Tokenism; partnership, delegation, and citizen control (highest tier) make the
Citizen Control group. The lowest sub-group is characterized as a mere caricature of citizen
participation – the project is being called as citizen-centered, but in reality, there is no genuine
citizen engagement. The second sub-group manifests a participation that can be called as
tokenism, that is, the citizens are heard but there is no assurance that their feedback and inputs
would be carried out. Lastly, the highest sub-group displays an authentic kind of citizen
participation whereby citizens are not only heard but have decision-making and managerial
capacities.
Interviews conducted by the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the
Pacific (ANSA-EAP) with some volunteers point out to positive results about CPA, owing to the
fact that there were various manifestations of citizen participation in the project. Concrete
participatory contributions of citizen-auditors involve crafting of the citizen survey, designing of
FGD tools and surveys, carrying out public consultations, and suggesting ways how to do public
audits even in more controversial issues (The Journey of CPA, 2014). Hinging upon these kinds
of participation, the level of participation could be marked at levels four to six. In the process,
COA learns new ways of methodology and obtains new data emanating from the grassroots.
Given all these, it is recognized that the Citizen Participatory Audit project of the Commission
on Audit has already attained some positive gains vis-à-vis its goals of upholding government
accountability in the Philippine government.

However, zeroing in on the citizen participation aspect of governance, the level of Citizen
Control that is found at the highest rung of Arnstein’s ladder comes out to be a daunting task for
those in the government because it does not follow the usual top-down approach of the
government officials (Reyes, undated). There are some inevitable questions to ponder: “Given all
the inputs culled from all stakeholders specially that of the citizens, who now decides ultimately
at the end of the entire process?”; “Are the citizens to have the last say?”; “What are the
implications of these?”; “Are the citizens equipped enough to handle with competency
government functions given the fact that they have their own professions to practice?”; “What is
now the role of the government?” These are only natural queries, as the highest form of citizen
participation connotes overthrowing the role of the government and instead being replaced by the
citizens. These are to be taken into consideration in the continuous implementation of the Citizen
Participatory Audit project.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Agatep, Briones, et al. (undated). CPA Learning Guidebook: Introduction. Collaboration of
COA, Australian Aid & ANSA-EAP.
 Agatep, Briones, et al. (undated). CPA Learning Guidebook: Social Accountability as an
Approach to Good Governance. Collaboration of COA, Australian Aid & ANSA-EAP.
 Aquino, K. (2014). Citizen Tools and Methodologies in Participatory Audit. Practice Brief
Issue No. 2, Series of 2014 Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA). ANSA-EAP.
 Aquino, K. & Cabaces, B. (2014). The Joint COA-Citizen Audit Process. Practice Brief
Issue No. 1, Series of 2014. ANSA-EAP.
 Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969,
pp.216-224.
 Briones, Cabaces, et al. (2014). The Journey of Citizen Participatory Audit. ANSA-EAP.
 Cabaces, B. (2014). Citizen Tools and Methodologies in Participatory Audit. ANSA-EAP.
 Cabaces, B. (2014). Building a Participatory Audit Agenda: A Strategy for Institutionalizing
Citizen Participatory Audit. ANSA-EAP.
  COA (2011). Adaptive Leadership: The Philippine Case. Audit Performance Report and
Data.
 COA (2015). Participatory Audit Enters 2nd Phase. Official Gazette dated 22 January 2015.
Retrieved from coa.gov.ph
 Dela Cruz, R. & Suerte-Cortez, V. (2015). Citizen Participatory Audit: An Approach for
Accountability in the Philippines. Given on 1-3 November 2015 at the International
Conference on the Communities of Practice on Managing for Development Results
Instruments for Effective Development. Seoul, Korea.
 Reyes, D. (undated). A lecture on Citizen Participation and Public Sector Reform: Is
Collaborative Governance the Answer? UP NCPAG.
 Roaring, V. (2002). The COA-UNDP Participatory-Audit Manual. United Nations
Development Programme.
 Tan, M. (2013). Citizen Participatory Audit. 14 December 2013 Article of the Philippine
Daily Inquired. Retrieved on 31 March 2016 from http://opinion.inquirer.net/67371/citizen-
participatory-audit#ixzz44S9aMkCz
 UN Economic and Social Council. (2006). Definition of Basic Concepts and Terminologies
in Governance and Public Administration. Committee of Experts on Public Administration:
5th Session. New York: UN.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Maria Pilar M. Lorenzo has recently finished her coursework in the Master of Public
Administration from the University of the Philippines. She works as a Director for the Center for
Leadership, Communication and Governance Research and Consultancy Institute (CLCGI) and
a Researcher for the Philippine Society for Public Administration (PSPA), where she serves as
well as the Managing Editor of their publication entitled Philippine Governance Digest. Her
researches deal about citizen participation, youth unemployment, ethics, and governance. She is
also a registered teacher and a licensed trainer.

Citizen Participatory Audit

Enhancing Transparency, Accountability and Citizen Participation in the Public Audit Process
In April 2012, ANSA-EAP and the Commission on Audit of the Philiippines (COA) formalized a partnership to
implement a two-year Participatory Audit Program that focuses on providing technical assistance to the COA in its
 efforts to open public audit processes to citizens. Its overall goal is to contribute to improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of the use of public resources.
Under the program, COA and ANSA-EAP will design, test and institutionalize the conduct of participatory audits
through several pilot projects.
In participatory audit, citizens (civil society, academic groups, community members, private sector) and the COA work
together to audit the processes of delivering piblic services and government programs. As a result, transparency and
accountability in the way government performs its functions is enhanced.
The components of the program are:
 Partnership Building - Terms of Engagement among stakeholders will be established through a consultative and
collaborative approach. Project designs will be drawn to specify parameters and operational approaches to pilot
the participatory audit services undertaken by COA.
 Capacity Development - This will build the capacity of primary stakeholders, mainly civil society actors, COA
auditors, and other government officials to undertake participatory audits. For greater effectiveness, capacity
building will becarried out in actual work situations and be oriented towards improving practice.
 Public Communication - An integrated communication plan will be designed to create awareness of the program,
and generate support for it from internal and external stakeholders.
 Knowledge and Tools Generation -To facilitate knowledge sharing and ensure that best practices are replicated,
the experiences of CSOs and government agencies will be documented into case studies. The use of informal
systems and tools such as lifestyle checks will be pursued and documented.
For inquiries regarding the Participatory Audit program, please email Ms Vivien Suerte-Cortez
at vsuertecortez@ansa-eap.net.

Context/Background
COA’s three-year (2011-2014) strategic planning exercise, identified transparency and openness to
citizen participation as key facets of its own priority reform agenda. The public audit process is an
important part of the compact between citizens and the state to ensure government programs are
effectively and efficiently implemented and corruption and misuse are minimized. The administration’s
commitment to open government highlighted the important role of COA in communicating and
engaging citizens more directly in the audit process.
The CPA project officially started in November 26, 2012 with a Memorandum of Agreement signed
between COA and its civil society partners. The initiative used constructive engagement as an approach
in working with both government and civil society. In constructive engagement, the key actors are the
state and its citizens. To sustain the approach, spaces for participation have to be created where mutual
trust and openness are required to facilitate meaningful and sustained dialogue and negotiation.
CPA is defined as COA plus citizens working together to conduct joint audits. Under this, citizen
representatives are included in the team to make government more effective, transparent, and
accountable. While this is always done under the direct supervision and control of COA, under CPA
citizens and citizen groups are not outsiders. Rather, they sit on the same table, and are given the same
powers and responsibilities as that of the state auditors.
In terms of numbers, it is also important to note that in 2011, the Commission on Audit only had about
7,000 state auditors that examine financial transactions of more than 61,000 government agencies. That
meant that each auditor has to examine all the transactions of 9 agencies, making it virtually impossible
for them to carry out their work each year. The magnitude and amount of daily transactions and the
limited number of auditors has made public audit an overwhelming task.
Taking cue from the state policy to encourage non-government, community-based, or sectoral
organizations to promote the welfare of the nation, COA partnered with a non-government
organization, the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP), to
assist in the selection of its citizen auditors in a structured and organized manner, on a no-fee and
voluntary basis. A pilot activity was then developed to do a short-cycle performance audit of a
government project that is of high impact and with direct benefit or concern to one of the poorest
target areas in Metro Manila.