Developing A Human Security Index For The Philippines

DEVELOPING A HUMAN
SECURITY INDEX
FOR THE PHILIPPINES:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
IN SELECTED
CONFLICT AREAS
Maria Ela L. Atienza

Clarinda Lusterio Berja
Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo
Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera
Dina Marie B. Delias
2010
Published by the Third World Studies Center (TWSC), University of the
Philippines-Diliman in partnership with the Office of the Presidential
Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), with funding support from the
Government of the Philippines–United Nations Development
Programme–Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building (GOP-UNDP-
CPPB) Programme
© 2010 University of the Philippines and United Nations Development

Programme
Reproduction of this document is permitted, provided due

acknowledgement is given to the publishers and the authors.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the writers and participants
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OPAPP, TWSC, or UNDP.
Edited by Maria Ela L. Atienza

Copy-editing by Rosa Concepcion Ladrido
Proofreading by Clarinda Lusterio Berja and Elinor May K. Cruz
Lay-out and book design by Juanito G. Berja Jr.
Cover design by Juanito G. Berja Jr. and Joel F. Ariate Jr.
Image of the human hand in the cover taken from www.dreamstime.com/
Back cover photograph by Maria Ela L. Atienza
Printed and bound in the Philippines
ISBN 978-971-92146-4-1
Third World Studies Center

College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
Lower Ground Floor, Palma Hall
P.O. Box 210
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City
1101 Philippines
Phones: +63-2-981-8500 ext. 2442
Telefax: +63-2-920-5428
E-mail: uptwsc@gmail.com
URLs: http://www.upd.edu.ph/~twsc/; http://uptwsc.blogspot.com/
iii
CONTENTS
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Acknowledgements vii
Foreword 1 xi
Avelino I. Razon Jr.
Foreword 2 xiii
Renaud Meyer
Preface xv
Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem
Chapter 1 1
Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines:
An Introduction
Chapter 2 23
Defining and Debating Human Security:
A Review of Literature
Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo and Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera
Chapter 3 89
Human Security Perspectives from Above:
Results of the Key Informant Interviews
Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo, Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera,
and Dina Marie B. Delias
Chapter 4 101
Views from the Marginalized Groups:
Findings from the Focus Group Discussions
Chapter 5 125
Measuring Human Security in the Philippines
iv
Chapter 6 151
Summary, Challenges, and Prospects in Developing
a Human Security Index for the Philippines
About the Authors 159
APPENDICES
1 Directory of Project Participants 161

2 Survey on Human Security 173
3 Focus Group Discussion Guide 185
4 Highlights of the Proceedings of the Project’s Public 187
Presentation
v
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Dimensions of traditional and human security 30

2.2 Survey of human security measurements 43
2.3 Comparison of indices of UNDP’s human 54
security vs. proposed methodologies
2.4 Comparison of various indices, indicators, and 57
the proposed human security measurement
methodologies
2.5 Existing indicators used in development 65
planning and project impact assessment
2.6 Comparison of dimensions of human security 74
vs. existing indicators and indices used in
development planning and project impact
assessment in the Philippines
3.1 Key informants 91
3.2 Summary of responses on threats and sources of 97
threats
4.1 FGD profiles 101
4.2 Indicators of human security according to FGD 110
participants
5.1 Sociodemographic profile of survey 128
respondents
5.2 Past and current experiences of violent conflict 131
in the community in selected provinces
5.3 Perceived safety in the community in selected 131
provinces
5.4 Top three perceived potential threats to general 133
security in selected provinces
5.5 Perceived capability of preventing/mitigating 133
security threats
5.6 Inter-item correlation matrix 135
5.7 Index of perceived threat 136
5.8 Presence of human security based on survey 144
data
5.9 List of indicators used in measuring human 146
security
5.10 Four factors from the principal component 149
analysis
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Human security framework 12

1.2 Map of survey areas 22
5.1 Perceived level of threat on the different 130
dimensions of human security
5.2 Perceived level of poverty 136
5.3 Access to public health services 137
5.4 Natural disasters experienced in the area 138
5.5 Other environmental problems 139
5.6 Experience of crime in the past year 139
5.7 Type of crime experienced 140
5.8 Agency to which crime was reported 140
5.9 Perceived safety in the community 141
5.10 Most serious security issue 142
5.11 Experience of armed conflict due to insurgency 142
in the locality
5.12 Political concerns of people in the community 143
5.13 Trust in government officials 143
5.14 Net trust rating 144
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book would not have been possible without the

encouragement and support of many individuals and
organizations.
We are most grateful to Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem,

former director of the University of the Philippines Third World
Studies Center (UP TWSC), for her constant support, advice,
and encouragement all throughout the course of this project.
We acknowledge the contributions of Josephine C. Dionisio,

former deputy director of UP TWSC, who originally
conceptualized this project. We also thank a former member
of the research team, Sharon M. Quinsaat, who contributed
substantially in conceptualizing the project proposal,
framework, and research design. The project would not have
been completed without the invaluable support of our research
assistants, namely, Alleson Villota, Ruzzel Brian Mallari,
Katrina Maquilan, and Celia Abbago. The field work would
not have been possible without the support of our field
coordinators and the team of interviewers, moderators, and
documentors they assembled.
We extend our gratitude to the meaningful contributions

of all the key informants, focus group discussion (FGD)
participants, and survey respondents. We would not have been
able to come up with this report without the experiences and
perspectives you shared with us.
For financial and logistical support, our gratitude goes to

the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-
Philippines, particularly its Conflict Prevention and Peace-
Building Programme (CPPB). We are particularly grateful for
the constant support and comments of Alma Evangelista of
UNDP-Philippines. We are also grateful to the United Nations
Action for Conflict Transformation (ACT) for Peace
Programme in Mindanao for supporting the Mindanao
component of our field work and the public presentation.
viii
Despite the changes in structure and personnel of the

UNDP-CPPB Project Management Office (PMO), we remember
with fondness the support we received from Pio Fuentes, Grace
Tena, and Anna Pacete-Marundan of the original PMO, as
well as Assistant Secretary Evelyn Daplas of the Office of the
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP). We are
grateful for the continuing support of Director Romulo
Halabaso, Carmel Pami-Ulanday, and Eric Lopez of OPAPP.
We are grateful for the support we received from different

sectors since the conceptualization of the project to the public
presentation of our findings. We thank our expert consultants,
the members of our Technical Advisory Group, as well as
participants who attended meetings, validation workshops,
consultations, and the public presentation. You have
contributed valuable insights and suggestions.
Outside the formal structures of OPAPP, UNDP, and

TWSC, the project also benefitted from comments and
suggestions from organizers, reactors, and participants of
several conferences and other fora where the project team—
either as individuals or as a group—presented the project and
its findings. These venues include the International
Development Studies Conference on Mainstreaming Human
Security: The Asian Contribution (Bangkok, Thailand, 4-5
October 2007); the Eighth International Conference on
Philippine Studies (ICOPHIL) (Quezon City, Philippines, 23-
25 July 2008); Talastasan Lecture Series of the UP College of
Social Sciences and Philosophy (Quezon City, Philippines, 2
August 2008); and the Annual Philippine Political Science
Association Conference (General Santos City, Philippines, 3-4
April 2009).
This published version of the project report benefitted from

the exhaustive reviews and constructive suggestions of our
expert consultants, Maria Lourdes G. Rebullida and Herman
Joseph S. Kraft, who read the original research report. We are
also grateful for the valuable comments and clarifications made
by Nymia Pimentel Simbulan and Raymund Jose Quilop who
served as reactors during the public presentation of the findings
last December 2008.
ix
This publication would not be completed without the able

assistance of Rosa Concepcion Ladrido who did the copy-
editing, Juanito G. Berja Jr. who did the book lay-out, Joel F.
Ariate Jr. who finalized the cover design, and Elinor May K.
Cruz who helped in proofreading the manuscript.
We are indebted to the reliable administrative staff of the

UP TWSC—Ate Caring Francisco, Ate Bien Lacsamana, Kuya
Erning Francisco, and Maritess Miano who supported us every
step of the way. TWSC’s University Researcher, Joel F. Ariate
Jr., also designed the invitation for the project’s public
presentation of findings. Research assistant Mitzi Austero
promptly prepared the highlights of the December 2008 public
presentation of the findings.
Finally, we are grateful to our loved ones for their

understanding and constant support.

x
xi
Office of the Presidential Adviser

on the Peace Process
FOREWORD 1
Since the publication of the United Nations Development

Programme’s (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report, the
concept of human security has increasingly drawn global
attention and has been the subject of a number of academic
discourses and policy dialogues in the Philippines. The
University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center, in
particular, initiated a consultative process in 2007 to define
human security in the Philippine context and to develop a
Human Security Index. This was undertaken with the support
of the Government of the Philippines-United Nations
Development Programme-Conflict Prevention and Peace-
Building (GOP-UNDP-CPPB) Programme and the Mindanao-
based UN Action for Conflict Transformation (ACT) for Peace
Programme.
This publication, entitled Developing a Human Security Index

for the Philippines: An Exploratory Study in Selected Conflict Areas,
describes the scope and magnitude of human security in the
Philippines and its influence in the process of conflict
prevention and peace building. It explores the various
dimensions of human security as it is being experienced by
individuals and communities, major stakeholders, dutybearers,
and marginalized sectors.
Though exploratory, the study contains notable results

which mirror how the Philippines views human security as it
applies to the individual’s everyday life. The implications of
these results to policy making and planning, execution,
monitoring and evaluation, and sustainability towards peace
and development are also being considered.
xii
We are grateful to the Third World Studies Center for

coming up with a pioneering study. It is indeed a very
important contribution to the growing literature on peace
building and national development. There are still more work
to be done on this field and this publication can serve as baseline
information for those who want to understand how human
security in the Philippine context operates.
We are likewise grateful to the UNDP through its CPPB

Programme under the Crisis Prevention and Recovery Portfolio
in which the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace
Process (OPAPP) serves as the implementing partner for their
continued support to the peace process and for making this
study and publication possible.
SECRETARY AVELINO I. RAZON JR.

Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
Office of the President
August 2009
xiii
United Nations Development Programme
FOREWORD 2
The initiative to develop a Human Security Index (HSI) in

the Philippine context is a welcome addition to the public
discourse surrounding the concept of human security, which,
while continuing to evolve, has great potential to positively
influence policy making and development programs.
Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines produced
by the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center
(UP TWSC) serves to enrich this concept by establishing a
measuring tool that seeks to capture it, and by promoting and
clarifying its use.
At the global level, the United Nations Development

Programme’s (UNDP) first landmark contribution to the human
security debate was its 1994 Human Development Report (HDR)
entitled New Dimensions of Security. The report depicted the
many dimensions of human security as seen in the changing
context of the times and, in doing so, put the issue at the center
of the development discourse. It challenged the traditional
concept of security which for too long had been associated
with conflict, arms, and war. The 1994 HDR triggered new
thinking on the concept of security, measured against critical
social and economic conditions such as famine, unemployment,
environmental hazards, disease, and political repression,
among others. Today, fifteen years after the publication of the
HDR, UNDP continues to help refine the human security
paradigm by supporting publications such as this one.
The development of an HSI is meant to create a planning

and evaluation tool that can help inform the programs of
government, civil society organizations, and other development
actors. It is my hope that this publication will be directly
xiv
beneficial to individuals and communities who are at the core

of all that is done to promote human security and foster
development.
RENAUD MEYER
Country Director
xv
PREFACE
The 1986 People Power Revolution opened up a potent

democratic space in the academe to not only engage the
government but also to challenge it to come up with solutions
confronting Philippine society. It was within this context that
the Third World Studies Center (TWSC) of the College of Social
Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Diliman
opened up an arena for such an endeavor through its Policy
Dialogue Series (PDS). The PDS sought to bring together
members of the academe, government officials, and civil society
to discuss and debate burning issues in light of looking for
relevant solutions to these. One such PDS was the TWSC’s
“Towards a Human Security Framework” in 2006 which gave
birth to this research output on Developing a Human Security
Index for the Philippines: An Exploratory Study in Selected Conflict
Areas. Conceptualized by Sharon M. Quinsaat and Zuraida
Mae D. Cabilo, who were then with the TWSC, the Human
Security PDS was a five-installment series which sought to
examine the existing development and national security
frameworks vis-à-vis the human security model in pursuing
national development and peace-building goals. It envisioned
to jumpstart other activities that could facilitate the formulation
of a strategy to mainstream human security as a policy
framework of government. The PDS, which was funded by
the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP)
Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building (CPPB) Programme,
specifically sought to review the existing development and
national security frameworks, from which stems the country’s
policy responses to peace building and conflict resolution;
provide a comprehensive overview of a human security
framework as an alternative framework in policy making and
implementation of initiatives on peace building, conflict
prevention, and development; and develop mechanisms in
adopting human security as a policy framework. The PDS 2006
facilitated the process of clarifying the concept of human
security across different sectors such as government, academe,
xvi
non-governmental organizations, and church groups among

others. The issues tackled then were the following: (1) human
security and development; (2) human security and governance;
(3) human security and culture; (4) human security in violent
conflict situations; and (5) defining the human security
framework in the Philippine context.
With the conclusion of the PDS, the TWSC was very pleased
to receive funding support from the Government of the
Philippines-UNDP-CPPB and the UN Action for Conflict
Transformation (ACT) for Peace Programme in Mindanao to
pursue the research project on Developing a Human Security
Index for the Philippines: An Exploratory Study on Human Security
in Conflict Areas. By April 2008, under the project leadership
of Maria Ela L. Atienza, the project completed the following:
(1) a revised human security framework for the Philippines
which improves on the one developed by the TWSC PDS 2006
on human security; (2) a comprehensive review of related
literature on human security; (3) a human security index
framework; (4) research instruments; and (5) field work in eight
(8) areas (Metro Manila, Albay, Cagayan Province, Negros
Occidental, Western Samar, Sulu, North Cotabato, and Surigao
del Sur). The presentation of the research findings were made
on September 24, 2008 to the UNDP-CPPB’s Steering
Committee at the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace
Process (OPAPP) wherein further refinements of the index were
suggested. Pleased with the findings, the Steering Committee
members saw a huge potential for the use and further
development of the draft Human Security Index (HSI),
particularly with local governments. In another meeting with
the UNDP-CPPB Project Management Office (PMO), the PMO
representatives strongly suggested that the research project
report be published, for which the TWSC is most grateful for.
One of the more important aspects of the project, which

the TWSC valued, is the process by which this was pursued.
Again we would like to express our deep appreciation to the
UNDP-CPPB and the UN ACT for Peace Programme in
Mindanao for making this possible. The proposed HSI for the
xvii
Philippines, for one, aims to serve as an indispensable planning

and evaluation tool for government and nongovernment groups
alike to assess the human security situation, as well as threats
to human security in the country. This is part and parcel of
TWSC’s mandate to input in the policy-making process a
product which combines secondary and primary data. The
former includes available literature on the topic of concern, in
this case the available literature on human security, as well as
the Filipino people’s own perceptions of the concept,
particularly in relation to their specific circumstances. The
latter, on the other hand, involves inputs of government
representatives from the executive and legislative branches as
well as from civil-society actors, sectoral representatives,
members of the academe, and private-sector representatives
through policy dialogues, consultations, key informant
interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and survey in
selected areas around the country. One of the project’s major
focus was conducting surveys and FGDs in areas where there
is a history of or ongoing conflict. For further feedback, the
project findings were presented in a public presentation held
on December 4, 2008 at the University of the Philippines-
Diliman, bringing together once again government
functionaries, academics, and members of civil society to give
their views, insights, and criticisms on the project results, as
well as the manner in which the research was conducted.
Although the short-term objective of the project was to develop
an HSI for the Philippines, this endeavor also seeks to organize
a network of individuals and organizations to advocate the
mainstreaming of human security. A primary objective of this
research is, thus, to spawn further interest in the pursuit of
further study on the topic and feed into the teaching and
advocacy campaigns on human security.
All of these would not have been possible without the

involvement of the following people: the project leader, Maria
Ela L. Atienza, and her research collaborators Clarinda Lusterio
Berja, Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo, Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera, and
Dina Marie B. Delias, and their respective research assistants
in the field. The project would also like to thank the initial
xviii
support given to this project by Sharon M. Quinsaat and

Josephine C. Dionisio.
Special thanks also go to the consultants of this project:

Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida, Herman S. Kraft, and Miriam
Coronel Ferrer, as well as those who attended our round table
discussions during the various stages of the research and for
those who participated in the presentation of the findings. We
certainly value the inputs they have shared with us to improve
this study.
It seems only fitting that this publication comes at a time

when there is a revival of the spirit of the 1986 People Power
Revolution with the recent passing away of the icon of
democracy, former President Corazon Aquino. The People
Power Revolution brought into the consciousness of not only
the Filipino people but also of the peoples of the rest of the
world that nonviolent means is the most potent weapon to
bring about change. Such a message holds utmost relevance
in the context of the massive destruction of lives and livelihoods
caused by the United States war-on-terror, which in its course
has threatened the very backbone of human civility and spirit.
The research project on developing a human security index
thus reinforces the need to focus on a more people-oriented
perspective of security, the humane side of which at the end
of the day, should be the utmost priority and is non-negotiable.
TERESA S. ENCARNACION TADEM

Director
Third World Studies Center
23 August 2009
Introduction/Atienza 1
Chapter One
DEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX FOR

THE PHILIPPINES: AN INTRODUCTION1
Human security, which seeks to shift the meaning of

security away from its traditional military-oriented and state-
centric focus, has become one of the most important concepts
since the late twentieth century. Since the 1990s, the concept
has been the focus of debates in the United Nations (UN)
system, international organizations, various governments, and
the academic and intellectual community. Various efforts have
been made at developing dimensions and variables of human
security. The United Nations Development Programme’s
(UNDP) Human Development Report (HDR) of 1994 was the
first major document that acknowledged the importance of
human security. The HDR defined human security as “safety
from the constant threats of hunger, disease, crime and
repression,” as well as “protection from sudden and hurtful
disruptions in the pattern of our daily lives” (UNDP 1994, 3).
Furthermore, human security in the report incorporates seven
broad categories of concerns, namely economic, environmental,
personal, community, health, political, and food concerns. In
addition, Nef (1999) proposed at least five dimensions of human
security, these are ecology, economy, society, politics, and
culture. In a speech during the 2000 International Workshop
on Human Security, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
(2000) placed human security at the forefront of the global
agenda. He defined human security in terms of three clusters
of concerns: freedom from want, freedom from fear, and
freedom of future generations to sustain their lives in this
planet.
Amidst various attempts to define human security and

develop its indicators, there are some criticisms about the
2 Developing a Human Security Index for the Philippines
concept itself. Thomas and Tow (2002, 178) argued that the
term would have to be defined more narrowly if it were to
acquire greater analytical and policy value. It also needs to be
more precise and clear. Goucha and Rojas Aravena (2001)
noted that “human security is still under construction,
considering the number of priorities and dimensions to be taken
into account in order to achieve integrated action” that would
then be able to respond to urgent and wide-ranging needs,
especially on behalf of the most unprotected sectors of the
population. The specific links between the promotion of human
security and the prevention of conflict and action in favor of
human rights and democracy should also be clearly established
(Goucha and Rojas Aravena 2001, 8-9).
Given the current limitations of human security as a

concept as well as gaps in the existing literature cited in the
next chapter of this book, there is a need to present a more
concrete picture of human security and the human security
situation in the Philippines. This book is the result of the project
of the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center
(UP TWSC) to develop a human security index (HSI) for the
Philippines and to fill the gaps in the human security literature.
It is supported by the UNDP-Conflict Prevention and Peace-
Building Programme in the Philippines (GOP-UNDP-CPPB)
and the UN Action for Conflict Transformation (ACT) for
Peace Programme in Mindanao.
The Development of Human Security as a Concept

and Filipino Understandings of Human Security 2
Bajpai (2000, 4) asserted that the idea of human security

can be traced to changes in the notions of development from
the 1960s to the 1980s. He cited the importance of two
independent commissions that expanded the ideas of security:
the Independent Commission on International Development
Issues and the Independent Commission on Disarmament and
Security Issues. The former deals with issues of hunger,
economic inequalities, and conflict while the latter advances
the ideas of common security and common responsibility in
which the issues of environment, population growth and

migration, and undemocratic institutions are considered
security threats (Bajpai 2000, 4-9). Rothschild (1995, 55; Alkire
2002, 13-14) gave a historical account of the development of
“extended security” and traced its roots to European political
thought.
The term human security was first used in the 1994 HDR.
Mahbub Ul Haq, an economist, is the person most closely
identified with the concept of human security. The 1994 UNDP
publication formally defined the concept of human security. It
also explicitly made the individual the referent object of security.
In 1999, the Human Security Network was formed through
the initiatives of Norway and Canada and in 2001, the
Commission on Human Security was formed.
However, a review of literature shows that human security

is essentially a contested concept. Various scholars, nations,
and institutions offer several other definitions, referent objects,
implementation, and proposed methods of measurement. These
proposals range from minimalist to maximalist definitions and
include a number of dimensions in the concept. Defining
human security in broad or narrow terms depends largely on
the interest of groups that are engaged in the theorizing or
application of the concept of human security. For instance,
the maximalist definitions are founded on normative grounds
while criticisms of the maximalist position and the preference
for the minimalist definitions are based on empirical and
methodological grounds. Other conceptualizations on human
security are either development-oriented or conflict-oriented,
i.e., with an emphasis on “freedom from want” (Japan’s official
priority before the other dimensions) or “freedom from fear”
(Canadian and Norwegian bias). The individual also appears
to be the dominant referent object, though the UNDP has
community security as one of its dimensions of human security.
Considerable debate remains among scholars on the scope

of human security, the dimensions of the concept, and the core
values that need to be protected. There is a lack of focus that
should direct the substantive and systematic study of threats
under human security. Paris (2001) argued that various

dimensions and values are selected arbitrarily without any
justification. He noted that it is futile to narrow down the
concept when it is in the interest of human security advocates
to keep the concept ambiguous. He argued that “human
security is powerful precisely because it lacks precision and
thereby encompasses the diverse perspectives and objectives
of all the members of the coalition.” Instead, he proposes that
human security should not be used as a concept; instead, it
should be used as a research category of military and non-
military issues concerning individuals, groups and, societies
(Paris 2001, 95-98).
How do Filipinos understand human security? The national

security framework in the Philippines incorporates some
elements of human security. Talisayon (n.d.) enumerated
moral/spiritual consensus, cultural cohesiveness, economic
solidarity/organicity, socio-political stability, ecological
integrity, territorial integrity, and external peace as the
elements composing a broadened security framework. Honasan
and Castillo (2002, 4) identifed social cohesion and stability,
economic prosperity and stability, and political unity and
stability, as pillars or foundations of national security. At first
glance, these conceptualizations of national security seem to
approximate some of the UNDP human security dimensions.
After the 1986 People Power movement, national security

was redefined as the “security of the people” (Talisayon n.d.).
Honasan and Castillo (2002) considered the people, the regime
and the state to be the referent objects of national security.
However, they claim that there is an artificial divide between
the people and the state, and that the government and the
people are both components of the state; the people or
individuals are thereby subsumed under the state. They also
recognized that there may be divergent interests between the
state and the people, but this point was not elaborated. Aguirre
(1998, 20) proposed the creation of an Organization for
National Security (ONS) that “refers to the structure of the
decision-making process that affect the national survival and
general welfare and wellbeing of our people” and will be
“mainly responsible for the management of the national

security planning process.” One of the organization’s tasks is
to address nontraditional security threats. However, the
language of such an understanding remains framed within a
state-centered view of security. The National Intelligence
Coordinating Agency, National Security Council, and National
Intelligence Board were cited as partner agencies for the ONS.
Meanwhile, Honasan and Castillo (2002) proposed traditional
instruments for the attainment of national security—through
diplomacy and the military.
Thus, the national security framework nominally considers

nontraditional security threats as security issues, but it does
not reflect the normative underpinnings of human security.
While it accommodates non-traditional threats, institutional
capacities are inadequate in responding to such threats. Also,
the term human security is not even mentioned by the above-
mentioned authors.
Beyond the national security framework, various attempts

have been made by government agencies, civil society
organizations, and other development actors to contribute to
the human security discourse in the Philippines. The concept
of human security was first introduced in the public
consciousness through “The Gathering for Human and
Ecological Security,” which was convened in 1995 by key
government agencies like the Commission on Population,
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and attended by
representatives of different sectors. The result of the conference
was the commitment to place the protection of people and the
environment at the forefront of the national agenda. This was
merged with former President Fidel Ramos’s Social Reform
Agenda to make up the people-empowerment pillar of
Philippines 2000, President Ramos’s socioeconomic program
that envisioned the Philippines achieving newly industrialized
status by year 2000. This development came a year after the
term human security gained currency in development circles
with the publication of the 1994 HDR. Subsequent efforts to
include human security as a framework came in mid-2004. A
multi-agency effort was undertaken to reintroduce the concept

of human security in public policy making. This resulted in
the creation of the National Task Force on Convergence (NTFC)
whose mandate was to reconcile the viewpoints of the military
and civilian agencies in defining and making operational a
common framework for national security.
In 2005, when the NTFC was reworking the national

security framework, the Philippine Human Development Report
(PHDR) (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005) was released. It
defined human security as freedom from fear, want, and
humiliation. The report focused only on “ideology-based armed
conflict.” It also distinguished human security and human
development. While “human development is the process that
widens the range of people’s choices, human security means
that people can make those choices safely and freely. [H]uman
security is the external pre-condition for human development”
(De Dios, et al. 2005, 1-2). The PHDR also provided concrete
indices to measure the costs and causes of armed conflict.
There have been two nongovernment attempts to develop a

human security framework appropriate to Philippine realities.
Tabang Mindanaw, a multisectoral development group launched
by former Ambassador Howard Dee in 1998, to improve the
quality of life and overcome underdevelopment of marginalized
groups in Mindanao, developed what it calls the “justice-based
human security framework” as a response to the 2005 PHDR. It
considers injustice, and not poverty, as the cause of armed conflict
(Dee and Garilao 2005). This framework, based on justice, equity,
and people-centered governance, is used by Tabang Mindanaw
in working with indigenous peoples and various communities in
Mindanao. It basically responds to the root causes of armed
conflict. For the framework to be adopted, three things are
imperative: (1) acknowledging that inequalities indeed exist; (2)
asking the important question of why such inequities persist; and
(3) transforming institutions to be more responsive in combating
injustice. The thin line that divides human development and
human security is best described by Dee and Garilao (2005):
“Human security complements state security, enhances human
rights, and strengthens human development.”
In 2006, the Third World Studies Center (TWSC) gathered

various perspectives from multi-sectoral actors with
development, governance, culture, and violent conflict
situations as key themes. The project entitled Policy Dialogue
Series 2006: “Towards a Human Security Framework” was
supported by the UNDP-Philippines’s Conflict Prevention and
Peace-Building (CPPB) Programme. Notably, the community
and not the individual is the referent object in the Philippine
context. The proposed framework is based on four basic
principles. These include “the interconnectedness of the various
dimensions of human security, the centrality of land ownership
and stewardship as part of human security, the emphasis
placed on community security rather than the individual, and
the plurality of understanding human security” based on local
realities (Cabilo and Quinsaat 2007).
There have also been efforts to indirectly incorporate

human security through the development of indicators that
may be useful in development planning and governance. For
example, the Institute for Strategic and Development Studies
(ISDS) developed a security sector reform index (SSRI) that
would help in the “informed analyses on the state of
governance of the security sector, as well as its reform programs
and initiatives” (ISDS 2007). Human security is used as one of
the frameworks in the performance of the security sector’s
mandate.
The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process

(OPAPP) is also developing tools to integrate peace building
and conflict prevention in the local planning process. It seeks
to incorporate human security and use conflict-sensitive lens
in local governance to ensure that plans and programs are
responsive to the needs of the people. The draft document,
entitled “Conflict Sensitive and Peace Promoting Local
Development Planning” (2007), adapts the dimensions of
human security as defined by the UNDP. Human security at
the local level is achieved when the following conditions are
met: (1) a deeper awareness and appreciation of human
security and conflict-sensitive approaches vis-à-vis local
governance; (2) integration of human security and conflict-
sensitive approaches in local government processes by installing

appropriate mechanisms (legislation, local ordinances, local
bodies, etc.); and (3) a legislation-resource match for local plans.
OPAPP (2007) defined human security as the protection of
people’s “physical safety, socioeconomic wellbeing, dignity and
worth, and human rights and fundamental freedoms.” It
argues that human development is achieved only when people
live in a secure and safe environment, thus ensuring their
human security. It also acknowledged that the elements of
human security as defined by the UNDP cut across the
developmental concerns in local governance; thus, it is not a
totally new concept in local governance.
Other tools, which do not necessarily have explicit bias for

the integration of human security, have been developed to
measure the promotion and protection of the various
dimensions of human security. For instance, the Philippine
Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) developed the
economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) indicators. These
indicators were generated through focus group discussions
(FGDs) with grassroots organizations and individuals in several
municipalities nationwide (PhilRights 2002). The indicators
were categorized into five rights (health, food, housing, work,
and education) to cover more than a hundred indicators. As a
monitoring tool, it deals with the presence or absence of goods,
services, or structures to address people’s economic, social, and
cultural rights.
Another tool developed to measure the presence or absence

of people’s capabilities is the Capability Poverty Measure of
Manasan, Gonzalez, and Gaffud (1999). It assesses three
dimensions of capability: quality of life, reproduction, and
literacy and knowledge. The weights of the three variables may
be determined by the value placed by the respondents
themselves on each indicator.
The Maguindanao Working Group of the Mindanao

Economic Development Council (MEDCo) also developed
human security indicators using the data of the Local
Government Performance Monitoring System (LGPMS) and
other data at the municipal level. Pilot tested in Maguindanao,

the index covers all of UNDP’s seven dimensions of human
security.
Thus, there are government and nongovernment initiatives

in the Philippines to include human security and develop
indicators sensitive to individual, local/community, and
national/state levels. However, there has been no
comprehensive integration of all these different efforts.
Moreover, no comprehensive participatory research has been
undertaken so far to generate conceptualizations of human
security. This is where the efforts of the TWSC of the University
of the Philippines come in.
The Third Wo rld Studies Center’s Att empt s to

Develop a Human Security Index
Project Background and Goals
The TWSC is an academic research center based in the

College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the
Philippines, Diliman. It is committed to develop critical,
alternative paradigms to promote progressive scholarship and
action for change by creating spaces for discussion and
dialogue; undertaking pioneering research; publishing original,
empirically grounded and innovative research; and building a
community of activist-scholars and public intellectuals.
Through the 2006 Policy Dialogue Series (PDS), the TWSC

examined several dimensions of human security in the
Philippine context and facilitated the formulation of a proposed
human security framework for the Philippines (Cabilo and
Quinsaat 2007). The project was also instrumental in
organizing a loose network of individuals and organizations
that are willing and able to promote the adoption of a policy
framework anchored on human security.
It is necessary to present a more accurate picture of the

human security situation and its various threats in the
Philippines. An accurate picture would promote a human

security-based plan, as well as understand further the
dimensions of human security in the Philippine context. Thus,
the UNDP-CPPB encouraged the TWSC to do a follow-up
project entitled Developing a Human Security Index for the
Philippines and convinced the UN Action for Conflict
Transformation (ACT) for Peace Programme in Mindanao to
support the Mindanao component of the project. The draft
human security index (HSI) is intended to be the standard in
measuring the human security situation in the country. It
describes the scope and intensity of human security in the
Philippine context as it incorporates dimensions that are
relevant in conflict prevention and peace building. It is also
intended to be a planning and evaluation tool to strengthen
the capacities of national agencies in peace building and
mainstream human security.
The project started in June 2007 and field work was

completed by February 2008. The draft project report was
publicly presented in December 2008. The first half of 2009
was spent revising the report based on the comments and
reviews of academics, some government representatives, and
civil society groups.
Human Security Framework
The project team revised the original framework developed

in 2006 and did a comprehensive review of literature and
generated additional comments on the proposed framework
from various sectors, through e-mail exchanges and
consultation meetings in 2007.
In developing a human security index for the Philippines,

the TWSC restored the focus on the individual as the referent
object. Following the language of the Commission on Human
Security’s report entitled Human Security Now (2003), human
security is defined by the project as a condition whereby the
individual is protected from critical, immediate, and pervasive
threats to life, liberty, property, and community. While human
security takes the individual as its referent object, the individual
is not separated from the community from which the individual

derives freedom, rights, and identity. Furthermore, threat has
various dimensions. It is an undesirable, deliberate, or
accidental event that may result in harm. It is often the
exploitation of an identified vulnerability. The project
provisionally used the human security dimensions identified
by the UNDP to formulate indicators. Human security is also
a relational concept and therefore conceived vis-à-vis a known
and established direct threat against a person, property, and
community.
Due to time and budget constraints, the initial project focus

is on critical threats to human security, involving the presence
of armed conflict as its environment. Conflict, in this case, is
narrowed down to where one of the parties involved is the
state. In sum, human security takes the individual and
community as its referent objects, applies a threat-based
approach, and operates in the context of armed conflict
involving the state. It is hoped that the next phase of the project
will involve research in nonconflict areas so that comparative
data could be generated.
Based on the above definition, the framework (see Figure

1.1) indicates the centrality of the individual who is deeply
embedded in the community. Threats to the individual’s
personal wellbeing may include death and injuries,
displacement, destruction of property and livelihood, outbreak
of communicable diseases in refugee camps, etc.—urgent
problems that should be addressed in the short term. In the
long term, however, difficulties may arise involving not only
the individual but also the community. These would include
distrust, competition over available resources, etc. which breed
insecurity. Processes to ensure that human security is upheld
should start, first at the level of the individual and the
community, and then at the national level. In addition, every
community has some unique characteristics, in the same way
that individuals are differentiated by class, gender, age, etc.
The recognition and identification of threat is fundamental

to human security. When threats are not identified properly,
it would be almost impossible to respond based on the principles

of human security. Situations, interests, lives, and values vary
widely even among communities that have the same
sociodemographic characteristics. Thus, what may be a threat
to some communities may not be considered a threat for others.
Figure 1.1 Human security framework
CSOs
(academe,
NGOs, POs,
media)
Critical, Pervasive and Urgent

Threats to Individuals &
Communities:
Environmental, Economic,
Food, Health, Personal,
Community, and Political
Dimensions
Focusing on Conflict-Affected
Areas
State Business
(national
(responsible
government
business
agencies and
LGUs) groups)
When people are caught in complex and precarious

situations with diverse problems involving multiple actors,
there is a tendency to strike at numerous fronts in order to
address the crisis. Determining what should be the priority is
important, especially when resources and time are limited.
Human security is best applied when a concern is given a sense
of urgency and made a priority. Various groups that can
address these human security threats include state actors, civil
society groups, and the business sector. Transnational actors
also have a role to play.
R e se a rc h D e s ig n a nd M e t h o d o lo g y fo r I nd e x
Development
Building from its previous engagement with scholar-

activists, public intellectuals, and development workers, the
TWSC once again tapped its network from government, civil
society, private sector, and the academe in the Philippines to
actively take part as resource persons or participants in
consultation meetings and interviews, and to act as field
coordinators. This study used a participatory research
approach which involved dutybearers and stakeholders to
ensure that data generated are reliable and valid, and that its
users will assume ownership of the draft HSI. The study
gathered multi-level data from various sectors using both
quantitative and qualitative techniques:
1. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). Informants were

twenty-three representatives of national
government agencies, military personnel,
academics, representatives of nongovernment
organizations (NGOs), members of the legislature,
and journalists.
2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Eight FGDs were
conducted in eight case sites, namely Cagayan
Province and Albay in Luzon; Negros Occidental
and Western Samar in Visayas; Surigao del Sur,
North Cotabato, and Sulu in Mindanao; and Metro
Manila or the National Capitol Region (NCR).
Participants in each FGD came from a specific
sector, mostly from the marginalized groups
(indigenous people, women, farmers, fisherfolks,
urban poor, youth, etc.).
3. Household Survey. The survey covered 800
individuals from selected barangays (basic local
communities or village-level local government units)
in the eight case sites.
The research team also attempted to send out self-

administered questionnaires to the participants of the 2006
policy dialogues and other human security advocates. Initially,
the team targeted 200 respondents for the questionnaire survey.

The team wanted to compare the responses of human security
advocates with the respondents in the household survey. The
survey of human security advocates was also meant to be
compared with the qualitative data from the KIIs. Due to the
low response rate, the results of the questionnaire survey were
disregarded.
The review of literature and the KIIs served as the

foundation of the baseline survey that generated the indicators
used to create the draft index. The survey measures the
dimensions of human security and depicts the context in which
human security exists and the individual’s susceptibility,
exposure, and coping/adaptive capacity to threats. Physical,
social, economic, environmental, and institutional features that
either ensue or prevent threats were also examined.
Specifically, the survey initially measures thirty-one

indicators of (1) economic security threatened by unstable
employment opportunities and absence of publicly financed
safety nets; (2) food security threatened by insufficient access
to assets, work, and assured incomes; (3) health security
threatened by lack of access to health facilities and safe water;
(4) environmental security threatened by natural disasters,
pollution, and poor waste management; (5) personal security
threatened by violent crime, violence and abuse of family
members, and displacement; (6) political security threatened
by government repression, systematic human rights violations,
and militarization; and (7) community security threatened by
breakdown of family, collapse of traditional languages and
cultures, ethnic discrimination and strife, and ethnic cleansing.
Although the UNDP definition and dimensions of human
security are broad, the survey is inclusive but separates its
components into different types of security in order to address
causality and sets a threshold demarcating the vital core in
order to distinguish itself from human development. The
threshold for a human security threat is set by the terms “vital
core” and “critical and pervasive threats.” The vital core
constitutes the minimum level of survival. Reference to critical
and pervasive threats establishes both the severity and
immediacy of threats. In the face of an unlimited number of

possible threats, only the most serious threats are included.
The population targeted by the baseline survey included

individuals age 18 years old and above in seven provinces in
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao that are considered as conflict
areas, and in two cities in the NCR. The sample size is
composed of 800 respondents distributed equally by sample
site and proportionately by gender. The sample has
approximately 50 percent females and 50 percent males.
To select the conflict areas as the sample sites, the study

adapts the 2005 PHDR definition of intensity of conflict
determined by the number of armed encounters. Areas for
research were randomly selected based on intensity of conflict.
Two areas (Albay and Cagayan), categorized by the 2005
PHDR as part of provinces with high levels of armed
encounters from 1986 to 2004 (De Dios et al. 2005, 2; Bautista
2005, 11), were selected for Luzon. Encounters in these two
areas are between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
and the New People’s Army (NPA). Two provinces (Negros
Occidental and Western Samar), categorized as having
medium levels of encounters in the same period (Bautista 2005,
11), were selected for Visayas. Encounters in the two Visayan
provinces are between the AFP and the NPA. The research
team, together with MEDCo and UN ACT for Peace
representatives, selected Surigao del Sur, North Cotabato, and
Sulu. The three Mindanao sites were selected because the levels
of conflict, the participants in the conflict, the composition of
the communities, and the degree of intervention of the two
Mindanao-based organizations in these areas, all vary from
one another. North Cotabato generally has a high level of
armed encounters; it is a high-conflict area in encounters
between the AFP and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
or Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) but a medium-level
conflict area in encounters between the AFP and the NPA.
Sulu is a high-conflict area with encounters between the AFP
and the MILF or MNLF. Surigao del Sur, meanwhile, is
categorized as a medium-level conflict area with encounters
between the AFP and the NPA (De Dios et al. 2005, 2; Bautista
2005, 11). North Cotabato has a mixed population of Muslims

and Christians, Sulu is predominantly Muslim, and Surigao
del Sur is predominantly Christian. Finally, Metro Manila (with
Marikina and Pasay City treated as one area), while categorized
as a high-level conflict area by the PHDR (De Dios et al. 2005)
with documented conflicts between the AFP and the NPA from
1986 to 2004, is used as a “control site,” in the sense that there
might be a low level of encounter or even no insurgency-related
encounters in Metro Manila at present. However, it might yield
human security issues related with other types of conflicts
involving the state, such as land and housing conflicts (see
Figure 1.2 for the sample sites identified in the Philippine map).
The study employed a multistage stratified random

sampling with the selected provinces as domains and
barangays as enumeration units. From the list of all barangays
in the areas covered in the study, barangays were randomly
selected. The households served as the primary sampling unit.
One eligible respondent was interviewed per household. The
household head or the spouse of the household head, or any
responsible adult in the household who is knowledgeable about
the household members, was selected as respondent.
The sample was distributed as follows:
1. Makati and Pasay in Metro Manila covering five

barangays per city and twenty households per
barangay, with a total of 100 respondents;
2. Albay and Cagayan Province in Luzon covering ten
barangays per province and twenty households per
barangay, with a total of 200 respondents;
3. Negros Occidental and Western Samar in Visayas
covering ten barangays per province and twenty
households per barangay, with a total of 200
respondents; and
4. Surigao del Sur, North Cotabato, and Sulu in
Mindanao covering fifteen barangays per province
and twenty households per barangay, with a total
of 300 respondents.
In each of the household sample, the interviewer

accomplished the household form and the individual’s
questionnaire (see full questionnaire, Appendix 2). The
household form contains information about the
sociodemographic and economic characteristics of all
household members and the housing characteristics of the
household. The individual’s questionnaire contains several
blocks which include information on the following:
1. Block A: Identification and Call Record (province,

city/municipality, name of sample barangay, urban-
rural stratum, household number, respondent’s
name, complete address, etc.)
2. Block B: Socioeconomic and Demographic
Characteristics
3. Block C: Economic Security
4. Block D: Food Security
5. Block E: Health Security
6. Block F: Environmental Security
7. Block G: Community Security
8. Block H: Personal Security
9. Block I: Political Security
10. Block J: General Perception of Human Security
Eight FGDs were held, one per site, which generated

qualitative data on human security perspectives that complement
the quantitative data generated from the survey. The FGDs were
purposely held to include several marginalized groups to account
for human security perspectives of marginalized sectors—specific
sectors that UNDP wants to include in its programs. The
systematic random sampling method used to select households
for the surveys had no way of purposely selecting members of
marginalized groups. The survey questionnaire itself did not
privilege specific sectoral concerns.
The Rest of the Book
The succeeding chapters of the book present the findings

of the project. Cabilo and Baviera’s review of the literature on
human security in chapter two explores the historical context

of the concept and its relationship with other notions of
security, the debates regarding the scope and focus of human
security, the evolving human security discourse in the
Philippines, and the various attempts to measure human
security and insecurity. In addition, the review identifies some
research gaps that the current project hopes to address.
In chapter three, Cabilo, Baviera, and Delias present the

results of the KIIs. The informants’ diverse backgrounds and
institutional affiliations are reflected in this chapter. It shows
not only the broad range of responses but also the debates
among the respondents, notably those between the traditional
security sectors and the civilian sectors. These debates consist
of their definition of human security, threats and dimensions,
roles of the state and non-state actors in addressing the threats,
and the actions that institutions can do to mitigate these threats.
In chapter four, this author focuses on the views of

marginalized groups on critical and pervasive threats, the
marginalized groups’ own indicators of human security, and
their views on what would constitute conditions in which
human security could exist. The participants were also quite
articulate on what can be done by different sectors to address
threats to human security.
In chapter five, Lusterio Berja shows the results of the

survey. It shows the data generated by the survey on the
different dimensions of human security, the context in which
human security exists or could exist, and the susceptibility,
exposure, and coping capacity of individuals to threats, among
other aspects. It also shows how a more comprehensive
measure or index of human security can be constructed based
on the thirty-one original indicators and the survey responses.
Finally, chapter six, also written by this author, summarizes

the data gathered from the various techniques employed. It also
reflects on the limitations of the project, the difficulties
encountered, the opportunities and challenges for further
development of the index, and the integration of human security
in mainstream policy making in the country.
While specific members of the research team wrote the final

versions of the individual chapters, the whole book is a team
effort that benefitted from countless drafts developed
collectively or individually by team members, hours of team
meetings, and actual as well as virtual consultations with
experts, and various groups.
Notes
1
This introductory chapter is based on the project’s original
research proposal and the more detailed research design and
methodology developed by the research team during the first
three months of the project.
2
This section was based on Cabilo and Baviera’s extensive review
of literature in chapter two.
References
Aguirre, Alexander. 1998. National security: Concepts and

organizations. National Security Review 18 (2): 20.
Alkire, Sabina. 2002. A conceptual framework for human security.

CRISE Working Paper No. 2. University of Oxford: Center
for Research on Inequality, Human Security, Ethnicity (CRISE).
Annan, Kofi. 2000. Secretary general salutes international

workshop on human security in Mongolia. Message delivered
during the International Workshop on Human Security,
Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Bajpai, Kanti. 2000. Human security: Concept and measurement.

Occasional Paper No. 19:OP:1. Indiana: University of Notre
Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.
Bautista, Cynthia Rose B. 2005. Ideologically motivated conflicts

in the Philippines: Exploring the possibility of an early warning
system. A background paper submitted to the Human
Development Network Foundation, Inc. for the Philippine
Human Development Report 2005.
Cabilo, Zuraida Mae D., and Sharon M. Quinsaat. 2007. Towards

a human security framework in the Philippine context. In
Defining the human security framework in the Philippine context:
Proceedings of the Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series
2006, ed. Third World Studies Center, 117-123. Quezon City:
Third World Studies Center in partnership with the Conflict
Prevention and Peace-Building Programme (CPPB) of the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)–
Philippines.
Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human security now:

Commission on Human Security report. New York.
De Dios, Emmanuel, Soliman Santos Jr., and Sharon Faye Piza.

2005. The fifth Philippine human development report: Peace, human
security, and human development in the Philippines. Quezon City:
Human Development Network and the United Nations
Development Programme.
Dee, Howard, and Ernesto Garilao. 2005. A justice-based

development as a fundamental right. Paper presented as a
reaction during the presentation of the highlights of the 2005
Philippine Human Development Report, Heritage Hotel, Pasay
City, Philippines.
Goucha, Moufida, and Francisco Rojas Aravena. 2001. New

perspectives on human security in Latin America and the
Caribbean. In Human security, conflict prevention, and peace in
Latin America and the Caribbean, ed. Moufida Goucha and Rojas
Aravena, 154-184. Paris and Santiago: UNESCO and FLACSO-
Chile.
Honasan, Gregorio, and Michael Eric Castillo. 2002. A national

security framework for the Philippines. National Security Review
20 (December).
Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS). 2007. SSR

Update 1 (May).
Manasan, Rosario G., Eduardo Gonzalez, and Romualdo B.

Gaffud. 1999. Indicators of good governance: Developing an
index of governance quality at the LGU level. Discussion Paper
Series No. 99-04. Makati City: Philippine Institute for

Development Studies.
Nef, Jorge. 1999. Human security and mutual vulnerability. 2nd ed.
Ottawa: IDRC Books.
Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP).

2007. Conflict sensitive and peace promoting local
development planning. Unpublished draft.
Paris, Roland. 2001. Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air?

International Security 26 (2): 87-102.
Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights). 2002.

Economic, social, and cultural rights: The grassroots’ view (ESC
rights standards and indicators setting project phase II). Quezon
City: Philippine Human Rights Information Center.
Rothschild, Emma. 1995. What is security? Daedalus 124 (3): 53-

98.
Talisayon, Serafin. (n.d.) The framework of national security.

Unpublished.
Third World Studies Center (TWSC). 2007. Defining the human

security framework in the Philippine context: Proceedings of the Third
World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2006. Quezon City:
Philippines.
Thomas, Nicholas, and William T. Tow. 2002. The utility of human

security: Sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. Security
Dialogue 33 (2): 177-192.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. Human

development report 1994. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Figure 1.2 Map of survey areas
Cagayan
Province
Metro Manila
Albay
Western
Samar
Surigao
Negros del Sur
Occidental
North
Cotabato
Sulu
Note: Shaded portions are the sample areas of the study.

Map prepared by Juanito G. Berja Jr.
Defining and Debating Human Security/Cabilo & Baviera 23
Chapter Two
DEFINING AND DEBATING HUMAN SECURITY:

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction
Human security is the new catchphrase in international

security discourse. It is presented both as a concept and as a
policy framework that challenges traditional notions of
security, which are state-centric, focused on interstate conflict,
and primarily concerned with military defense. Human security
broadens the notion of security by expanding its dimensions
to economic, political, cultural, and even psychological aspects.
It deepens the notion of security as the referent object shifts to
include individuals, groups, and societies (Paris 2001; Krause
and Williams 1996). As a concept, human security is contested.
Scholars, institutions, and even nations offer various definitions
of the concept. Despite the abundance of literature, debate
and analysis on the issue since 1994, human security is
considered vague and meaningless as a conceptual tool. As a
policy framework, human security has gained some success
with the establishment of the Human Security Network and
the Commission on Human Security, and its adoption in the
national security agendas and foreign policies of nations, such
as Canada and Japan. Other accomplishments include the
signing of a convention on anti-personnel landmines and the
establishment of the International Criminal Court. However,
as Paris (2001) argued, there is still much to be desired about
the use of human security as a policy framework since the
concept is silent on what values should be made priorities by
governments with limited resources.
This review of the human security discourse, which is by

no means exhaustive, is structured along five areas. First, it
explores the historical context of the development of the term
“human security” and its relationship with traditional or state
security, as well as broadened notions of security (i.e., common
security and comprehensive security). Second, it presents the
debates regarding the scope and focus of human security, its
relationship to human development, and how different states
espouse the concept in their foreign policies. Third, it briefly
discusses the human security framework in the Philippines.
Fourth, attempts in measuring human security and insecurity
are critically evaluated. Finally, some theoretical and
methodological research gaps are identified that would be
included in the research agenda for human security.
The Development of the Human Security Concept
Human insecurity is as old as humanity itself. The issues of

food shortage, physical violence, and natural disasters are
perpetual problems that threaten human lives. Communities
and national governments have continually sought to protect
people from such problems. Long before the term human
security itself became a buzzword, the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) has espoused the issue of human
security in the international arena since 1863 (UNDP 2003;
DFAIT 1999). The ICRC advocated the protection of
noncombatants in conflict situations. Even in times of war,
rules of engagement needed to be followed to minimize human
suffering. In the late twenty-first century, the nature of conflict
shifted from interstate to intrastate wars. The human cost of
conflict increased as battles were fought in the midst of
communities and away from borders. The figure of civilian
casualties has risen to 90 percent as opposed to the early
twentieth century wherein 90 percent were military casualties
(Speth in Maclean 2000). International organizations and civil
society groups around the world increasingly viewed the
importance of protecting the individual from the repercussions
of conflict and poverty. The interests of the international
community in the humanitarian crises in Kosovo, East Timor,
Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia are testament to the

commitment of nations in promoting human security.
The era of twenty-first century globalization has given rise

to common threats among countries and individuals around
the world. The free flow of “goods, services, finance, people
and images” brought about by international trade makes the
world into an ever smaller space (Commission on Human
Security 2003). Head (in Maclean 2000) introduced the concept
of “mutual vulnerability” wherein the increase of
interconnectedness among states corresponds to the increase
in their susceptibility to the same security threats. These threats
include the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV), global warming, problems related to migration and
refugees, and inequalities brought about by globalization.
Moreover, problems of human security in one region affect
other regions in the international system. Sometimes,
disturbances in a relatively weak region can even have
significant effect on more powerful regions due to the linkages
of economic and political systems (Head in Maclean 2000; Nef
in Maclean 2000). These conditions create the impetus for
addressing human security in the international community.
Bajpai (2000) asserted that the “genealogy of the idea”

(authors’ italics) of human security can be traced to changes
in the notions of development from the 1960s to the 1980s. As
Bajpai chronicled the evolution of the concept, he cited the
importance of two independent commissions that expanded
the notions of security. These are the Independent Commission
on International Development Issues and the Independent
Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. The former
links the issues of hunger, economic inequalities, and conflict
as security while the latter advances the ideas of common security
and common responsibility in which the issues of the environment,
population growth and migration, and undemocratic institutions
are considered security issues (Bajpai 2000). Rothschild (1995;
Alkire 2002), on the other hand, went back further and gave a
historical account of the development of “extended security” and
traced its roots to European political thought.
The term human security was first used in the 1994 Human
Development Report (HDR) published by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). Mahbub Ul Haq, the
economist chiefly responsible for the Humane Governance and
Human Development Indices, is the person most closely
identified with the concept of human security. The 1994
publication formally defined the concept and explicitly made
the individual the referent object of security. In 1999, the
Human Security Network was formed through the initiatives
of Norway and Canada and in 2001, the Commission on
Human Security was formed with Amartya Sen and Sadako
Ogata as co-chairs.
Definitions and Perspectives of Human Security
Human security is essentially a contested concept. Various

scholars, nations, and institutions offer alternative definitions,
implementation, and propose methods of measurement. These
proposals range from minimalist to maximalist definitions that
tend to overload the concept with various dimensions. This
tendency of defining human security in such broad or narrow
terms largely depends on the interest of groups that engage in
theorizing or applying the concept of human security.
Mahbub Ul Haq simply defined human security as freedom

from fear and freedom from want. This 1994 HDR definition
effectively categorizes the threats to human security as those
emerging from conflicts and those caused by
underdevelopment. To adopt the peace and conflict studies
literature, threats to human security can be seen as violence
(Bajpai 2000). Johan Galtung, the father of peace research,
classifies violence as direct or structural and as probable or actual.
Direct violence is caused by an actor while indirect or structural
violence is a preventable but “unintended harm” done to
persons (Weigert 1999; Bajpai 2000). Appropriating this
terminology in the human security literature, direct violence is
caused by conflict and structural violence caused by
underdevelopment and natural disasters. The latter includes
threats such as the spread of infectious diseases, lack of food
and water, etc. The 1994 HDR also defined human security as
“safety from chronic threats like hunger, disease and repression
and protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in patterns
of daily life.” This implies that both present (actual) and future
(probable) threats are taken into account and addressed
through problem-solving and prevention mechanisms. Human
security attempts to address these different kinds of violence
or threats. The 1994 HDR enumerated seven dimensions of
human security: personal, environmental, economic, political,
community, health, and food security. The UNDP formulation
of human security is widely criticized as being all-
encompassing that it is difficult to say what is not a human-
security issue. Similarly, Nef (in HSR 2002) proposed that
human security includes “(1) environmental, personal and
physical security, (2) economic security, (3) social security, (4)
political security, and (5) cultural security” (HSR 2002). Reed
and Tehranian (in Paris 2001) classified issues under human
security in no less than ten elements, including psychological
and communication security.
Alkire (2002) proposed another definition of human

security: “(the protection of) the vital core of all human lives
from critical pervasive threats, in a way that is consistent with
long term human fulfillment.” As a working definition, it
remains ambiguous on what exactly is to be protected, who is
tasked with the act of protecting, what are the kinds of threats,
and how these threats can be addressed. The author claimed
that determining the “vital core” of values to be protected
remains a value judgment to be undertaken by appropriate
institutions (Alkire 2002). Leaning and Arie (2000) addressed
this conceptual ambiguity by proposing that a minimum
standard of living and cultural and psychological security
should comprise these core values. Components of the core
values are expressed as “1) a sustainable sense of home; 2)
constructive social and family networks; and 3) an acceptance
of the past and positive grasp of the future” (Leaning and Arie
2000). In defining human security, Thomas (in Alkire 2002
and Paris 2001) stressed the values of human dignity and
democracy. On the other hand, Hampson et al. (in Alkire 2002)
emphasized the physical safety of the individual as the primary
objective of human security and define human security as an

“underprovided public good” caused by political and market
failures. Owen (2004a) attempted to sidestep the issue of giving
priority to various sets of core values by proposing a
“threshold-based definition” with the “threats (being) included
on the basis of their actual severity” instead of being arbitrarily
chosen beforehand. This definition attempts to strike a middle
ground between narrow and broad definitions. It showed that
the maximalist definitions are usually based on normative
grounds; in contrast, criticisms against the maximalist position
and the preference for the minimalist definitions are based on
empirical and methodological grounds.
Considerable debate still continues among scholars on the

scope of human security, the dimensions of the concept, and
the core values to be protected. There is a lack of focus on the
substantive and systematic study of threats under human
security. Paris (2001) argued that dimensions and values are
selected arbitrarily without justification. He considered it futile
to narrow down the concept of human security when it is in
the interest of its advocates to keep the concept ambiguous.
He further argued that “human security is powerful precisely
because it lacks precision and thereby encompasses the diverse
perspectives and objectives of all the members of the coalition”
(Paris 2001). Instead, he proposed that human security should
only be used as a research category of military and non-military
issues concerning individuals, groups, and societies (Paris
2001).
From Traditional to Non-traditional Security
In the latter half of the twentieth century, traditional or

realist conceptions of security were gradually challenged by
extended notions of security. The concept of security has been
extended both vertically and horizontally (Krause and Williams
1996). The vertical extension corresponds to the broadening
of the referent object of security. From the state, it has been
extended downward to social groups, communities, and
individuals. The horizontal extension corresponds to the
broadening of the dimensions from the political and military
in order to accommodate environmental, community, personal,

physical, psychological, and food security. Human security,
the latest addition, is only one of these extended notions. Other
“broadened notions” include global security, common security,
collective security, comprehensive security, and cooperative
security. Collective security is defined in the UN Charter as “a
system in which each state in the system accepts that the
security of one is the concern of all and agrees to join in a
collective response to aggression” (Alkire 2002). In the
definition of global security by the Commission on Global
Governance, there is a call for security to be “broadened from
its traditional focus on the security of states to include the
security of people and the planet” (Alkire 2002). As such, an
environmental dimension is embedded in the concept.
Comprehensive security, which is a security framework
developed by Japan to respond to economic and political
threats, became the national security doctrine of some Asian
countries such as Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia (Dewitt
1993). As used in Asia, regime survival, economic stability,
and social justice are the primary concerns of the security
framework (Acharya 2001; Dewitt 1993). The concept of
human rights is noticeably absent from the security discourses
of these Asian countries. Acharya (2001) argued that the
development of comprehensive security in Asia has made it
easier for the concept of human security to gain acceptance.
Common security addresses environmental and ecological
threats in addition to those brought about by demographic
phenomena. It promotes transparency over secrecy and dispels
the notion of balance of powers in favor of international
cooperation. It rejects threat and the use of military force as
factors that serve to exacerbate insecurity (Dewitt 1993). The
concept of cooperative security was adopted from common
security. It advocates for “security to be pursued multilaterally
based on the principle of inclusiveness” through military
confidencebuilding, political dialogue, and functional
cooperation. However, as opposed to common security,
cooperative security advocates “a more ad hoc multilateralism”
and “recognizes balance of powers structures” (Dewitt 1993).
Even with the inclusion of non-traditional issues such as social
reform, economic security, environmental security, and
international cooperation in promoting security, these concepts

maintain the focus on the state as a referent object of security.
In 1994, the UNDP published the Human Development

Report, formally introducing the concept of human security
with personal, environmental, economic, political, community,
health, and food security as its components. It differs from the
traditional conception of state or national security because it
shifted the attention away from issues of territorial integrity
and national sovereignty to personal welfare and wellbeing
and the physical safety of individuals. Instead of addressing
the threat of warfare, the 1994 HDR addressed multiple threats
such as generalized poverty, communicable diseases, and other
threats to basic human rights. Maclean (2000) systematically
compared traditional security and human security along seven
dimensions (see Table 2.1 below).
Most scholars recognized the idea that state and human

security are complementary (Lodgaard 2000; Maclean 2000;
Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2004; Kraft 2003; Acharya
2001). Ensuring the security of the individual leads to the
security of the state but the converse is not necessarily true as
the state is sometimes the cause of insecurity. Furthermore,
Axworthy (in DFAIT 1999) argued that the provision of human
security leads to greater state legitimacy as the presence of
human security “can be attributed in large measure to the
effective governance of states” (DFAIT 1999).
Table 2.1 Dimensions of traditional and human security

(Maclean 2000)
Dimension Traditional Security Human Security
Spatiality Teritorially sovereign Not necessarily spatially
oriented
Target State Community and individual
Subject matter Diplomatic and military Socio-political; socioeconomic;
environmental
Pattern of control Institutionalized Non-institutionalized
Decision-making Formal (political) Informal (intuitive)
Potential threat Structured violence Unstructured violence
Responses Diplomatic and Scientific; technological; multi-
military; unilateral lateral governance
Human Development and Human Security
There can be no human development without human

security (Leaning and Arie 2000). The relationship between
conflict and development is symbiotic in the sense that
underdevelopment and abject poverty often cause conflicts
that disrupt service delivery, employment, and generally, have
a negative impact on the economy. Human security deals with
the downside risks of human development such as financial
crises, environmental degradation, and even war and conflict
through the provision of safety nets and assistance. Human
development, on the other hand, promotes expansion with
equity and encourages fair trade to benefit the poor—activities
that contribute to human security. While Alkire (2002) asserted
that both ideas share a conceptual space, the specific
distinctions between the two, the overlaps, and the nature of
the relationship is not given enough attention in the literature.
In response to this conceptual ambiguity, some scholars prefer
to remove the developmental aspect in the concept of human
security. Human development is defined as the widening of
the range of people’s choices, which according to Lodgaard
(2000), is merely a “shorthand for freedom from want.”
Focusing the concept of human security on conflict alone as
distinct from human development will enable clarity in the
theoretical aspects and in policy making. Other scholars do
not mind the lack of boundaries between the two concepts
and instead argue for the incorporation of human security in
development policy (Mani 2005), and for the two concepts to
be used simultaneously on the issue of social protection (Zohir
2006).
Competing Perspectives on Human Security
Canada is at the forefront of the human security discourse,

mic; making human security the defining thrust of its foreign policy.
Human security is simply defined as the security of the people
with its core elements derived from the UN Charter, the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the Geneva
ulti- Conventions. Canadian foreign policy adopts a critical stand
against the 1994 HDR. It notes that the report is too focused
on the human development aspect of human security and

“(y)et by the UNDP’s own criteria, human insecurity is greatest
during war” (DFAIT 1999). This definition makes a clear
distinction between human security and human development,
and avoids the conceptual ambiguity in relating the two
concepts. Bajpai (2000) critically compared the concept of
human security of Canada and the UNDP on the basis of
whose security is protected, what threats and means of
addressing threats are identified, and what values are upheld.
As part of its foreign policy, Canada actively lobbies for the
human security agenda in the UN Security Council (Heinbecker
in Maclean 2000) and uses the concept as its justification for
sanctions and military intervention (DFAIT 1999; Maclean
2000).
The Norwegian formulation of human security focuses

exclusively on conflict, and like Canada, strongly criticizes
definitions that include threats to human development and
the threats of natural disaster. The opposition is founded on
three key arguments. First, the core of human security should
correspond to the core of state security with both centering on
material means (i.e., military force and physical violence).
Second, Lodgaard (2000) asserted that, “all security
considerations should have the elements of predictability and
control.” Threats of natural disasters are automatically
discounted as human security concerns because these threats
are neither predictable nor controllable. This argument,
however, discounts the fact that not all natural disasters can
be predicted, thus the extent of damage is mitigated. And third,
clear and mutually exclusive analytical tools should be
developed. The inclusion of the development agenda in human
security muddles the distinction between human security and
human development (Lodgaard 2000). Norway advocates the
curbing of the proliferation of small arms and the conduct of
peace operations.
Thailand recognizes that the provision of state security is

insufficient and does not necessarily lead to human security.
A clear example that supports this point is the problem of
resource allocation. The increase of resources allocated to the
military to combat threats to national security could correspond

to a significant decrease in the resources allocated for social
services that address threats to the security of individuals and
communities. Hence, it is important to adopt a human security
framework that balances the economic and political
dimensions. Acharya and Acharya (2001) asserted that the
Thai interpretation of human security is a “credible Asian way
of developing a human security agenda.” The Thai view
integrates human rights, the human costs of conflict, and
human needs in the concept of human security.
Japan’s conception of human security falls along the

“maximalist” end of the spectrum by accommodating the
conflict and developmental aspects of human security. The
Japanese are openly critical of the Canadian focus on conflict,
and states that there can be no human security and basic dignity
amidst poverty and desolation (Japan Ministry of Foreign
Affairs 2004). Japan is one of the most vocal advocates of
human security as evidenced by its initiative to create the
Commission on Human Security in 1999. Its endowment for
human security activities from 1999 to 2004 was the largest in
the UN amounting to USD227 million. Moreover, its advocacy
of human security is expressed in the Official Development
Assistance Charter of Japan.
Human Security in the Philippine Context
Defining Human Security in the Philippine Context
The National Security Framework
The national security framework in the Philippines

incorporates some elements of human security. Talisayon (n.d.)
enumerated (1) moral/spiritual consensus, (2) cultural
cohesiveness, (3) economic solidarity/organicity, (4) socio-
political stability, (5) ecological integrity, (6) territorial integrity,
and (7) external peace as the elements composing a broadened
framework. Honasan and Castillo (2002) identified the
following as pillars or foundations of national security: social
cohesion and stability; economic prosperity and stability; and

political unity and stability. At first glance, it could be observed
that these concepts of national security approximate some of
the UNDP dimensions of human security.
After the 1986 People Power movement, national security

was redefined as the “security of the people” (Talisayon n.d.).
Honasan and Castillo (2002) considered the people, regime,
and state to be the referent objects of national security.
However, the authors claimed that there is an artificial “divide
between the people and state,” and that the government and
the people are the components of the state. The people or
individuals are thereby subsumed under the state. They
recognized that there may be divergent interests between the
state and the people, but this divergence remains unaddressed.
Institutional mechanisms are generally unable to respond

to threats to human security. For example, Aguirre (1998, 20)
proposed the creation of an Organization for National Security
(ONS) that “refers to the structure of the decision-making
process that affect the national survival and general welfare
and wellbeing of our people” and will be “mainly responsible
for the management of the national security planning process.”
One of the organization’s tasks is to address nontraditional
security threats. However, the language used is still hinged
upon a state-centered view of security. The National
Intelligence Coordinating Agency, National Security Council
and National Intelligence Board are cited as the partner
agencies for the ONS. Honasan and Castillo (2002) proposed
that diplomacy and the military should be used as the
“instruments for the attainment of national security.”
The national security framework nominally considers

nontraditional security threats as security issues, but does not
reflect the normative underpinnings of human security. While
the Philippine national security framework accommodates
non-traditional threats, its institutional capacities are
inadequate in responding to such threats. Also, the term
human security does not even appear in the documents
examined. Thus, it can be observed that human security norms
are not embedded in the security sector.
There are a number of obstacles in the inclusion of human

security in the national security framework and the security
sector. First and foremost, the concept of human security
emerged as a challenge to the state-centric view of security. It
has an explicit bias for individual security over state security.
It protects the people from cases wherein the state is the source
and perpetrator of insecurity. This comes in clear conflict with
a national security framework that centers on the state and
subsumes the people under the state. It assumes that the state
must be protected first since it is chiefly responsible for
providing the security of the people. Increasing demands and
expectations and the inability of the state to provide for a broad
range of the people’s needs contest this assumption. Non-
traditional threats, with the exception of natural disasters, are
also seldom included in the notion of traditional security and
often subsumed under frameworks of governance and the
conduct of normal politics. Lastly, the definition and conduct
of national security remain to be the prerogative of the military.
Defining Human Security in the Philippines
In the Philippines, various attempts have been made by

the government, civil society organizations, and other
development actors to contribute to the human security
discourse. The concept of human security was first introduced
in the public consciousness through a 1995 conference “The
Gathering for Human and Ecological Security.” At the end of
the conference, a formal commitment was made that placed
the protection of the people and the environment at the
forefront of the national agenda. This was merged with former
President Fidel Ramos’s Social Reform Agenda of Philippine
society’s basic sectors to make up the people-empowerment
pillar of Philippines 2000. This came a year after the term
“human security” gained currency in development circles in
1994. A multi-agency effort was undertaken in the middle of
2004-2005 to reintroduce the concept of human security in
public policy making. This effort led to the creation of the
National Task Force on Convergence (NTFC) in 2005 whose
mandate was to “harmonize the perspectives between the
military . . . and civilian agencies in defining and making
operational a common framework for national security.”
In the same year as the NTFC was reworking the national

security framework, the 2005 Philippine Human Development
Report (PHDR) was released. It defined human security as the
“freedom from fear, want, and humiliation.” The 2005 Report,
though, focused only on what it calls “ideology-based armed
conflict.” It also differentiated between human security and
human development, noting that, while “human development
is the process that widens the range of people’s choices, human
security means that people can make those choices safely and
freely. [H]uman security is the external pre-condition for
human development.” The report provided concrete indices
to measure the costs and causes of armed conflict which may
be useful in putting together an initial list of human security
indicators appropriate to the Philippines.
Developing a Human Security Framework in the

Philippines
There have been two attempts to develop a human security

framework appropriate to Philippine realities. Tabang
Mindanaw, an organization headed by Ambassador Howard
Dee, developed what it calls the Justice-Based Human Security
Framework in response to the 2005 PHDR. It points to injustice
against poor sectors and communities, and not poverty, as the
catalyst to armed conflict (Dee and Garilao 2005). Based on
justice, equity, and people-centered governance, the framework
is used by Tabang Mindanaw in working with indigenous
peoples, the Bangsamoro, and the people of Basilan, Sulu, and
Tawi-tawi. The framework responds to the root causes of
armed conflict. According to Ambassador Dee, for the justice-
based human security framework to be adopted, three things
are imperative. First, is to acknowledge that inequalities indeed
exist; the second is to find out the reasons behind the persistence
of such inequities; and the third requisite is for institutions to
be more responsive against injustice (Dee and Garilao 2005).
The thin line that separates human development and human
security is best described by the following quote: “Human
security complements state security, enhances human rights,
and strengthens human development.”
The University of the Philippines Third World Studies

Center (UP TWSC) initiated a more recent effort in 2006 by
gathering a variety of viewpoints from multi-sectoral actors
with development, governance, culture, and violent conflict
situations as key themes. The four-session series focused on
the community, instead of the individual, as the referent object
of human security in the Philippine context. The proposed
framework is hinged on four principles. These include “the
interconnectedness of the various dimensions of human
security, the centrality of land ownership and stewardship as
part of human security, the emphasis placed on community
security rather than the individual, and the plurality of
understanding human security” based on local realities (Cabilo
and Quinsaat 2007). Teresita Quintos Deles, keynote speaker
in the final dialogue and former head of the Office of the
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP),
underscored that the discourse on human security is “already
moving beyond the formulations of basic principles and
agenda, to designing operational constructions by which one
can create, measure, and compare indices of human security.”
This is the only way for the nebulous concept of human security
to be rendered useful in public policy.
Measuring Human Security
Global Attempts
The attempt to make sense of human security in concrete

terms by developing various indices as a measurement tool,
however, operates on concepts such as human development,
human security, and human rights. The concepts of human
development and human security intersect in its focus on the
individual (UNDP 2006; Alkire 2002). Questions have been
raised as to what differentiates human security from human
development and human rights. Ideally, human security
“builds on human development, human rights, and even state
security” (Ogata and Cels 2003). The nexus between human
security and human development lies in taking stock of both
the intentional and the unintentional, as well as negative
consequences of development, leading to vulnerability.
The Human Development Index (HDI) was formulated to

measure the degree by which development fosters an “enabling
environment for people to enjoy long, healthy, and creative
lives” (Human Development Report website). It seeks to measure
socioeconomic development using indicators such as life
expectancy, literacy rate, and purchasing power parity.
However, it does not include a way to measure political
freedom. Other indices that complement the HDI are the
Human Poverty Index (HPI), Gender-related Development
Index (GDI), and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM).
Human security, likewise, intersects with other concepts such
as peace and wellbeing. This becomes apparent when other
indices are examined. Critical of the HDI, a Wellbeing
Assessment1 was developed to measure the interaction of
humans with the ecosystem and how it affects human
wellbeing. The Wellbeing Assessment consists of three
composite indices—the Human Wellbeing Index (HWI),
Ecosystem Wellbeing Index (EWI), and Wellbeing/Stress Index
(WSI). The HWI claims to have a wider coverage than the HDI,
with indicators including datasets on longevity and quality of
life, as well as stability of family size; microeconomic and
macroeconomic indicators of wealth; accessibility of education
services and communication facilities; governance and
peacefulness in terms of conflict and crime; and equity
indicators in the household and community level in terms of
income, education, and participation in decision-making
processes in government. The EWI, on the other hand,
measures the extent of man’s activity vis-à-vis the quality and
diversity of species and genes, land, water, and air. Finally,
the Wellbeing/Stress Index is the intersection of the HWI and
the EWI wherein the impact of one to the other is measured in
terms of how well countries are able to balance human activity
and the ecosystem. It is indicative of the degree to which a
society or country is “close to sustainability” and to a certain
extent, the price that a particular society pays for the level of
development it enjoys.
To assess the relative peacefulness of 121 countries, a

consortium of peace advocates, composed of international
humanitarian organizations, academic research institutions,
and think tanks, have come up with the Global Peace Index
(GPI). Extending Galtung’s (1996) definition of peace2 to include
the “conditions which are favorable to the emergence of peace”
(positive peace), the determinants of positive peace became a
necessary component in measuring peace. The index is
composed of twenty-four indicators under three categories:
measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict,
measures of safety and security in countries, and measures of
militarization. Indicators were selected based on the availability
and accessibility of data, which demonstrate the presence or
absence of peace. As with other indices, the GPI also faces
“issues of bias and arbitrariness” in ascertaining peacefulness.
However, as The Economist (2007) put it, “the true utility of
the index may lie not in its specific rankings of countries now,
but in how those rankings change over time, thus tracking
when and how countries become more or less peaceful.”
While these indices measure a vast array of peace and

developmental concerns, the proposed methodologies on
measuring human security fill the gap of providing a way of
evaluating the degree of vulnerability or insecurity arising from
deprivation. In order to clarify the fuzzy concept of human
security, some scholars have proposed the creation of a human
security index, similar to the HDI, in the research agenda.
Measuring human security makes it possible to define human
security in more concrete terms. Also, measurement helps
“identify . . . human insecurities, as well as reveal chains of
causality and cumulative impacts,” thus enabling the
identification of “causal and correlative relationships” (Owen
2002). On the other hand, measuring connotes that there has
already been a preset understanding of human security, which
identifies what is, or what is not, human security. Furthermore,
contradiction may be revealed in coming up with “objective”
and “subjective” measures (Owen 2002).
King and Murray (2002) responded to this challenge and

proposed that human security should be measured in “years
lived outside of a state of generalized poverty.” The individual
is the unit of analysis of this measurement. The domains in
this measure include health, education, income, political
freedom, and democracy. King and Murray (2002) wanted to

shift the focus solely on development, arguing that poverty is
the root of conflict. However, it is important to note that conflicts
are caused by a confluence of factors and that some conflicts
are fought over non-economic reasons.
The Global Environmental Change and Human Security

(GECHS), a project of the International Human Dimensions
Programme on Global Change, designed an Index of Human
Insecurity. The domains included are environmental, economic,
social, and institutional aspects of insecurity. Some of the
indicators used are net energy imports, soil degradation, adult
literacy rates, real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita,
urban population growth, life expectancy, degree of
democratization, and human freedom index (GECHS 2000).
Although the index includes sixteen indicators, they are by no
means exhaustive. For example, conflict as a source of
insecurity is not given due attention.
The two indices—the Global Peace Index and the Index of

Human Security—do not consider conflict as a dimension of
security or insecurity. This is quite surprising since most
definitions of human security, including the one proposed by
the 1994 HDR, include conflict as a vital threat to human
security. The arguments of Canada and Norway cannot stress
this point enough. Also, the distinction between the indices of
human development and human security/insecurity is
confusing as there are overlaps on a number of dimensions
and indicators.
The Human Security Audit is different from the two indices.

It does not attempt to come up with a figure that aggregates
the multiple dimensions of human security. Instead, the
Uppsala/Human Rights Centre publishes data on three major
areas: human rights abuse, criminal violence, and human
trafficking. On the feasibility of creating a human security
index, the report noted that it is “certainly not currently
possible, and that it is probably not desirable” (HSR 2005).
This is due to incomplete datasets, the advantage of
disaggregate data over simplified composite data, and the
difficulty of measuring insecurity in highly secure countries

(HSR 2005). To distill the various human security
measurements, Owen (2002) surveyed the works of King and
Murray (2002), Bajpai (2000), and GECHS (2000) (see Table
2.2). For the human security index, he suggested the use of
statistics on mortality resulting from different causes. The
practicality of using mortality data is attributed to the
straightforwardness of data, which avoids problems
concerning weighting disparate indicators. Mortality statistics
is also a good measure of “a wide variety of developmental
problems,” changing patterns of human activities, and other
vulnerabilities, which approximate human insecurity. It
provides a comprehensive view of all sources of insecurity or
vulnerability, enabling a depiction of the state of human
security as it captures the broad concept of human (in)security.
Most importantly, these data are readily accessible and
available. Table 2.2 summarizes the initiatives to quantify the
concept of human security through different instruments.
Owen (2002) critically compared the strengths and weaknesses
of the definitions, dimensions, indicators, and methodologies
of these instruments. Tables 2.3 and 2.4, on the other hand,
compare UNDP, Gender Development Index, the Human
Security Audit, the Index of Human Insecurity, and the Human
Security Report across various dimensions.
Developing a human security index is indeed as

challenging as defining the concept it seeks to clarify. In so
doing, two basic principles may be gleaned from the various
efforts to develop a human security index. First, capturing the
broad concepts of human security should be given careful
consideration if a comprehensive and accurate picture of the
country’s human security situation is to be presented. Second,
the substantial divergence in the nature of human security
between countries, and even within states (Owen 2004a),
necessitates that indicators reflect these varied realities. This
requires indicators to be sensitive to local realities as
vulnerability in one locality may be different from another area.
However, a paradox emerges as the feasibility of measuring
human security lies on limiting indicators to measure human
security (Owen 2002). While the Human Security Report
exemplifies the usefulness of its Human Security Audit by

measuring human security (or insecurity) in terms of deaths
from armed conflicts and criminal violence (Human Security
Centre 2005), this measurement falls short in addressing the
wide array of insecurities that the concept of human security
encompasses. Owen (2004a) recognized that
[h]uman security threats should be included not because they fall

into a particular category . . . but because of their actual severity . . .
all preventable harms should be considered threats to human
security. However, as varying harms require dramatically different
policy responses, any possible threat must be assessed based on its
severity. Only those that surpass a threshold of severity should be
included.
He, then, proposed that a “threshold-based human security

measure” be developed, which is determined by adopting the
Commission on Human Security’s “vital core”3 of human lives
and “critical and pervasive threats.” 4 Thus, parameters for
threat selection are based on threats to the “vital core” of
human life, which determines the severity of the threat, and
the relevance of threats to regional, national, and local contexts.
Identifying human security dimensions into six categories
based on the Commission on Human Security’s definition
renders the ambiguous and all-encompassing concept of
human security as “more manageable and analytically useful”
(Owen 2004a).
The challenge, then, in developing a human security index

is that a broad index requires more indicators, which are
susceptible to problematic issues of weighting, timeliness, and
accuracy (Owen 2004a).
Table 2.2 Survey of human security measurements (larj?ely based on Owen [2002], unless indicated)
Proponent Title HS Definition Dimension/s Indicators Methodology Remarks
King and Murray Generalized a[H]uman Income GNP per capita 1. Measuring the Years •"Generalized
(2002) Poverty Index insecurity as a converted to purchasing of Individual Human poverty1 does not
state of power parity Security (YIHS), which necessarily
'generalized indicates the number of equate with
poverty'... Health Quality of health scale years that an individual poverty in the
0)
[which] exists spends in a state of traditionally Q.
when a human Education Literacy rate or average "generalized poverty" understood O
being ranks years of schooling using a scale of 0 to 1. sense"

below a 2. Measuring Individual (Owen 2002).
predetermined Political Freedom House Human Security
threshold in freedom measure of societal (IHS), representing the
any of a number freedom proportion of an
of domains of individual's lifespan
well-beincf Democracy Fraction of adults able to that the individual n
(Owen 2002). participate in elections could expect to spend

outside of a state of
3.
generalized poverty. n
a;
o"
00
i
Table 2.2 Survey of human security measurements
o
King and Generalized 3. Aggregating the n>
Murray (2002) Poverty Index YIHS for a particular (S.

o
population to yield *o
5"
the Population io
Years of Human X
c
Security (PYHS)
Kanti Bajpai Human "[H]uman security Direct Threats Violent crime, abuse of 1. Measuring the Problems a>
3
(2000) Security Audit is... the Local women/children potential threat to the (Owen 2002): <S\
fb
protection from Regional individual. 1. Problems with
direct and National Terrorism, genocide, 2. Measuring the data continuity
indirect threats International government repression capacity of the and accuracy
Q.
to personal safety individual to cope given the
X
and wellbeing of Indirect Threats Societal violence, with potential threats broad range of
the individual" Societal level international war, (capacities of indicators.
(Owen 2002). Global level banditry, ethnic violence government and 2. Much of the
-o
individual). data required
Interstate wars, is either
•5
weapons of mass aggregated ■D
5'
destruction, landmines from sparse n
and
questionable
data sources.
Kanti Bajpai Human "Human security Lack of basic 3. Judgments about
o
(2000) Security Audit relates to the needs, disease, potential threats vs. actual to
protection of the employment physical harm are

individual's levels, population necessarily conjectural
(U
personal safety growth or decline, and unlikely to command 3
Q.
and freedom natural disasters consensus.
O
from direct and 4. Weight assigned to n
indirect threats of Population threats and capacities

violence" (Bajpai movement, would have to be entirely
2000). environmental subjective. i
c
degradation, 5. There are no assurances
tu
unequal that capacities will be 3
consumption directly relevant to the to

n
threats posed. c
Uses of HSI (Bajpai 2000): n

1. Enables the development
of a social early warning
system.
TO
w
2. Attention can be focused
on problem areas. to
Table 2.2 Survey of human security measurements cr>
Proponent Title HS Definition Dtmension/s Indicators Methodology Remarks

Kanti Bajpai Human Security 3. National and n_
(2000) Audit international priorities O

•a
may be redefined.
4. Enables the setting of
national and X
c
international standards.
5. Generation of new
social scientific
knowledge may be
facilitated.
a.
Main challenges to an HSI n
x
(Bajpai 2000):
1. Dual problem of validity
and reliability.
2. Problems of aggregation
of various measures.
3. The index represents an
aggregate measure at 5"
T
the national level, which
may not be
representative of local
realities.
Kanti Bajpai (2000) Human 4. While it may be an
Security Audit 'objective' measure, it
is still limited by
interpretations of
social reality.
Global Index of Human security is Social Urban population growth 1. Time-series and Positive:
Environmental Human 'achieved when Young male population national-level data 1. The only index so far
Change and Human Insecurity (IHI) individuals have the Maternal mortality ratio of all indicators are actualized using real
Security Project option, physically Life expectancy collected. data.
(2000) and politically, to end 2, Standardization of
or adapt to threats to Environmental Net energy imports data into a common Concerns:
their environmental, Soil degradation scale, which is 1. What is the difference
social or human Safe water crucial to the validity between development
rights,' placing focus Arable land of the final and security as
on *a cumulative measurement defined by GECHS?
causal relationship Economic Real GDP per capita 3. Computation through 2. What differentiates
between the GNP per capita growth cluster analysis. the IHI from the HDI?
environment and Adult literacy rate assigning a degree
personal safety Value of imports and exports of severity
(Owen 2002). of goods and services (insecurity) between
1 to 10 per indicator.
Public expenditures on
Institutional defense vs. education
Gross domestic fixed
investment
Degree of democratization
Human Freedom Index
Table 2.2 Survey of human security measurements 00
Human Security Human Human security Physical Deaths from armed Aggregation of Challenges m
Centre, Liu Security is achieved when conflicts national and (Owen 2002): 2.
Institute for Report individuals are regional level data. 1. No data are ■g^
3
Global Issues, protected from Death from criminal collected on the <£)
tu
University of violent threats violence absolute numbers x
c
British Columbia (Human Security of conflict deaths 3
3
(2005) Report 2005). per year. O)
3
2. The data are to

n>
r»
subject to a c
^
variety of biases.
3. Criminal violence
data are also o.
X
subject to
o
inaccuracies...
3"
and are often rt>
subject to political -a
3"
biases.
"O
4. Difficulty in "O
3'
making an annual to
index as data are

collected over a
period of several
years.
Finding a Niche for the Human Security Index in the

Philippines
There have been efforts in the Philippines to indirectly include

human security through the development of indicators useful in
development planning and governance (see Tables 2.5 and 2.6).
The Institute for Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS) has
created a security sector reform index (SSRI) in 2006 to help in
making “informed analyses on the state of governance of the
security sector, as well as its reform programs and initiatives”
(ISDS 2007). Human security is used as one of the frameworks in
the performance of the security sector’s mandate. The SSRI has
five dimensions, which include “democratic principles of
governance; extent of powers, knowledge or awareness and
capacity of oversight institutions; performance record of oversight
institutions and core security sector actors; security sector reform
programs; and contribution to conflict prevention and peace
building” (ISDS 2007). Each dimension is based on five principles:
transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation, and
responsiveness.
The OPAPP is also working on developing tools to integrate

peace building and conflict prevention in the planning process
at the local level. It seeks to integrate human security and use
a “conflict-sensitive lens” in local governance to ensure that
plans and programs are responsive to the needs of the people.
According to its draft document, it will adapt the dimensions
of human security as defined by the UNDP. Local government
units (LGUs) use the conflict-sensitive approach to identify the
various forms of conflict in their locality vis-à-vis the context
under which conflict arises to determine the root causes of
conflict. This enables LGUs to draw up plans and programs
that address factors bringing about or exacerbating conflict.
According to the OPAPP, the integration of human security

is achieved when the following conditions are met:
(1) There is deeper awareness and appreciation of human

security and conflict-sensitive approaches vis-à-vis local
governance;
(2) Human security and conflict-sensitive approaches are

integrated in local government processes by the
installation of appropriate mechanisms (legislations,
local ordinances, local bodies, etc.); and
(3) There is legislation-resource match for local plans.
Human security is defined as the protection of people’s

“physical safety, socioeconomic wellbeing, dignity and worth,
and human rights and fundamental freedoms.” This definition
reflects the notion that human development is achieved only
when people live in a secure and safe environment, thus
ensuring their human security. While the OPAPP recognizes
that the planning tool is primarily useful for local governments
in conflict situations, OPAPP asserts that it may also benefit
local governments that operate in relative peace. The OPAPP
also admits that the elements of human security, as defined by
the UNDP, cut across the developmental concerns in local
governance (employment, environment, health, etc.). Thus, it
is not a totally new concept in local governance. In fact, what
needs to be done is to incorporate human security in local
governance. It would further strengthen the protection of basic
freedoms and the provision of “basic survival needs.” It would
empower people to make decisions and take action. When
framed as such, the human security approach in local
governance is quite similar with the minimum basic needs
(MBN) approach, a strategy that gives priority to the “primary
requirements to ensure that the basic needs of survival, security
from physical harm, and enabling needs of the individual,
family, and community are attended to” (Local Poverty
Alleviation Program website). The OPAPP toolkit entitled,
“Vulnerability to Armed Conflict Indicators at the Local Level,”
seeks to enhance the local development planning process by
using conflict-sensitive and human security approach. It
implicitly states the importance of developing human security
indicators, which will be integrated in a local development
indicators list, as well as in the toolkit, and a human security
index for a conflict-sensitive and peace-promoting local
development plans.
Other tools, which do not necessarily have explicit bias for

the mainstreaming of human security, have been developed
to measure human security. The Philippine Human Rights
Information Center (PhilRights) developed the Economic,
Social, and Cultural (ESC) Rights indicators. The ESC rights
indicators were generated through focus group discussions
with grassroots organizations in various municipalities
nationwide (PhilRights 2002). The indicators were categorized
into five rights—the rights to health, food, housing, work, and
education—covering more than a hundred indicators.
Providing indicators for the five ESC rights aims to make the
state accountable in delivering its commitments to the
International Covenant on ESC Rights. As a monitoring tool,
it deals with the presence or absence of goods, services, or
structures to address people’s ESC rights.
Another tool to measure the presence or absence of people’s

capabilities, the Capability Poverty Measure was developed
by Manasan, Gonzalez and Gaffud (1999). It assesses three
dimensions of capability: quality of life, reproduction, and
literacy and knowledge. The tool makes use of three variables
that are given equal weights. Weights, however, may be
determined by respondents depending on the value they place
on each indicator.
Recently, the Maguindanao Working Group of the

Mindanao Economic Development Council (MEDCo) devised
human security indicators using datasets primarily taken from
the Local Government Performance Monitoring System and
other available data at the municipal level. It also drew some
indicators from Rosemarie Edillon’s Vulnerability Index, which
identified factors that lead to conflicts. The index was pilot
tested in Maguindanao. It covered all seven dimensions of
human security as defined by the UNDP. The all-encompassing
index is very much similar to the HDI. This brings to mind the
question as to what differentiates the proposed HSI from the
HDI.
In integrating conflict-sensitive and human security

approach in local development planning, a human security
index will be useful in measuring the extent to which insecurity
occurs in localities. Where local development plans and
programs are inadequate in ensuring human security,
identifying the causes of insecurity, with the aid of human
security indicators and an index, makes it possible to provide
appropriate responses.
Some Research Gaps and Areas for Further Research
“Human security is a term which can mean all, and

nothing.” This statement comes from no less than the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees and Co-Chair of the Commission
on Human Security, Sadako Ogata. Kraft (2006) concurred by
saying that, “The concept of human security is at best vague
and at worst meaningless.” These statements accurately
capture the ambiguity of human security. As a concept, it
overlaps with human rights, human development, and
sometimes even humanitarian intervention. It has no less than
seven dimensions (based on UNDP’s definition), which
according to Paris (2001) are even arbitrarily chosen. Simply
speaking, the concept has no clear boundaries and therefore,
it is analytically and practically useless (Bajpai 2000). As such,
the task of implementing and measuring the concept is nearly
impossible.
The question of whether it is possible and desirable to create

a human security index was raised in the 2005 Human Security
Report. Thus far, the Human Security Index created by King
and Murray (2002) measures a very narrow dimension of
human security. Countries and institutions, which do not
necessarily agree with this viewpoint, would find little use for
their index. While the Global Environmental and Human
Security index highlights the issue of environmental security,
it fails to incorporate the important dimension of conflict. The
2005 Human Security Report also criticized both indices for not
being regularly updated.
Despite these criticisms, Bajpai (2000) asserted that human

security is still relevant as a policy framework. It allows for the
individual to be at the center of the security agenda and the
individual’s welfare to be the primary concern of the state.
The question brought to mind is, shall we be resigned to the
idea that human security is too broad and all encompassing to
be quantified? And while human security remains functional
as a broad concept in policy making, should we keep it that
way and not seek to delimit and capture it into a single
aggregate number?
The Paradox of “Securitizing” the Individual
Yuen Foong Khong (2001) brought our attention to the

paradox of focusing on individual security. Instead of putting
humanitarian concerns at the center of the security agenda,
the only things achieved are “false hopes premised on false
priorities and causal assumptions.” The author claimed that
an issue is made a security concern in order for its status to
rise in the policy hierarchy. Hence, if a diverse range of human
security issues are put to the fore, the objective of giving priority
is defeated. Khong’s (2001) point is valid and political scientists
would have to find a way out of this theoretical conundrum.
How can clear priorities be set using a human security
framework? What would be the basis of the hierarchy of
values? The answer to the latter question is particularly difficult
given that there are different values for various communities,
individuals, and social groups. The institution responsible for
consolidating these “priorities” would have to face difficult
decisions in ranking values and would always run the risk of
making arbitrary judgments.
Objective and Subjective Aspects of Human Security
Another methodological problem in the study of human

security is whether human security should only consider
objective measures such as net energy imports, adult literacy
rates, real GDP per capita, urban population growth, life
expectancy, degree of democratization, human freedom index,
etc. The Latvia Human Development Report (UNDP 2003)
focused on individual’s sense of security or “a person’s internal

state of feeling secure resulting from the cumulative effect of
objective and subjective factors.” The Latvia Report introduced
the concept of “securitability” described as “the ability to avoid
insecure situations and to retain a sense of security when such
situations do occur, as well as the ability (to) reestablish one’s
security and sense of security when these have been
compromised.” The focus on psychological factors means that
it is worth looking at individual perceptions of threat and
security. Questions in the survey instrument of the Latvia
Report included the degree of satisfaction with life, the
perception of (the respondent’s) ability to prevent and mitigate
threats to their security, level of trust in others, etc. How
important is measuring a person’s sense of security compared
to measuring absolute indicators of security? How do the
absolute and subjective measures of human security interact?
Could there be a human security index that includes a sense
of security and securitability?
The next chapters will focus on the data gathered by the

UP TWSC through a number of research techniques in order
to develop a human security index for the Philippines.
Notes
1
For more details, visit the International Sustainability Indicators
Network website.
2
Galtung (1996) defined peace as the absence of war and conflict,
which he termed as “negative peace.”
3
This constitutes the minimum level of survival.
4
This establishes the severity and immediacy of threats.
5
A discount rate is the value you place to a future possession.
6
Indicators of HDI, HPI, GDI, and GEM are based on the
Technical Note 1 of the “Analytical Tools for Human
Development” of the Human Development Report.
7
Methodologies of the HDI, HPI, GDI, and GEM are based on
Technical Note 1 of the “Analytical Tool of Human Development”
in the Human Development Report 2006. You may access full details
and examples of computations from the Technical Note 1 found
in the Human Development Report (HDR website).

8
The Dimension Index is computed by using this formula:
Dimension Index = Actual value – Minimum value
Maximum value – Minimum value
9
Equally Distributed Index = {[female population share (female
index-1)]} + {[male population share (male index-1)]} -1
10
EDEP = {[female population share (female index-1)]} + {[male
population share (male index-1)]} -1
11
See Capuno (2000) for more detailed discussion of the
GOFORDEV Index.
References
Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Debating human security: East versus

west. Paper presented at the 15th Asia Pacific Round Table,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Acharya, Arabinda, and Amitav Acharya. 2001. Human security

in Asia: Conceptual ambiguities and common understandings. York:
York University.
Aguirre, Alexander. 1998. National security: Concepts and

organizations. National Security Review 18: 2.
Alkire, Sabina. 2002. A conceptual framework for human security.

CRISE Working Paper No. 2. University of Oxford: Center
for Research on Inequality, Human Security, Ethnicity (CRISE).
Axworthy, Lloyd. 1999. Foreword to Human security: Safety for

people in a changing world in the Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade (DFAIT). http://summit-americas.org/
Canada/HumanSecurity-english.htm/ (accessed June 26, 2007).
Bajpai, Kanti. 2000. Human security: Concept and measurement. Kroc

Institute Occasional Paper #19:OP:1. Indiana: University of
Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.
Cabilo, Zuraida Mae D., and Sharon M. Quinsaat. 2007. Towards

a human security framework in the Philippine context. In
Defining the human security framework in the Philippine context:
Proceedings of the Third World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series
2006, ed. Third World Studies Center, 117-123. Quezon City:

Philippines.
Capuno, Joseph. 2000. Good governance index: Advocating good

governance for local development. Issues and Letters
(December). Quezon City: Philippine Center for Policy Studies.
Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. 2004. Putting guns in their place:

A resource pack for two years of action by humanitarian agencies.
Geneva, Switzerland.
Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human security now.

Commission on human security report. New York.
Dee, Howard, and Ernesto Garilao. 2005. A justice-based

development as a fundamental right. A reaction to the
presentation of the highlights of the 2005 Philippine Human
Development Report, Heritage Hotel, Pasay City, Philippines.
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT).

1999. Human security: Safety for people in a changing world.
http://summit-americas.org/Canada/HumanSecurity-
english.htm/ (accessed June 26, 2007).
Dewitt, David. 1993. Concepts of security for the Asia-Pacific region

in the post-cold war era: Common, comprehensive, and
cooperative security. Draft paper presented at the 7th Annual
Asia-Pacific Roundtable, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Galtung, Johan. 1996. Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict,

development and civilization. Oslo: International Peace Research
Institute.
Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS).

2000. The index of human insecurity. Aviso 6, http://
www.gechs.org/aviso/06/index.html/ (accessed June 26,
2007).
Hampson, Fen Osler, Jean Daudelin, John Ray, Holly Reid, and
Todd Marting. 2002. Madness in the multitude: Human
security and world disorder. Quoted in Sabina Alkire, A
conceptual framework for human security (University of Oxford:
Center for Research on Inequality, Human Security, Ethnicity,
2000).
Head, Ivan. 1991. On a hinge of history: The mutual vulnerability

of South and North. Quoted in George Maclean, Instituting
and projecting human security: A Canadian perspective (Australian
Journal of International Affairs 54: 3, 2000) 269-276.
Heinbecker, Paul. 2000. Interview in Canada World View. Building

a safer world. Quoted in George Maclean, Instituting and
projecting human security: A Canadian perspective (Australian
Journal of International Affairs 54: 3, 2000) 269-276.
Honasan, Gregorio, and Michael Eric Castillo. 2002. A national

security framework for the Philippines. National Security Review
20 (December).
Human Security Centre. 2005. Human security report: War and peace
in the 21st century. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Human Security Report: A proposal. 2002. Paper presented to

the 4th Ministerial Meeting of the Human Security Network,
Santiago, Chile.
Human Security Report. 2005. War and peace in the 21st century.
Human Security Report Project, Human Security Centre, Liu
Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia,
Canada.
Institute for Strategic and Development Studies. 2007. SSR Update

1 (May).
Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2004. Diplomatic bluebook.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/2004/
index.html/(accessed June 25, 2007).
King, Gary, and Christopher Murray. 2002. Rethinking human

security. Political Science Quarterly 116 (4): 585-610.
Kraft, Herman Joseph. 2003. Human rights, security, and

development in Southeast Asia: An overview. In vol.3 of
Development and Security in Southeast Asia: Globalization, eds.
David B. Dewitt and Carolina Hernandez, 115-35. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate.
Kraft, Herman Joseph. 2006. 11 September 2001 and human

security. OSS Digest 1st-2nd quarter: 11-20.
Krause, Keith, and Michael C. Williams. 1996. Broadening the

agenda of security studies: Politics and methods. Mershon
International Studies Review 40: 229-254.
Leaning, Jennifer, and Sam Arie. 2000. Human security: A framework

for assessment in conflict and transition. http://www.certi.org/
publications/policy/human%20security-4.htm%20/ (accessed
June 27, 2007).
Lodgaard, Sverre. 2000. Human security: Concept and

operationalization. http://cpdsindia.org/globalhumansecurity/
operationalisation.htm/ (accessed June 27, 2007).
Maclean, George. 2000. Instituting and projecting human security:

A Canadian perspective. Australian Journal of International Affairs
54 (3): 269-276.
Manasan, Rosario G., Eduardo Gonzalez, and Romualdo B.

Gaffud. 1999. Indicators of good governance: Developing an index
of governance quality at the LGU level. Philippine Institute of
Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 99-04.
Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Mani, Devyani. 2005. Strengthening decentralized governance for

human security. Paper presented at the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs-United Nations
Centre for Regional Development (UNDESA-UNCRD)
Workshop on Decentralization, Poverty Reduction,
Empowerment, and Participation as Part of the International
Conference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, Australia.
Nef, Jorge. 1995. Human security and mutual vulnerability.

Quoted in George Maclean, Instituting and projecting human
security: A Canadian perspective (Australian Journal of
International Affairs 54:3, 2000) 269-276 and in the Human
Security Report: A proposal (The 4th Ministerial Meeting of the
Human Security Network, Santiago, Chile, 2002).
Official website of the Action for Economic Reforms.

http://www.aer.ph/
Official website of the Human Development Report.

http://hdr.undp.org/
Official website of Vision of Humanity for the Global Peace Index.

h t tp: //w ww.v isi on o fh u man ity .c o m/in tro du c tio n /
index.php/
Official website of the Local Poverty Alleviation Program.

http://www.evis.net.ph/~lpap/primer/page01.htm/
Official website of the International Sustainability Indicators

Network. http://www.sustainabilityindicators.org/
workgroups/NIC/PreMeetingMaterials.html/
Official website of Transparent Accountable Governance.

http://www.tag.org.ph/
Ogata, Sadako, and Johan Cels. 2003. Human security—protecting

and empowering the people. Global Governance 9 (3): 273.
Owen, Taylor. 2002. Body count: Rationale and methodologies

for measuring human security. Human Security Bulletin 1 (3)
(October).
_____. 2003. Measuring human security: A new view of

Cambodian vulnerability. MA thesis, Geography Department,
University of British Columbia.
_____. 2004a. Challenges and opportunities for defining and

measuring human security. Disarmament Forum 2 (June).
_____. 2004b. Human security—conflict, critique and consensus:

Colloquium remarks and a proposal for a threshold-based
definition. Security Dialogue 35 (3): 373-87.
Paris, Roland. 2001. Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air?

International Security 26 (2): 87-102.
Philippine Human Rights Information Center. 2002. Economic, social

and cultural rights: The grassroots’ view: ESC rights standards and
indicators setting project phase II. Quezon City: Philippine Human
Rights Information Center.
Reed, Laura, and Majid Tehranian. 1999. Evolving security

regimes. Quoted in Roland Paris, Human security: Paradigm
shift or hot air? (International Security 26 [2], 2001), 87-102.
Rothschild, Emma. 1995. What is security? Daedalus 124 (3): 53-98.
Speth, James Gustave. 1994. New dimensions of human security:

The human development report. Quoted in George Maclean,
Instituting and projecting human security: A Canadian perspective
(Australian Journal of International Affairs 54:3, 2000) 269-
276.
Talisayon, Serafin. n.d. The framework of national security.
The Economist. 2007. Ranking countries by “peacefulness.” May 31,

2007.
Third World Studies Center (TWSC). 2007. Defining the human

security framework in the Philippine context: Proceedings of the Third
World Studies Center Policy Dialogue Series 2006. Quezon City:
Philippines.
Thomas, Caroline. 2000. Global governance, development, and

human security the challenge of poverty and inequality.
Quoted in Sabina Alkire, A conceptual framework for human
security (University of Oxford: Center for Research on
Inequality, Human Security, Ethnicity, 2000) and in Roland
Paris, Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air? (International

Security 26 [2]: 87-102).
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2003. Latvia

human development report. http://www.undp.lv/
?object_id=633/ (accessed June 27, 2007).
_____. 2006. Analytical tools for human development. Human

Development Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vision of Humanity. 2007. Peace and sustainability: Cornerstones

to survival in the 21st century. Discussion Paper for the Global
peace index. Australia.
Weigert, Kathleen Maas. 1999. Structural violence. Encyclopedia of

Violence, Peace, and Conflict 3: 431-440.
Yuen Foong Khong. 2001. Human security: A shotgun approach

to alleviating human misery? Global Governance 7 (3): 231-236.
Zohir, Sajjad. 2006. Social development and human security: Issues

and perspectives. Human Resource Development Network.
Human Security Perspectives from Above/Cabilo, Baviera & Delias 89
Chapter Three
HUMAN SECURITY PERSPECTIVES

FROM ABOVE:
RESULTS OF THE KEY INFORMANT
INTERVIEWS

The key informant interviews (KIIs) conducted by the

project team sought to draw the perspectives of lawmakers,
key policy makers, members of the academe, and
representatives from nongovernment organizations (NGOs).
It was a means to present the perception of key actors who
can shape the policy landscape and inform the prospects of
mainstreaming human security. The KIIs attempted to enjoin
the participation of the various national government agencies
through their representatives, which include the core security
actors, specifically the military and police, and other civilian
agencies to get a general picture of how human security is
understood and embedded in national policies. Representatives
of relevant committees in the legislature were also invited to
take part in the study, particularly those with jurisdiction on
matters relating to security and human security, using the
definition taken from the University of the Philippines Third
World Studies Center (UP TWSC) Policy Dialogue Series 2006
entitled “Towards a Human Security Framework.”
The attempt to be exhaustive, however, proved to be

challenging with majority of the target respondents declining
to participate in the exercise. In most instances, heads of
national government agencies or their representatives were
too busy to grant the request for an interview. Some, however,
such as the Department of Justice and the Office of Senator
Juan Ponce Enrile expressed interest in participating in the
exercise but were not able to do so because of schedule

limitations. Notably, representatives from the military,
particularly the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), agreed
to two interviews. Other agencies from the so-called security
sector,1 however, were not as obliging. In most cases, attempts
to set up an interview appointment were hindered by the
bureaucratic process. The duration allotted for the interviews
from September 2007 to December 2007 was not able to
accommodate the tedious process the interview request was
subjected to. Despite these limitations, the research team
interviewed twenty-three respondents: seven from national
government agencies, three from the legislature, eight from
nongovernment organizations and media groups, and five
from the academe2 (see Table 3.1 for the detailed list of key
informants).
The same set of guide questions was used for all

respondents. The interview focused on the respondents’ ideas
of security in general and in the process, their identification of
threats to the various dimensions of human security.
Respondents were also asked to pinpoint the sources of these
threats, as well as policies and mechanisms that need to be
installed to promote and protect human security with respect
to their mandate. With the passage of the anti-terrorism bill
known as the “Human Security Act of 2007,” reference to the
new law was deliberately kept at a minimum unless the
respondents mentioned it, so as not to deviate from the stated
objective of the interview, which was to elicit an understanding
of human security from the perspective of key government
agencies, NGOs, and academic institutions.
Concepts of Security and Human Security
There are still two prevailing concepts of security among

the respondents: that of the state-centric versus people-centered
definition. Those from the so-called security sector view human
security as an intrinsic component of national security and
define human security as the protection of one of the
components of the state—the people.
Table 3.1 Key informants

Nongovernment
National
Organizations
Government Legislature Academe
and Media
Agencies
Groups
Commissioner Sen. Rodolfo Mr. Wilnor Papa Dr. Jasmin Nario
Jannette Serrano Biazon Coordinator Galace
National Chair Amnesty Center for Peace
Commission for Committee on International- Education
Indigenous Peoples National Defense Philippines Miriam College
and Security
Senate
Chair Purificacion Rep. Leonila Mr. Max de Mesa Dr. Mary Racelis
Quisumbing Chavez Spokesperson Institute for
Commission on Butil Partylist Citizens’ Council Philippine Culture
Human Rights Chair for Human Rights; Ateneo de Manila
Committee on Chair University
Food Security Philippine Alliance
House of for Human Rights
Representatives Advocates;
Board of Trustees
Member
Task Force
Detainees of the
Philippines
Atty. Evelyn Rep. Ana Ms. Edeliza Atty. Carlos
Dunuan Theresia Hernandez Medina
National Hontiveros- Executive Director Executive Director
Commission on the Baraquel Medical Action Ateneo Human
Role of Filipino Akbayan Partylist Group Rights Center
Women House of Ateneo de Manila
Representatives University
Sec. Esperanza Ms. Nymia Atty. Ibarra
Cabral Pimentel- Gutierrez
Department of Simbulan Institute for Human
Social Welfare and Executive Director Rights
Development Philippine Human College of Law
Rights Information University of the
Center Philippines
Diliman
Table 3.1 Key informants

Nongovernment
National
Organizations
Government Legislature Academe
and Media
Agencies
Groups
Sec. Domingo Mr. Ariel Castro Ret. Commodore
Panganiban Trade Union Carlos Agustin
National Anti- Congress of the National Defense
Poverty Philippines College
Commission of the Philippines
Col. Rey Ardo Mr. Red Batario
Office of Strategic Executive Director
Studies Center for
Armed Forces of the Community
Philippines Journalism and
Development
Col. Juanito Mr. Jose Torres
Dalmas Executive Director
Deputy Chief of National Union of
Staff for Civil Military Journalists of the
Operations, J7 Philippines
Armed Forces of the
Philippines
Ms. Resurrecion
Lao-Manalo
Executive Director
Economic, Social
and Cultural
Rights-Asia
Generally, there was a blurring of the definitions and

differentiations between security and human security. Security
was viewed in a variety of ways and the sources of threats
stemmed accordingly from the idea of security. The AFP clearly
viewed security as national security and human security as an
intrinsic component of national security. According to the
constitutional mandate of the AFP, the protection of human
welfare is one of the duties of the institution. The idea of human
security should complement and not replace the framework
of national security. Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, a former chief-of-
staff of the AFP and now serving as chair of the Senate
Committee on National Defense and Security, echoed the same
view on human security as part of the larger national (or state)
security framework. He elaborated that national security is

the protection of the state and its various elements—territory,
me people, and government—from any threat. Human security is
concerned with the protection of one of the components of the
state—the people. More specifically, human security is
odore
stin concerned with ensuring that an individual is protected from
ense physical harm that may be inflicted by criminals/terrorists,3
as well as to guarantee the people’s constitutional rights that
pines include access to resources, services, and power as represented
by political rights.
When talking about human security, the interview with

Colonels Ardo and Dalmas took a substantive turn when the
dynamics between the two concepts of security and
development were discussed. While the military’s main
responsibility is the provision of security, at times it cannot
help but perform functions that contribute to development.
Examples of the military’s developmental functions include
building schools, waterworks, and other basic services. An
important highlight is that the National Security Council cites
security, development, and governance in the national security
framework. While the developmental roles of the military can
be dismissed by some as lip service or superficial, the military
performs some basic governance functions, especially in areas
not reached by local governments. Soldiers build schools and
become teachers and engineers. These functions are built into
their training and the military is also trying to build an
institutional framework that would allow it to perform these
roles through linkages with key executive departments.
Although this might be worrying for advocates of the
separation of military and civilian functions, it cannot be denied
that in practice, executive departments such as the
Department of Health and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources regularly contact the military for help
in their projects. This may be because the personnel and
resources of the military are easier to mobilize and put to use.
The AFP respondents stressed, however, that the military only
performs a support role to lead agencies that were chiefly
responsible for various projects.
On the other hand, NGO and party-list representatives,

other nonsecurity government agencies, and members of the
academe offered a vastly different outlook from the traditional
notion of security. Interviewees from this group recognized
the evolving context and nature of security issues, especially
in terms of the need to broaden the understanding and scope
of these issues from a primarily military concern to a more
people-oriented issue. In particular, there is an emphasis on
the necessity of the interlinked rights-based approach to human
security in order to ensure the people’s right to an acceptable
quality of life at the minimum. Human security is equated with
upholding human rights that include civil and political rights
as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. Akbayan Rep.
Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel, however, noted that the
idea of human security presents an alternative that challenges
traditional notions of national security.
Members of human rights organizations, as well as national

government agencies (National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples, National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women,
and the Commission on Human Rights) asserted that they view
human security through the lens of human rights. The
perspectives of the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights-Asia
and the Institute of Human Rights of the UP College of Law
are very similar—that security can be viewed as the fulfillment
and realization of basic entitlements. These entitlements are
accessed, claimed, and availed, instead of merely being
provided by the state and other actors, as their resources would
permit. As opposed to needs that can be satisfied, they use the
framework of entitlements that should be met and of the
obligations of the state toward the fulfillment of these
entitlements.
To differentiate human security from human rights, the

latter is composed of inherent, fundamental rights in people,
which therefore do not need legislation, while legislations
embody the mechanisms and processes by which human
security is enhanced. The purpose of laws on human rights is
to codify the obligation of the state to respect, protect, and
fulfill its commitments to international treaties. Human
security, on the other hand, is based on the combination of

civil and political rights, and economic, social, and cultural
rights. It is a concept to describe the process of striking a balance
between individual and community security.
Threa t s, So urces o f Th rea t s, a nd t he Va rio us

Dimensions of Human Security
Respondents have identified several crucial threats that

affect the various dimensions of human security, which they
consider as crucial. The security sector highlighted armed
insurgency, territorial disputes, transnational crime, and
international terrorism committed by nonstate armed actors
as threats to the sovereignty of the state, as well as to public
safety (personal security). The proliferation of small arms is
also identified as a threat to the personal and political security
of individuals and communities. Both state instrumentalities
and nonstate armed groups are seen as contributing to the
growing concern on small arms proliferation. Another related
threat is the lack of reform in the police and the military sectors,
which threatens political and personal security. Poverty,
resulting from the failure of the state to provide for the basic
needs of its people, threatens the economic, food, and health
security of individuals and communities. The threat of poverty
is exacerbated by political bickering among politicians (local
and national levels) and the different political movement actors.
Another threat identified is “development aggression” resulting
from the state’s economic policies, as well as the incursion of
multinational companies in local communities, which threaten
the traditional economic systems, health, environmental, and
personal security in local communities. Finally, social and
cultural conditions are seen as a source of personal and political
insecurity with the violation of the rights of women and
indigenous people’s communities.
However, there is still a significant articulation of

traditional security issues such as terrorism, crimes, the New
People’s Army, Moro groups, and small leftist groups that
contribute to a “volatile political situation” and these comprise
the present major security concern. This view is tempered,

however, by an awareness among most interviewees of the
more comprehensive scope of human security, often related to
human rights (again, reaffirmations of the necessity of the
human rights approach, as well as recognition of the causes
and factors of security issues, such as poverty).
Equally important is the emphasis on the multi-faceted

nature of the threats to human security and its sources. Internal
and external sources of threats have been identified. In
particular, within the Philippines, there are actors that threaten
human security, like non-state actors, e.g., armed groups, who
are responsible for creating violent situations and insecurities,
and who also commit human rights violations. Some
respondents saw the state and its actions as human rights
threats and abuses. For example, the Human Security Act is
seen as a major security issue. External actors, such as other
states and multinational corporations, have been identified as
sources of threat. According to one interviewee, the
government’s relationship with other countries, like the United
States, creates vulnerabilities for the Philippines. The Visiting
Forces Agreement is used as an example that would act as a
magnet for America’s enemies to attack the Philippines.
Another external source of threats are the agenda of
multinational companies, for example, in mining that
undermine the security of people, and the very nature of
“development” introduced by these companies are questioned.
Table 3.2 below summarizes human security threats and

their sources as identified by the respondents. The respondents
identified six major threats that affect the various dimensions
of human security. For instance, the threat of aggression as a
result of the implementation of development projects affects
economic, personal, health, and environmental security. The
state, while it is seen as a key actor in mitigating threats to
human security, is identified as a source of this threat resulting
from its economic policies, along with multinational companies
who are supposed to improve economic conditions in their
areas of operation. The threat of armed insurgency and small
arms proliferation, on the other hand, are threats that come
from both state instrumentalities and nonstate armed groups,
Table 3.2 Summary of responses on threats and sources of

threats
Threats Sources Dimensions
Development aggression State’s economic policies, Economic, health,

multinational companies personal, environmental
Armed insurgency, small State instrumentalities Economic, personal

arms proliferation (military and police) and
nonstate armed groups
(NPA, MILF, etc.)
Territorial disputes, Nonstate armed groups Personal (public safety)
transnational crime,
international terrorism
Lack of reform in the State (military and the Personal, political
security sector resulting police)
to restiveness among
junior officers
Poverty Failure of the state to Economic, food, health
provide for the basic
needs of its people;
political bickering among
politicians, as well as
political movement actors
Violation of the rights of Social and cultural Personal, political
women and indigenous conditions
people’s communities
which put the economic and personal security of individuals

and communities in a precarious position. Other threats and
their corresponding sources include territorial disputes,
transnational crime, and international terrorism; poverty; the
violation of rights of women and indigenous people’s
communities; and the lack of reform in the security sector. It
must be noted that the state is singled out in most cases as the
source of threats to various dimensions of human security.
Role of State and Non-State Actors
Across all respondents, there is a consensus about the

central role of the state in enhancing or undermining, in aiding
or abetting the extent by which human security is promoted
and protected. The interviewees generally agreed that it is
mainly the state’s responsibility to provide human security.
However, some interviewees contended that due to the failures
of the state in assuming this responsibility, the private sector
and civil society organizations should also be involved. Non-
state actors, specifically NGOs and people’s organizations, are
also seen as facilitators in communities when there is a threat
to individual and community security in the absence of the
state. The academe’s role is seen as challenging the existing
paradigm that provides the framework for policies that
undermine human security. Moreover, all respondents agreed
that engagement, dialogue, and collaboration should be
continued in response to threats to human security.
Policies and Programs to Address Threats
When it comes to identifying the policies and mechanisms

to address human security threats, there is a tendency to focus
only on one dimension of human security, depending on the
mandate and advocacy of the organization. Other mechanisms
identified include advocacy for representation, education to
foster understanding among different cultures, and
strengthening check-and-balance mechanisms, which is crucial
when there is a failure in institutions and processes.
Engagement, dialogue, and collaboration remain to be
important mechanisms to promote and protect human security.
Among the specific measures provided by the respondents
include:
(1) Formulation of enabling and domestic laws to further

enhance rights (e.g., in support of international human
rights treaties) and advocacies for specific sectors;
(2) Strict implementation of existing human security-related
policies;
(3) Review of policies, especially in terms of their

implementation and impact on people (e.g., the Human
Security Act);
(4) Monitoring of human rights and government
compliance to international laws, such as the
International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);
(5) Education and information dissemination, especially
about human rights; and
(6) Genuine participation and sincere dialogues among
stakeholders.
The concept of human security largely determines the

responses of various actors on human security issues.
Specifically, viewing human security as a function of human
rights necessitates long-term and strategic solutions to problems
such as changes in economic, social, political, and cultural
paradigms. For the military, its specific programs that address
human security concerns are expressed through its support of
the programs of various government agencies such as the
Department of Health, Office of the Presidential Adviser on
the Peace Process, the Department of Education, Department
of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. The National Development Plan of
1999-2000 cites the integration of security and development
work in the AFP. There are also initiatives to analyze the
capability of the AFP in performing such functions.
The perspective of human security in terms of emergency

response, on the other hand, takes a shorter timeframe to
respond to the immediate needs of people. In this case, the
concern for immediate response is to provide temporary relief
to prevent further loss of life.
Notes
1
These include the Department of National Defense, Department
of Interior and Local Government, National Security Council, and
the Philippine National Police.
2
These groupings are based on current/official affiliation.
However, some of the respondents may have overlapping
affiliations, e.g., four members of the academe are also active in
several nongovernment groupings with human rights-related
advocacies. Two respondents, Senator Biazon and Ret.
Commodore Agustin, obviously were from the military before
assuming their current posts.
3
While Senator Biazon admits that there is no universally accepted
definition of terrorism, he defines terrorists as those who have
disregard for the lives of victims to advance political, ideological,
and religious interests.
Views from Marginalized Groups/Atienza 101
Chapter Four
VIEWS FROM MARGINALIZED GROUPS:

FINDINGS FROM THE FOCUS GROUP
DISCUSSIONS1
The purpose of the focus group discussions (FGDs) was to

draw the views of various sectors, particularly marginalized
groups, regarding their sense of security, critical and pervasive
threats, indicators of various dimensions of human security,
and conditions in which human security could exist (see FGD
guide, Appendix 3). The project conducted eight FGDs in the
survey areas. The details of the FGDs are in the table below.
As mentioned in chapter one, the FGDs were designed for

two purposes. The first is to generate qualitative though limited
data that could be used to compare and validate quantitative
Table 4.1 FGD profiles

Number of
Province Date Location Composition
Participants
Metro Manila Nov. 21, 2007 Quezon City Urban poor from
various parts of 4
Metro Manila
Cagayan Feb. 20, 2008 Tuguegarao Indigenous
Province City people from
8
various parts of
Cagayan
Albay Feb. 13, 2008 Daraga City College students
mostly from poor
families and 8
different areas in
Albay
Negros Feb. 5, 2008 Bacolod City Representatives
Occidental from farming
communities in 6
Negros
Occidental
Table 4.1 FGD profiles

Number of
Province Date Location Composition
Participants
Western Feb. 22, 2008 Catbalogan Women from
Samar City various sectors
9
in Catbalogan
City
Surigao del Sur Feb. 2, 2008 Bislig City Indigenous
people from 5
Bislig City
North Cotabato Feb. 12, 2008 Kidapawan Farmers from
City Barangay
6
Linangkob,
Kidapawan City
Sulu Feb. 27, 2008 Jolo Fisherfolks 7
data gathered from the surveys. The second purpose is to ensure

that the viewpoints of select marginalized groups on human
security are represented in the research. Are their human
security concerns and notions of human security similar or
different from those of government and nongovernment
organizations (represented by data from the key informant
interviews) and household respondents of the survey?
Time, budget, and practical research constraints prevented

the project from conducting more than one FGD per province,
as well as purposely selecting marginalized groups as
respondents in the survey. Thus, each FGD conducted is not
representative of the views of the people per province. Instead,
they are snapshots or anecdotal evidence of human security
perspectives and concerns of people who attended the FGDs
and are members of specific marginalized groups. Yet, these
data may provide a good starting point for a more exhaustive
and focused research in the future on human security
incorporating the views “from the margins” of society. The
research team believes that since human security is supposed
to address critical and pervasive threats to individuals and
communities, it is important to listen to the views of people
who are often neglected in the discourse on human security.
Sense of Security, Major Concerns, and Sources of

Security Threats
There was . . . a time when I asked help from them [the army]
because we were continually harassed by PICOP [a paper
company] due to some land dispute resulting to alleged
unaccounted deaths of countless Lumads. But the army and
government agencies concerned did not even help us. They
refused to provide protection.(translation)
- Surigao del Sur FGD Male participant,
Mandaya
The mining company uses the military or the police to resolve

conflicts between the company and local residents. In the face
of this, some local people might be forced to either arm
themselves or to link up with nonstate armed groups as a
strategy to balance the power equation in light of their issues
against the mining company. (translation)
- Negros Occidental FGD participant
Most FGD participants in all sites, except in Cagayan

Province, said that they did not feel secure as individuals. In
the case of the Albay FGD, some participants said that while
they did not feel secure as individuals, they at least felt secure
within their own families. In the all-women Western Samar
FGD, most participants answered that they were not secure;
though some said that they were secure because of their
husbands, families, and faith in God. In the North Cotabato
FGD, while participants were generally not secure, they were
at least physically secure because there was relative peace and
order in the community now. They were no longer affected by
armed conflicts.2
The top three issues that caused the participants the most
concern in the past year, i.e., 2007 to early 2008, and the general
categories of issues, ranked according to the frequency of being
mentioned, were as follows:
(1) Economic and financial issues;

(2) Environmental issues (degradation and calamities due
to natural and man-made causes);

(3) Political issues; and
(4) Health and sanitation issues.
Economic and financial issues topped the list of issues that

FGD participants identified as causing the most concern in
their lives. These included unstable livelihood or employment,
difficulties in sending children to school, increasing cost of
goods and rising fuel prices, failure to pay land taxes in the
case of FGD participants in Negros Occidental, and lack of
farm-to-market roads and other problems of accessibility in
remote areas in Albay and Western Samar. In certain cases,
companies were the source of financial worries, i.e., mining
companies in Negros Occidental and, Paper Industries
Corporation of the Philippines or PICOP Resources, Inc.,,3 a
major paper company in Surigao del Sur.
Environmental issues ranked second place. Environmental

degradation was mentioned in the Albay, Negros Occidental,
Surigao del Sur, and Sulu FGDs. Identified as culprits are big
companies like Colet Mining (Negros Occidental) and Lafayette
Philippines, Inc. 4 (Rapu-rapu, Albay), as well as harmful
practices like dynamite fishing, improper waste disposal of
households and piggeries, and logging. Natural calamities were
mentioned in the FGDs in Albay, Western Samar, and Sulu
particularly due to the geographic location of certain
communities. In Albay and Sulu, natural calamities like floods,
volcanic eruptions, landslide, and typhoon were the foremost
concerns of FGD participants. Man-made calamities caused
by mining in Negros Occidental, as well as illegal logging and
deforestation, were also noted by the participants.
Political issues ranked third and these included corruption

and abuse of power (Metro Manila), patronage (Cagayan
Province), the government’s lack of political will or inability to
intervene in illegal or harmful activities of some large
companies (Surigao), changes in local administration after
elections that affect employment in the local government
(Western Samar), and the assignment of then Maj. Gen. Jovito
Palparan 5 in the area (Western Samar). However, some
participants in the Western Samar FGD said that Palparan’s

presence could actually limit or deter vices and crimes in the
area.
A fourth set of issues involved health and sanitation. FGD

participants in Cagayan Province, Albay, and Sulu mentioned
illnesses and diseases caused by extreme weather conditions,
natural disasters, and mining activities.
Some other issues cited were specific to the areas. In the

Albay and Surigao FGDs, participants referred to the increasing
number of migrants as a cause for concern. Albay and Sulu
participants noted the presence of vices and crimes.
Interestingly, only FGD participants from Albay mentioned
the presence of the New People’s Army (NPA) as one of their
top three issues of concern in the past year. Other issues
included food shortage after typhoons (Albay), pests that
threaten agricultural production (Western Samar), and
fertilizers that are costly and potentially harmful (Western
Samar and North Cotabato). All these concerns were
considered threats to the security of the participants in the
eight FGDs.
When asked about the sources of the security threats, the

FGD participants listed the following:
(1) Political sources: politicians (Metro Manila and Sulu),

government’s inability to intervene when a particular
group is causing these threats, different priorities of
government like allowing certain companies to operate
in a particular locality and not addressing the threats
to the people (Negros Occidental and Sulu), changes in
local administration (Western Samar), and political
conflicts (Sulu);
(2) Economic sources: poverty (Metro Manila and Albay),
powerful and abusive companies (Negros Occidental
and Surigao del Sur), and manipulative traders (North
Cotabato);
(3) Illegal logging (Albay and Sulu);
(4) Natural environment, i.e., calamities, pests, and
geographic location (Albay and Western Samar);

(5) Improper waste disposal (Albay);
(6) Military operations affecting civilians (Sulu); and
(7) Lawless elements (Sulu).
Different Categories of Threats
A lot of changes happened that caused us to suffer. In the

presence of PICOP and the coal mining industry, the lives of
tribes are threatened. These big industries had control over our
properties and wealth. They have no respect for us . . . and sad
to say, they were tolerated since they have connections. They
are partners in destruction. (translation)
- Surigao del Sur FGD Female participant
The threat that I consider the most is the presence of the New
People’s Army in our place because when night time comes,
the people in our place are already inside their respective houses
because everyone is afraid that these “nice” people might pass
by. (translation)
- Albay FGD Female participant
College student
Regarding the different types of threats, the FGD

participants gave different answers to what they consider as
short-term threats. Most of the answers are generally based on
the composition of the FGD participants and the profile of their
communities. Composed of indigenous peoples (IPs),
participants from the Cagayan Province and Surigao del Sur
FGDs mentioned discrimination against or nonrecognition of
the rights of IPs as a short-term threat. The urban poor
participants in the Metro Manila FGD mentioned sidewalk
clearing operations of the Metro Manila Development
Authority that disrupt their livelihood and the absence of unity
among vendors as threats. Albay FGD participants pointed
out high transportation costs, difficulties in reaching the town
proper, as well as improper garbage disposal. Negros
Occidental FGD participants identified food insecurity as a
result of mining. Surigao del Sur FGD participants also
mentioned the nonimplementation of laws and lack of political
will on the part of government and the military to protect the

people. In North Cotabato, farmers pointed out pests and skin
diseases caused by use of fertilizers. Meanwhile, FGD
participants in Sulu mentioned financial difficulties due to
unstable sources of livelihood.
As for long-term threats, economic difficulties topped the

list of threats mentioned. Participants in the FGDs (with the
exception of Western Samar and Sulu) considered economic
hardships as long-term threats. Again, it is only in the Albay
FGD where NPA presence or presence of an armed threat to
the state was considered a long-term threat. Threats considered
long term are as follows:
(1) Economic difficulties;

(2) Presence of businesses harmful to the communities, i.e.,
mining companies in Albay and Negros Occidental,
PICOP in Surigao del Sur, and traders manipulating
prices of goods in North Cotabato;
(3) Dismal state of politics (Metro Manila and Cagayan
Province);
(4) Environmental concerns (Albay, Negros Occidental,
and North Cotabato) and natural calamities (Sulu);
(5) Demolition of squatter settlements (Metro Manila);
(6) Food insecurity (Negros Occidental);
(7) Health risks of fertilizers (North Cotabato);
(8) NPA presence (Albay); and
(9) Vices (Sulu).
For severe threats, economic difficulties once again topped

the list followed by natural and manmade environmental
concerns. The full list of severe threats mentioned by the FGD
participants is as follows:
(1) Economic difficulties (Cagayan Province, Albay, Metro

Manila, Negros Occidental, North Cotabato, and Sulu);
(2) Natural disasters/calamities, as well as geographic and
climate-related problems (Cagayan Province, Albay,
and Sulu);
(3) Manmade environmental threats (Albay and Negros
Occidental);
(4) Presence of NPA and other peace-and-order problems
(Albay and Sulu);
(5) Threats or discrimination against IPs (Cagayan
Province);
(6) Hunger (Negros Occidental); and
(7) Presence of a paper company considered as a source
of environmental problems (Surigao del Sur).
For what participants considered as critical threats that

impact core activities and functions, the most common answers
include: (1) poverty and other financial difficulties (Cagayan
Province, Albay, Metro Manila); (2) mining-related activities
(Albay and Negros Occidental); and (3) health and sanitation
problems (Cagayan Province and Albay). Other answers
include politics (Cagayan Province), floods (Sulu), and military
operations against lawless groups (Sulu).
For pervasive threats or those that are large-scale or recurrent

dangers, Albay and Sulu participants both identified floods
and other natural calamities. In the Surigao del Sur FGD, the
participants pointed out drug addiction of young people. In
Albay, participants identified financial problems and poverty,
mining, and health problems. In North Cotabato, FGD
participants complained about traders who buy their
agricultural products at low prices and then sell them at very
high prices. In Sulu, FGD participants pointed out kidnappings
and illegal vices.
For the question Why do you think it is necessary to be

protected from these threats?, some of the FGD participants
answered that it is the people’s right to be protected. They
have a right to a better life with no worries. The future must
also be secure for their children. In Albay, some of the
participants answered that if they are protected from these
threats, they can make a better contribution to national
development. In the Sulu FGD, meanwhile, the answer is basic:
they need to be protected particularly from floods so that
fisherfolks and children can resume their regular activities
without interruptions.
It must be noted that participants considered economic

threats to be the most important, followed by natural calamities
and other environmental disasters. Some of the sites mentioned
insurgency-related, as well as peace-and-order problems, but
they did not top the list of threats.
Specific Indicators of Human Security
Ang problema naming mga Agta, hindi kami makapag-aral

kasi, kulang sa pambayad . . . Yung kita namin sa araw na ito,
husto lang para din sa araw na ito. Bukas, maghahanap ka
ulit para sa pagkain mo bukas. Kaya yung mga bata, hindi rin
namin mapag-aral. [Our problem is not being able to get an
education because we do not have the money . . . our daily
wages are just enough for the day. You find a way to feed
yourself the next day. That is why we don’t send our children
to school]. (translation)
- Cagayan Province FGD Male participant
Agta, Tuguegarao
Opinion lang ito ni Mama . . . Kahit i-deny daw ng DENR

na walang food poisoning or walang chemical leakage (because
of Lafayette Mining), meron daw. Di pa rin po kami pinapakain
ni Mama ng isda. [This is just my mother’s opinion . . . Even if
DENR denies that there is food poisoning or that there is
chemical leakage (because of Lafayette Mining), some say there
is (food poisoning and chemical leakage). My mother still does
not feed us with fish.] (translation)
- Albay FGD Male participant
College student, Rapu-rapu Island
Corruption is still present. What we want to happen is for

government to help us. They must not always favor PICOP. It
seems we lost our freedom of expression. (translation)
- Surigao del Sur FGD Male participant
Chieftain, Kamayo-Mandaya
For the third part of the FGDs, participants were asked to

identify specific indicators of human security by asking them
about what they consider as threats in relation to the seven

specific dimensions of human security. While most participants
answered in terms of threats, a few of them also identified
positive indicators of human security along the various
dimensions. Some of the threats identified are applicable or
common in many areas while some are very specific to the
FGD sites and participants. Their answers appear in Table 4.2.
Most FGD participants, based on their answers, have clear

ideas about threats to certain dimensions of security. They are
able to distinguish between threats to themselves and their families,
on the one hand, and threats to their community, on the other.
Sometimes, however, their answers clearly show overlaps of
threats across several dimensions or linkages of certain dimensions
of human security to other dimensions. For instance, economic
security is related to food security. Economic difficulties can affect
one’s ability to buy rice and other food products. Declining
Table 4.2 Indicators of human security according to FGD

participants
Dimensions of Human
Threat Indicators Positive Indicators
Security
Economic Security General:
1. Loss of livelihood, e.g.,
agriculture, or
destruction of sources
of livelihood
2. Lack of livelihood
opportunities or
alternatives to original
livelihood
3. Unstable livelihood
4. Financial difficulties to
sustain children’s
education
5. Rising prices of basic
commodities and
gasoline
6. Occasional sickness
that drain families’
financial resources
7. Lack of capital
8. Vicious cycle of
indebtedness

participants
Dimensions of Human
Security
Environmental Security Man-made threats:
1. Road widening and
construction that cut
into mountains
2. Illegal logging and
rampant cutting of
trees
3. Absence of
reforestation
programs leading to
denuded forests
4. Dynamite fishing
5. Blasting of rocks due
to mining that might
cause landslides
6. Acid mine drainage
and heavy metal
contamination of soil
and bodies of water
7. Destruction of the
natural habitat of
fauna endemic in the
area
8. Loss of endemic flora
due to mining
activities
9. Reduced or no water
sources due to
mining
10. Pollution
11. Lack of water
treatment system
12. Inability of
government to
implement
environmental laws

participants
Dimensions of Human
Security
Health Security 1. Having serious illness 1. Easy access to health
2. Malnutrition among centers
children 2. Good health facilities
3. Floods and other 3. Free or affordable
natural disasters medical services
causing diseases 4. Regular health outreach
4. Unsafe, contaminated programs in the area
drinking waters 5. Adequate supply of free
5. Polluted air and water or affordable medicines,
6. Poor sanitation and e.g., Botika sa
improper garbage Barangay
disposal leading to
diseases
7. No hospitals or health
centers in immediate
area
8. Expensive private
clinics and hospitals
9. Poorly equipped
hospital facilities
10. Limited or no supply of
free and/or cheap
medicines, especially
vitamins and vaccines
for children in health
centers
11. Expensive medicines
12. Discrimination and
patronage system in
obtaining the services
of government
hospitals
13. Limited skills of
doctors, nurses, and
other personnel in
public facilities
14. Increasing population

participants
Dimensions of Human
Security
Personal Security 1. Suspicion or biases 1. No incidence of
of government and physical violence
others, e.g.,
employers, against
those who are
members of
“progressive” or
“leftist” organizations
2. Being labeled by the
military and local
governments as
NPA sympathizers
or legal fronts of
insurgency simply
on the basis of one’s
resistance to the
entry of certain
companies, e.g.,
mining
3. Threats/harassment
due to one’s political
affiliation during
campaigns and
elections
4. Physical aggression
or criminal acts like
sexual harassment,
kidnappings, and
hold-ups
5. Presence of
intoxicated people at
night
6. Drug addiction
agricultural production and fish catch can definitely affect food

supply. Environmental security is related to health security.
Natural disasters like floods, as well as man-made disasters like
chemical spills in rivers and seas, lead to health risks and sickness.
Changing weather patterns or climate change can also affect
agricultural productivity, livelihood, and food security. In
addition, some threats to community, personal, and political
security mentioned by the participants overlap with each other.
The interconnectedness of the threats in various dimensions

of human security support the 2005 Philippine Human Development
Report’s (PHDR) observation that one form of threat do not arise
separately and cannot simply be highlighted on its own or solved
separately (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005). As the PHDR stated,
“one form of insecurity leads to another,” creating a cycle of
human insecurity (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005, 2). As some of
the FGD participants from Negros Occidental asserted, the
growing insecurity of farming communities with respect to their
livelihood in the presence of a mining company may lead some to
take up arms when no peaceful alternative is in sight. Similarly,
natural calamities, as in the case of some Albay and Sulu residents,
have been the cause of drastic disruption of social and economic
activities, psychological trauma, and collective insecurity.
Kagaya nyan, yung mga fields na mababa lang, palaging under

water. So, we as farmers are spending much lalo na yung binibili
mo ang . . . certified seeds, then fertilizer, then maa-under water
. . . Malaking gastos. [Our fields are always under water. So, we
as farmers are spending much especially in buying . . . certified
seeds, then fertilizer, only for our plants to go under water.]
(translation)
- Cagayan Province FGD Female participant
Tuguegarao
Sa economic po, hindi po talaga kami secure being in the

relocation site which is 13.5 kilometers from the town.
Nahihirapan po talaga kami sa livelihood programs. [Being in
a relocation site 13.5 kilometers away from town, we are not
really secure in economic terms. The livelihood program is
very difficult for us.] (translation)
- Albay FGD Male participant
College student, Daraga
Paano namin maaalagaan ang mga anak naming nag-aaral

kung ang iniisip namin ay yung lupa? Kasi, sa amin yon. Sa
mga Agta ang lupa. Wala sanang umagaw na Kristyano para
mai-concentrate namin ang buhay namin, para maalagaan
namin ang mga anak namin. [How can we take care of our
children who are in school when our primary concern is the
land? The land is ours. The Agta owns the land. The Christians
shouldn’t occupy the land so that we can focus on our lives
and take care of our children.] (translation)
-Cagayan Province FGD Female participant
Agta, Tuguegarao
Addressing Human Security Threats and Improving

Human Security
For me, personal ang pagdadasal . . . I am not only praying for

my direct na pamilya . . . lahat ng mga tao . . . pati outside the
Philippines pinagdadasal ko na . . . they will be protected from
different calamities, especially in Taiwan. Palagi daw
lumilindol doon. [For me, prayer is personal . . . I am not only
praying for my family . . . but for all people as well . . . I pray
even for those outside the Philippines . . . to be protected from
different calamities, especially in Taiwan. Earthquakes often
occur there. One of my daughters is working in Taiwan.]
(translation)
Tuguegarao
Sa calamity . . . kailangang handa ka. Kahit na dasal ka ng

dasal, hindi ka naman handa . . . Ipaghanda mo yan. [One
should be prepared in times of calamities. Even if you often
pray yet you are not prepared . . . You should prepare for that.]
(translation)
Tuguegarao
Wag tayo umasa sa gobyerno. Wag nating asahan yung mga

dole-outs. Siguro, work tayo for our own. [We should not rely
on government. We should not rely on dole-outs. We should
work for our own.] (translation)
- Cagayan Province FGD Female participant
Tuguegarao
FGD participants were asked about what can be done to

mitigate the threats they had identified. The most common
answers are the following (according to frequency mentioned):
(1) Proper and balanced information drive and awareness
campaigns about these threats;
(2) Being more disciplined, particularly self-discipline and
personal development;
(3) Prayers; and
(4) Strict and consistent implementation of laws.
Other answers include the following:
(1) Proper planning;

(2) Focusing on poverty alleviation, like provision of sound
economic and employment opportunities;
(3) Fair and merit-based hiring and job placements;
(4) Disaster management and preparedness;
(5) Eradicating corruption;
(6) Open communication and cooperation between the
people and government;
(7) Making use of local government units (LGUs) and
processes like barangay and purok (neighborhood)
assemblies to protect the interests of the people;
(8) Achieving consensus among residents regarding
threats, e.g., mining;
(9) Respect and protection of people;
(10) Provision of adequate land to diversify crops; and
(11) Managing and monitoring prices of food and other
commodities.
In the Sulu FGD, there is a feeling of helplessness about

their situation. Participants feel that there is nothing more that
can be done.
When participants were asked if they think they can,

together with others, do something to prevent or mitigate the
potential threats to general security, participants in the
Cagayan Province, Albay, and Negros Occidental FGDs
answered yes. Participants in Metro Manila expressed
helplessness.
Regarding agencies or organizations that could help in

addressing their security concerns, the government is a
common answer as the primary agency in all FGD sites except
Surigao del Sur. By government, the FGD participants
mentioned, in particular, crucial agencies that deal with their
security concerns, e.g., the Department of Agriculture,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Department of Health, Department of Social Welfare and
Development, Bureau of Food and Drugs, National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples, National Disaster
Coordinating Council, National Economic and Development
Authority, etc., as well as local governments and officials (chief
executives and Sanggunian). Other common answers include
NGOs, people’s organizations, cause-oriented groups, and
party-list groups like Akbayan and Bayan Muna, as well as
academic institutions. Participants also included the Catholic
Church, Rotary Clubs and Free Masons, the Filipino-Chinese
Chamber of Commerce, network of human security advocates,
security agencies, international agencies providing assistance,
like the Organization of Islamic Conference (in the case of Sulu),
and individuals themselves (Western Samar).
As to their feeling of security during the FGDs, participants

in Metro Manila, Negros Occidental, Surigao del Sur, and Sulu
stated that they did not feel secure. In Cagayan Province, all
participants except one described themselves as more secure
than before. In Albay, the answers were mixed, depending on
the circumstances of the participants. In North Cotabato,
participants were more secure mainly due to the absence of
armed conflict at that time.6 However, the high prices of goods
remain to be a major concern.
When participants were asked about what they think

should be done to improve human security, most answers point
to the important roles of the government and the people
themselves. For the government’s part, FGD participants
pointed out the provision of livelihood opportunities, improved
performance, systemic change, giving priority to people’s
interests, recognition of people’s basic rights, good governance,
full implementation of rules and regulations, price monitoring
and regulation, and total deregulation in the planting of trees.

On the part of the people, many participants noted that self-
discipline is important. They also mentioned self-help, diligence
and initiative; instilling in children respect, fear in God and
good values; investing in education of children; people’s
participation; and unity. They also mentioned cooperation
between the people and the government. In the case of Surigao
del Sur, FGD participants suggested joint verification or
monitoring of local government, PICOP, and DENR.
Summary of FGD Findings
Based on the FGDs with marginalized sectors, most FGD

participants did not feel secure as individuals. Regarding long-
term, severe, and critical threats to human security, economic
threats remain the top concern, followed by natural calamities
and other environmental disasters. Since the provinces where
FGD participants reside are labeled as conflict areas (or have a
history of conflict), some of the participants in some sites
mentioned insurgency-related, as well as peace-and-order
problems. However, these conflict-related threats did not top
the list of threats. Participants considered all types of threats
as threats to human security.
Participants cited some sources of threats, namely political,

economic, and environmental sources of threats. Political
sources, which appeared to be the most numerous, include
politicians themselves, the perception of a weak government,
changes in local administration, and political conflicts.
Economic sources include poverty, powerful and abusive
companies, and manipulative traders. Environmental sources
include the natural environment, as well as practices like illegal
logging and improper waste disposal. Military operations and
lawless elements were also mentioned.
FGD participants have clear ideas about threats to specific

dimensions of human security. Their answers are based on
their own personal experiences or their sectoral or community
circumstances, e.g., as urban poor, members of indigenous
communities, residents of disaster-prone areas or mining areas,

relocated communities, etc. Some participants also have clear
ideas about the positive indicators of human security in its
various dimensions.
In addressing the various threats to human security, the

most common answers include: (1) proper and balanced
information drive and awareness campaigns about the threats;
(2) developing more discipline and enhancing personal
development; (3) prayers; and (4) strict and consistent
implementation of laws. Most participants think that they can
do something about the threats, though there is a feeling of
helplessness among some of the urban poor participants from
Metro Manila and fisherfolks from Sulu. National government
agencies and LGUs, civil society groups, and the people
themselves are considered important in addressing human
security concerns —they all must work together. Other
participants also mentioned the academe, church groups, and
international agencies as possible agents of change. However,
most participants considered relevant national government
agencies and local governments as having critical roles in the
process.
Notes
1
This chapter is based on transcripts and highlights of the FGD
proceedings prepared by various documenters hired by the
project. Their names are listed in Appendix 1.
2
After the FGDs and surveys were conducted, another series of
armed encounters and disturbances began in North Cotabato,
drastically changing the security situation in the area.
3
According to the official website of Bislig City, Surigao del Sur,
as well as the Vista Pinas website, PICOP is a multibillion-peso
pulp and paper mill with main operations in Bislig City. The mill
is the largest industry in the city and one of the largest paper
mills in the country. It used to be the largest paper mill in Asia.
4
Lafayette Philippines Inc. has ceased its mining operations in
the island of Rapu-Rapu, Albay after much publicized
environmental damage documented by both government and
nongovernment agencies and groups. However, mining continues

in the island with new companies managing the operations.
5
Palparan, now a retired major general and a former party-list
representative, was also the former commanding general of the
Philippine Army. He was controversial because human rights
groups and opposition groups branded him as a “butcher” due
to his long list of alleged human rights abuses in every area he
was assigned. However, former President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo promoted him several times, and in her 2006 State of the
Nation Address, Macapagal-Arroyo acknowledged Palparan for
his offensives against “rebel terrorists.”
6
This will change if the participants were asked the same question
probably two months later, when fresh fighting started in the
area.
References

security, and human development in the Philippines. Quezon City:
Official Website of the City Government of Bislig.

http://www.bislig.gov.ph/ (accessed 25 July 2009).
Official Website of Vista Pinas. http://www.vistapinas.com/

article/picop-causeway/ (accessed 25 July 2009).
Measuring Human Security/Lusterio Berja 125
Chapter Five
MEASURING HUMAN SECURITY

IN THE PHILIPPINES
Background
This study maintains the centrality of the individual in the

concept of human security. A survey in selected conflict areas
is conducted to determine the level of human security as
perceived and experienced by individuals as the referent objects.
Previous attempts to measure human security focused on

the provisions that eliminate human insecurity (i.e., health,
knowledge, safe water, electricity) since empirical evidence
shows that investments in these arenas reduce the likelihood
of armed conflict (De Dios, Santos, and Piza 2005). This study,
however attempts to incorporate the individual’s perception
about security. It argues that human security is not only about
eliminating the source of insecurity but also being able to make
choices safely and freely.
This survey seeks to develop a human security index (HSI)

that would serve as a planning and evaluation tool to guide
policy making of key government agencies and civil society
organizations. The HSI describes the scope and magnitude of
human security in the Philippine context as it incorporates
dimensions, which need to be taken into account in the process
of conflict prevention and peace building.
Specifically, its main goal is to generate data on the different

dimensions of human security, the context in which human
security exists, and the susceptibility, exposure, coping, and
adaptive capacity of individuals to threats. It will identify the
physical, social, economic, environmental, and institutional
features that either result to or prevent threats. It also aims to

construct a human security benchmark in the Philippines. The
benchmark would be from the perspective of individuals in
the community using an index that encapsulates human
security dimensions such as economic, food, health,
environment, personal, community or cultural, and political
security.
Geographic Scope and Sample Size
This survey includes seven provinces and two cities in Metro

Manila as study areas. These study areas include Pasay City,
Marikina City, Albay, Cagayan Province, Negros Occidental,
Western Samar, North Cotabato, Surigao del Sur, and Sulu—
selected because of their history of armed conflict. Based on
the 2005 Philippine Human Development Report, North Cotabato
and Sulu were among the top ten provinces with the highest
number of armed encounters from 1986 to 2004 involving the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) or the Moro National
Liberation Front (MNLF). Likewise, Albay, Cagayan Province,
Metro Manila, and Surigao del Sur were among the top ten
provinces with the highest number of armed encounters
involving the New People’s Army (NPA). The two provinces
in the Visayas region, Western Samar and Negros Occidental,
also have a history of armed conflict. Western Samar was in
the list of ten most vulnerable provinces by the indicator of
human insecurity as well.
Five barangays were randomly selected from each area (the

two cities in Metro Manila were treated as one area). The
sample for each area consists of 100 households selected by
systematic random sampling, with one respondent
interviewed from each household, alternating between male
and female respondents to ensure an equal distribution of
respondents by gender. The household head or the spouse of
the household head, or any responsible adult knowledgeable
about the characteristics of the household and its members,
was interviewed.
The survey started in November 2007 and completed in

January 2008, with a total of 800 face-to-face interviews. The
interview dates were:
(1) NCR: November 2007

(2) Luzon: November 2007-December 2007
(3) Visayas: November 2007-December 2007
(4) Mindanao: December 2007-January 2008
Socioeconomic and Demographic Profile of Survey

Respondents
Table 5.1 below summarizes the socioeconomic and

demographic characteristics of survey respondents.
Respondents from Metro Manila accounted for 12.5 percent;
Luzon, 25 percent; Visayas, 25 percent; and Mindanao, 37.5
percent. There are slightly more female than male respondents
(51 percent versus 49 percent). About half of the respondents
belong to the middle-aged group (30 to 49 years old); a third
belong to the older age group (50 years old and above); while
only 18 percent are in the younger age group (below 30 years
old). A large majority (80 percent) are married. There are more
rural than urban dwellers (59 percent versus 41percent). One
out of five respondents belong to a minority group—Badjao,
Bagobo, Ibanag, Itawes, Kamayo, Kamayo Maguindanaon,
Maranao, and Tandaganon.
More than one third (35 percent) of the respondents have

reached elementary level. One out of three respondents
attended high school while only 15 percent reached college.
About 58 percent of the respondents are currently employed.
Housewives account for the majority of the unemployed
respondents (60 percent). Those looking for work account for
12.5 percent and about 10 percent are retirees. The main
sources of income are wages (53 percent) and owning a
business (18 percent). The median monthly family income is
five thousand pesos.
Table 5.1 Sociodemographic profile of survey respondents

Characteristics Percent
Sex
Male 49.3
Female 50.7
N of cases (800)
Age Group
Below 25 years old 8.6
25-29 9.3
30-39 25.8
40-49 24.3
50-59 19.1
60 and above 13.0
N of cases (800)
Marital Status
Never Married 80.2
Currently married 10.7
Not currently married 9.1
N of cases (787)
Place of residence
Urban 41.5
Rural 58.5
N of cases (800)
Religion
Catholic 73.1
Protestant 6.6
Iglesia ni Cristo 1.0
Islam 14.4
Other 4.9
Percent who belong to a minority group 22.4
N of cases (796)
Ethnicity (Dialect mostly spoken at home)
Tagalog 15.6
Cebuano/Bisaya 15.9
Ilonggo/Hiligaynon 13.6
Ilocano 8.5
this study is also exploring, such as food security, health

security, economic security, personal security, environmental
security, community security, and political security. Figure 5.1
below shows the distribution of responses across the five-point
scale used.
Figure 5.1 Perceived level of threat on the different

dimensions of human security
100%
80% 5.00 Very high

4.00 High
60%
3.00 Moderate
40% 2.00 Low
20% 1.00 Very low
0%
Environmental
Community/
Economic
Personal
Security
Security
Security
Security
Security
security
security
Cultural
Political
Health
Food
Generally, the respondents rated moderately the extent of

threat to the seven human security dimensions. The perceived
threat is highest in economic security and lowest in community
security.
2. Experience of Violent Conflict in the Community
About one third of the survey respondents in all areas

reported that they have experienced violent conflict in their
community. The highest incidence is in Cagayan Valley (54
percent) and the lowest is in Albay (10 percent). More than
half of the respondents continue to experience violent conflict
up to now.
3. Perception about Community Safety
Majority of the survey respondents think that their level of

safety remained the same (77 percent). This is true in all four
study sites. Six out of ten survey respondents described their
community as safe most of the time and all the time.
4. Perception about Potential Threats to General

Security
The top three potential threats to general security that were

mentioned by the survey respondents were hunger, disease,
and environmental disasters. Other threats mentioned were
high crime rates and political instability.
5. Perception about Capability to Prevent or Mitigate

Threats to General Security
About four out of ten of the survey respondents think that

they are (or together with others) capable of preventing or
mitigating threats to general security. Sulu registered the lowest,
with only 11 percent who think that they have the capability
either to prevent or mitigate security threats.
6. Perceived Levels of Threat to Security
As shown earlier in Figure 5.1, perceived levels of security

are lowest in terms community/cultural security and political
security. Also, more than half of the respondents have low
and very low environmental and personal security.
Composite Measure for Perceived Threat to Human

Security
To determine whether an index using these indicators is a

reliable measure of the extent of threat to human security, the
reliability analysis technique is employed. The analysis yielded
a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88 which means that the index
composed of the seven indicators is an excellent composite
measure. The inter-item correlations are all above 0.33 which

implies unidimensionality or that the items represent a single
concept. Table 5.6 lists the inter-item correlations in a matrix.
Thus, the index of perceived threat to human security is

derived as the sum of the scores for each of the seven indicators.
The computational formula is:
Perceived threat score = (J5A+J5B+J5C+J5D+J5E+J5F+J5G)/35 * 100
This measure yielded an average score of 56.98 with a

standard error of 0.78. Thus, the estimated level of human
security threat at 95 percent confidence interval is 56.98 +/-
(1.96 * 0.78 = 1.5288). This means that 95 percent of the time,
the true level of threat is between the values 55.45 to 58.51.
As shown in Table 5.7, threat is highest in Negros

Occidental where the mean rating for threat is 75 percent.
Sulu registered the second highest (74 percent), and North
Cotabato, the third highest (58 percent). On the other hand,
Western Samar and Metro Manila both scored the lowest with
a 46 percent rating. The rest of the provinces—Surigao del
Sur, Cagayan Province, and Albay—all scored below the
national average.
Freedom from Want: Economic, Food, Health, and

Environmental Security
Economic Security
Consistent with the national poverty estimates, the survey

data revealed that two out of five respondents considered
themselves poor, and a large majority think that they either
remained poor or became even worse off. It seems that there is
no improvement in the condition of the poor. As shown in
Figure 5.2 below, 19.6 percent of those who were not poor
became better off than their poor counterparts (19.6 percent
versus 6.7 percent).
Table 5.7 Index of perceived threat

AREA Mean N Std. Error of Mean
Pasay & Marikina 46.4784 86 2.02026
Albay 50.5280 92 1.76693
Cagayan Province 53.4039 81 2.27746
Negros Occidental 74.6273 92 1.97779
Western Samar 46.0714 96 1.61295
North Cotabato 58.2684 99 1.57003
Surigao del Sur 53.5714 76 2.04365
Sulu 73.9964 79 1.94622
Total 56.9839 701 .77597
Figure 5.2 Perceived level of poverty
80.0
60.0
15.6
Worse off
40.0 Just the same
18.5 23.4 Better off
20.0
16.2
19.6
6.7
0.0
Poor Not poor
Aside from perceived poverty, the respondents are also

asked whether there are employment opportunities for them
locally and internationally. Only half of them think that there
are employment opportunities available for them in their
community. Fewer of the respondents (37 percent) think that
there are overseas employment opportunities for them.
Food Security
When asked if they had ever experienced food scarcity in

their barangay, about 29 percent of the respondents responded
while the rest listed earthquake, volcanic eruption, and

landslide.
When asked about other environmental problems that they

had experienced, 37.2 percent mentioned flooding. Others
considered waste disposal as their problem while 16.3 percent
reported pollution and toxic wastes from factories as their main
environmental concern.
Aside from being a direct threat to their lives, many

respondents (75 percent) think that environmental problems
affected economic activities in the community. Data revealed that
75 percent of the respondents claimed that the environmental
disaster slowed down their economic activity.
Aside from the economic repercussions, environmental

disasters also affected the health of the respondents. When asked
about access to safe drinking water, only 46 percent said that
they have access, 35.4 percent reported that they have direct piped
water connection, and 10.4 percent reported that they buy purified
water.
Freedom from Fear/Protection of Rights
Figure
Figure 5.45.4 Natural
Natural disasters
disasters experienced
experienced in in
thethe area
area
60 56.8
50
40
30
20
10 5 4.8 6.3
4.2
0
Typhoon Earthquake Volcanic eruption Landslide
Land slide Flooding
Figure 5.5 Other environmental problems

40 37.2
35
30
25 21.6
20
14.5
15
10
5 1.8
0
Pollution Flooding Toxic factory wastes Waste disposal
Personal Security
Seven percent of the respondents claimed that they were a

victim of crime in the past year but only half of these crimes
were reported. Seven percent is considered a high figure—the
national rate is only nine per 10,000 population.
Community Security
About 58 percent considered their community as generally

safe. Lack of livelihood was mentioned as the most serious
Figure 5.6 Experience of crime in the past year
3.5
Not a victim
93 7 Victim, reported
Victim, not reported
3.5
Figure 5.7 Type of crime experienced
25 Theft
20
20
Kidnapping
15
11.9
10 8.3 Property
disputes
5 2.4
Shooting
0
Question: What is the nature of the physical aggression or criminal act?
Figure 5.8 Agency to which crime was reported

100
80 Police
Military
60
50
Barangay
40 29.7
LGU
15.5
20
Public
2.4 2.4 prosecutor
0
Question: To what agency or institution did you report the crime?
security issue in the community. When asked if they had

experienced armed conflict in their locality, one out of five
respondents said yes. They also mentioned that armed conflict
made the peace-and-order situation in their locality worse (65
percent). It also caused loss of economic opportunities for
residents (51 percent). As a result of armed conflict, people
started moving out of the community—about 42 percent of the
respondents mentioned high out-migration rates as one of the
effects of armed conflict. A quarter of the respondents indicated
the death of relatives as one of the effects of armed conflict in
their area.
Data also revealed that although the effects are extensive,

the perceived level of capacity to mitigate or prevent armed
conflict in their area was low. Only three out of ten respondents
think that they are capable of preventing or mitigating
insurgency in their locality.
Political Security
Corruption, election, and insurgency are the top three

political concerns that affect the respondents. On the question
of trust in government, there is relatively higher trust on local
officials compared to national government officials.
Figure 5.9 Perceived safety in the community
45
39
40
35
30 27
25
19
20
15
10
10
4
5
0
All the Most of Sometimes Rarely Not at all
time the time
Question: Would you describe your community as safe . . . ?

Figure 5.10 Most serious security issue
70
58
60
50 46
40 34 34
30
20 15 13 16
10 6
Other,specify
livelihood
Health and
disaster
Pollution
Insurgency
Natural
Crime
sanitation
Ethnic conflict
Lack of
Question: In your opinion, what are the top three most serious
security issues that your community faces?
Figure 5.11 Experience of armed conflict due to insurgency

in the locality
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 No armed
0.5 conflict
0.4 Had armed
conflict
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Marikina City
Negros Occ.
N. Cotabato
Cagayan P.
Surigao DS
Pasay City
W. Samar
All Areas
Albay
Sulu
Question: Did you ever experience having armed conflict due to

insurgency in your locality?
Figure 5.14 Net trust rating
President 3.1
Vice President 21.4
Supreme Court 16.8
Senate 34.2
House of Representatives 30.4
Local governmnent officials 54.4
Upper courts 19.1
Lower courts 21.4
Barangay officials 55.8
Military 23.8
Police, law enforcers 30.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Table 5.8 Presence of human security based on survey data

Freedom from want Freedom from fear
1. Economic - x 1. Personal - 
2. Food - x 2. Community – x
3. Health -  3. Political - x
4. Environment - x
 - present
x - not present
individual to deal with threats. This measure of human security

centers on the following values: safety and well being of
individuals in physical terms and individual freedom. Specifically,
it indicates the absence of threat to the following: economic
security, food security, health security, environmental security,
personal security, community security, and political security. It
also includes variables that measure the extent of threat to the
seven dimensions of human security. In addition, two variables
are used to indicate self-assessed capacity to deal with threats.
Table 5.10 Four factors from the principal components

analysis
Variable Loading Variable Loading
Factor 1: Factor 3:
Perceived level of Economic and health
threat to security wellbeing
1. Economic 0.81 1. Economic 0.72
2. Food 0.78 2. Health 0.80
3. Health 0.76
4. Environment 0.65 Factor 4:
5. Personal 0.60 Access to food and
6. Community 0.53 having safe
7. Political 0.60 environment/direct
threats to life
Factor 2: 1. Food 0.74
Protection of rights 2. Environment 0.70
1. Community 0.58 3. Personal 0.36
2. Political 0.50
Note: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. = 0.857

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Approx. Chi-Square = 2717.826,
sig. at 0.00 level.
References

security and human development in the Philippines. Quezon City:
Guttman, Louis. 1954. Some necessary conditions for common

factor analysis. Psychometrika 19:149-161.
Kaiser, Henry F. 1960. The application of electronic computers

to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement
20 (1):141-151.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994.

Redefining security: The human dimension. In Human
development report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Summary, Challenges and Prospects/Atienza 151
Chapter Six
SUMMARY, CHALLENGES, AND PROSPECTS

IN DEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX
FOR THE PHILIPPINES
Summary of Findings
To sum up the previous chapters, this study conducted by

the University of the Philippines Third World Studies Center
(UP TWSC) from 2007 to 2008 explores the various dimensions
of human security as perceived and experienced by individuals
in the community, major stakeholders, and dutybearers, as
well as marginalized groups in selected conflict areas in the
Philippines. It aims to develop a human security index (HSI)
that would serve as a planning and evaluation tool to guide
policy making of key government agencies, civil society
organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The proposed index is envisioned to describe the scope and
magnitude of human security in the Philippine context as it
incorporates dimensions, which need to be taken into account
in the process of conflict prevention and peace building.
Specifically, it includes the context in which human security
exists, i.e., the susceptibility; exposure; coping and adaptive
capacity of individuals to threats; as well as the physical social,
economic, environmental, and institutional features that either
ensue or prevent threats.
Human security is defined by the project as a state or

condition whereby the individual is protected from critical,
immediate, and pervasive threats to life, liberty, property, and
community. While human security takes the individual as its
referent object, the individual is not disengaged or separated
from the community for it is where the individual derives his
or her freedom, rights, and identity. Threat has various

dimensions. It is an undesirable, deliberate, or accidental event
that may result in harm. It is often the exploitation of an
identified vulnerability. The project provisionally used the
human security dimensions identified by the UNDP (1994) as
a checklist that will be validated by respondents. Human
security is also a relational concept (to defend a person from)
and therefore conceived vis-à-vis a known and established
direct threat against a person, his/her property, and his
community.
For this particular stage of the project, the focus is on

exploring the critical threats to human security in selected
conflict-affected areas. It takes the presence of armed conflict
as its environment. Conflicts considered in this project are those
where one of the parties involved is the state. Conflict areas
selected were randomly chosen based on the number of armed
encounters. In sum, in the current phase of the TWSC project,
human security takes the individual and community as its
referent objects, applies a threat-based approach, and operates
in the context of armed conflict involving the state.
Data used in this study were gathered by using three

methods: (1) a household survey involving 800 individuals
divided equally in eight case sites and according to gender; (2)
eight focus group discussions (FGDs) among selected
marginalized sectors in the study areas (farmers, fisherfolks,
women, youth from poor families, urban poor, and indigenous
peoples); and (3) key informant interviews (KIIs) involving
twenty-three respondents from the government, the academe,
and civil society.
In synthesizing the findings from the three data gathering

methods, three general findings stand out. First, the debate
between the state-centric and the people-centered definitions
of security still prevails as borne out by the KIIs. The state-
centric definition is espoused by informants from traditional
security institutions like the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and by former military personnel who now occupy civilian
positions. They viewed human security as an intrinsic

component of national security and define human security as
protection of one of the state’s components —the people.
Meanwhile, party-list representatives, members of NGOs,
personnel from civilian government agencies (including those
performing oversight functions over traditional security
institutions), and the academe are moving away from the state-
centric concept of security. The second group of respondents
recognized the need to broaden the understanding and scope
of security issues from being primarily a military concern to a
more people-centered issue. They also linked human security
with human rights. However, it must be pointed out that while
the security frameworks of the two groups differ, bridging may
be possible since the first view also talked about human
security as protection of the people, although as a component
of the state.
Second, there is convergence of data from the FGDs and

surveys in terms of the primacy of economic threats to security,
followed by environmental threats to human security, even in
the face of armed conflicts. Many FGD participants and survey
respondents considered economic threats as more critical and
severe than other types of threats. This finding is supported by
the results of an eleven-country survey conducted by the
Human Security Centre (2005, 53-54), which showed that
across all countries, the number of people who wanted
“economic issues” to be the top priority for governments are
more than twice the number of those who answered “war,”
“crime” (including violence, corruption, and concerns about
the justice system), or “terrorism.” Furthermore, people’s
answers reflected their personal experiences.
Third, as far as addressing human security threats, data

from both the KIIs and FGDs showed an obvious preferred
framework—government and nongovernment sectors must
work together. However, in terms of specifics, the FGDs
highlighted the role of local governments in addressing human
security threats. This finding is supported by the survey data
showing that most respondents have higher trust in their local
governments than the national government. Thus, it can be

said that while the government is perceived as one of the sources
of human security threats, the government is still one of the
critical dutybearers that can address human security threats.
Aside from government agencies and NGOs, respondents also
mentioned the critical role played by the academe, media, and
international agencies in dealing with human security threats.
Prospects and Challenges in Developing a Human

Security Index and Mainstreaming Human Security
in the Philippines
The work of TWSC in human security index development

is still a continuing effort. At this particular stage of the project,
the team understands the limitation of the cases and data used.
Aside from the obvious time, budget, and administrative
constraints, the project experienced a number of problems in
the conduct of the study. They are as follows:
(1) The self-administered survey of about 200 human

security advocates was disregarded due to the low
response rate;
(2) Key legislators who expressed initial willingness to
be interviewed cannot accommodate the requests
for interviews in their schedule; and
(3) Targeted respondents from key security sector
agencies (e.g., Department of National Defense,
Philippine National Police, and the National
Security Council) did not answer requests for
interviews despite repeated follow-ups.
The project also experienced delays in implementing its

work plan in the field because of unforeseen events, such as
the campaign period for the barangay elections in October
2007, the worsening peace-and-order situation in some parts
of Sulu, and typhoon and landslide in Western Samar. During
the validation and consultation meetings, the project also met
resistance from a few government officials who argued that
human security is a foreign concept imposed by donor agencies

or that the data and findings of the project are unacceptable
because they put certain government agencies in a bad light.
However, we all take these experiences as part of the research
process. Given this context, there is a need to probe deeper
into human security issues and establish more dialogue among
different stakeholders and dutybearers on the issue.
For future stages of this research, the research team would

like to pilot test the evolving index in conflict areas as well as
in areas with little or no experience of armed conflict.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to probe deeper the
current field cases qualitatively and quantitatively to validate
the current data. At this stage, the 100 respondents per area/
province, as well as one FGD with a particular marginalized
sector per province, cannot be considered a representative
sample of the entire province. It will also not be enough to
come up with a definitive human security assessment of each
area. To accommodate the views of more government
personnel, particularly those from the military and defense
establishment, as well as those resistant to the concept of
human security, the project team hopes to conduct more key
informant interviews with them in future phases of the
research.
In developing a human security index, the TWSC is well-

suited to contribute to the mainstreaming of human security
in the Philippines. There is already a loose network of
individuals and groups, both government and nongovernment,
in the Philippines that are aware of the concept of human
security, though definitions still vary. This network is interested
in integrating human security, particularly in policy advocacy,
assessment, and planning. While some groups are pursuing
different projects related to human security, they have willingly
shared their experiences and given their comments and
suggestions. They have also exchanged ideas and discussions
about the concept. The TWSC, through its human security
index project, can play a catalyzing role in the establishment
of a human security advocacy network.
However, the so-called human security advocates are

divided by minimalist and maximalist tendencies as well as by
adopting the UNDP concept or pursuing a more Philippine-
specific human security definition and framework. Some
stakeholders, particularly those from the government, have
great expectations about the uses of the output of the current
phase of the project and want to use the index immediately as
a companion to the human development index. Perhaps, this
difficulty can be turned into an opportunity. It can give TWSC,
using its academic standing and research capability, a niche
in its further conceptualization of human security and index
development and its mainstreaming in both government and
nongovernment sectors.
Moreover, a recent legislation in the Philippines presents

both a problem as well as an opportunity for human security
advocates to come up with a definition and a framework that
capture human security. Republic Act No. 9372, entitled “An
Act to Secure the State and Protect Our People from Terrorism”
with the short title “Human Security Act of 2007” (HSA), was
enacted in 2007. According to Santos (2007), one of the authors
of the 2005 PHDR and one of those who petitioned the
Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional, the short
title is a deception and a violation of “both substantive due
process and the people’s right to public information.” The title
itself is misleading in equating counter-terrorism with human
security. But “the HSA, by its own definition of terrorism, might
only ‘secure the state’ but not ‘protect our people from
terrorism.’ Granting that it would also protect our people from
terrorism, this comes under only the ‘freedom from fear’ aspect
of human security.” Santos went on to say that projecting
counter-terrorism as human security is not only deceptive but
“also dishonest as a misappropriation of a concept currently
associated with the UNDP, the independent global Commission
for Human Security, and the Human Security Network of
countries.” This “misappropriation” of the term or “theft of
intellectual property” endangers the work of UNDP, Tabang
Mindanaw, church leaders, and other peace advocates in the
Philippines.
With this particular challenge, human security advocates

need to reclaim the concept of human security as well as find
a better working definition suitable for the country and
understandable to a wider public. Otherwise, people may really
be led to believe that human security is simply counter-
terrorism. The ongoing index development can help clarify the
concept to a wider audience, with the security sector included,
and at the same time develop an index applicable to Philippine
conditions and based on both theoretically-informed and
empirically grounded participatory research on the actual
experiences of Filipinos.
Finally, one promising area where the proposed human

security index can begin to be tested as well as human security
mainstreamed is at the local level. In integrating conflict-
sensitive and human security approaches in local development
planning, a human security index will be instrumental in
measuring the extent to which insecurity occurs in localities.
Where current local development plans and programs are
inadequate in ensuring human security, identifying the causes
of insecurity with the aid of human security indicators and an
index makes possible crafting appropriate responses. LGUs,
civil society organizations, national agencies, and international
donor agencies can also monitor improvements in human
security, as well as track the impact of their respective
interventions by periodically running the instrument.
References
Human Security Centre. 2005. Human security report: War and peace in the
21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Santos, Soliman Jr. 2007. Petition on the unconstitutionality of and the

grave abuse of discretion in the approval of the “Human Security
Act of 2007.” 16 July. http://www.icj.org/IMG/
Phil_SC_Petition.pdf /(accessed 01 August 2007).
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. Human

Development Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
159
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Maria Ela L. Atienza is Associate Professor at the Department of

Political Science and Director of the Third World Studies Center
(TWSC), University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
She teaches courses on local governance and devolution,
political analysis, political dynamics, and comparative politics.
Her research involvement and publications focus on local
governance, democratization, devolution, health politics,
human security, and women empowerment. She is a fellow
at the Institute for Strategic and Development Studies and
former president of the Philippine Political Science Association.
She holds the following degrees: BA-MA Political Science
Honors Program (University of the Philippines-Diliman),
Executive Master’s in European and International Relations
(University of Amsterdam), and PhD Political Science (Kobe
University). She served as project leader of the human security
index project.
Clarinda Lusterio Berja is Senior Lecturer at the Department of

Political Science, University of the Philippines, Diliman,
Quezon City. She has done researches and published papers
on youth and poverty, population, health and environment,
demographic transition and food sustainability, overseas labor
migration, and human security. She is currently a PhD
candidate at the Department of Sociology, University of the
Philippines-Diliman, writing her dissertation on family and
community influences on the trajectories of school-to-work
transition of Filipino youth. She served as assistant project leader
for field research of the human security index project.
Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo is a former University Research Associate

at the TWSC, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon
City. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Family Life and Child
Development from University of the Philippines-Diliman
and is currently pursuing her Master’s degree in Urban and
Regional Planning. Her research involvements cover various
topics such as fair trade, peace and development particularly
in Mindanao, human security, and international marriage
migration. She served as assistant project leader for the

technical advisory group of the human security index project.
Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera has worked on projects on the

technocracy and economic decision making in the
Philippines, as well as on the negotiating strategy of the
Philippines in the World Trade Organization. She has
published a chapter on agrofuels and food security in the
book Food Wars, authored by Walden Bello. She has a
Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from University of
the Philippines-Diliman. She served as research assistant
of the human security index project.
Dina Marie B. Delias has been engaged in research since 2000

on the areas of local governance, development, and
indigenous peoples particularly in the Cordillera
Administrative Region, Philippines. Aside from the project
on human security, she has also been involved in various
research projects looking into democratization, labour
migration, international intermarriages, and community
participation in disaster reconstruction. She holds a
Bachelor’s degree in Social Sciences (double major in
History and Political Science) as well as Master’s degree in
Public Administration. She served as research assistant of
the human security index project.
Directory of Project Participants 161
Appendix One
DIRECTORY OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
The Project Management Team
Project Consultant: Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem, PhD

Former Director, UP Third World Studies
Center
Professor, UP Department of Political Science
Project Leader: Maria Ela L. Atienza, PhD

Director, UP Third World Studies Center
Associate Professor, UP Department of
Political Science
Assistant Project Leader for Clarinda Lusterio Berja

Field Research: Senior Lecturer, UP Department of Political
Science
Assistant Project Leaders for the Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo

Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Former University Research Associate
UP Third World Studies Center
Sharon M. Quinsaat
Former University Researcher
Research Assistants: Mara Yasmin S.P. Baviera

Alleson Villota
Ruzzel Brian Mallari
Katrina Maquilan
Survey Data Encoder: Celia Abbago
Topical Experts
Methodology Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida, PhD

Chair, UP Department of Political Science
Human Security Herman Joseph S. Kraft

UP Department of Political Science
Executive Director, Institute for Strategic
and Development Studies
Peace Miriam Coronel Ferrer

Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
Miriam Coronel Ferrer

Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Social Sciences
and Philosophy and Coordinator, Sulong CARHRIHL
Pablo Rey Pio Fuentes

Former Manager, Project Management Office, UNDP Conflict Prevention
and Peace Building Programme
Romulo Halabaso
Director, Peace Institution Development Office, Office of the Presidential Adviser
on the Peace Process
Herman Joseph S. Kraft

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Social Sciences
and Philosophy and
Executive Director, Institute for Strategic and Development Studies
Karen Tañada
Executive Director, Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute
Alma Evangelista
United Nations Development Programme
Toby Monsod
Human Development Network
Diosita Andot
Programme Manager, UN ACT for Peace in Mindanao
Janet Lopoz
Mindanao Economic Development Council
Veronica Villavicencio
Peace and Equity Foundation
Susan Rachel Jose

Director, Regional Development Coordination Staff, National Economic
and Development Authority
Field Research Team
Cagayan
Field Supervisor: Nelia Cauilan, PhD

College of Public Administration
Cagayan State University
Interviewers: Cindy Detalla

Darwin Arnedo
Jenelson Gorospe
Jonathan Cuaresma
Albay
Field Supervisor: Alexander De Guzman

Department of Political Science
Bicol University
Interviewers: Jaymar Azagra

Aileen Balean
Emilio Valenzuela
Cesar Arao
Noemi Ibo
Metro Manila
Field Supervisor: Felipe Ramos

Freelance Researcher
Interviewers: Erwin Escanillan

Aurelia Estimo
Andrea Badalan
Negros Occidental
Field Supervisor: Ma. Lourdes Tison

Paghiliusa sa Paghidaet Negros
Interviewers: Antonio Juson

Dante Caranda
Rey Timtim
Maylyn Calvan
Western Samar
Field Supervisor: Maricel Rodriguez

Demographic Research and Development
Foundation
Interviewers: Erwin Escanillan

Aurelia Estimo
Andrea Badalan
North Cotabato and Surigao del Sur
Field Supervisor: Melba Manapol, PhD

Ateneo de Davao University
Interviewers: Arnold C. Abejaron

Randolph Alojado
Tetchie Aquino
Annabelle Bandigan
Romeo Cabarde
Brijeth Enangkile
Mildred Megarbio
Lani Rivera
Sulu
Field Supervisor: Rosalyn Echem

Western Mindanao State University
Interviewers: John Alpha

Basher Jainu
Jason Magnetico
Yahyah Titong
Participants in Focus Group Discussions
Metro Manila
Facilitator: Dina Marie B. Delias

Documentor: Alleson Villota
Participants: Ely Getubig
Sulamita Lacida
Elma Luega
Monalyn Villagorda
Cagayan Province
Facilitator: Marie C. Cauilan

Documentor: Gabriel Sernande
Participants: Francisco Calimag
Laring Macarubbo
Emiliana Pagalilauan
Betty Taguinod
Nora Patagguan
Villamor Quilang
Nerissa Suyu
Adoracion Suyu
Albay
Facilitator: Rosemarie T. Frias

Documentor: Ma. Myra C. Austero
Participants: Maria Darrilyn Capinig
Raymund John Cipriano
Darwin Cristo
Mary Christine Daep
Arcel Dacir
Florencio Loria
Jay Emmanuel Hayagan
Jela Resoco
Negros Occidental
Facilitator: Maria Lourdes Tison

Documentor: Mary Lou Samson
Participants: Dennis Alparito
Freddie Carma
Mario Estrusas
Merlinda Garbosa
Richard Mabalon
Rey Timtim
Western Samar
Facilitator: Zuraida Mae D. Cabilo

Documentor: Mary Juliet Villareal
Participants: Erlinda Aboguin
Maricel Aquino
Arlene Betiola
Lea Estera
Charite Juanite
Alfie Lee
Susan Monanba
Regine Peaguta
Surigao del Sur
Facilitator: Melba Manapol

Documentor: Jasmin E. Porras
Participants: Datu Saltos Florio
Esperanza Verano
Hilario Manlino
Felipe Lobo
North Cotabato
Facilitator: Ma. Yasmin E. Tale

Documentor: Lani Rivera
Participants: Marciano Raut
Julie Caritan
Romy Mayonila
Fernando Quiamco
Jesrely Pacuit
Reynaldo Pace
Sulu
Facilitator: Rosalyn Echem

Documentor: Yahyah Titong
Participants: Angari Karim
Aspari Layas
Nurhajan Rajan
Usman Abdulla
Barlie Tantih
Munib Usman
Akmad Mohamad
Key Informant Interview Respondents
Commodore Carlos Agustin (Ret.)

National Defense College of the Philippines
Col. Rey Ardo

Office of Strategic Studies, Armed Forces of the Philippines
Mr. Red Batario

Executive Director, Center for Community Journalism and Development
Sen. Rodolfo Biazon

Chair, Committee on National Defense and Security, Senate
Sec. Esperanza Cabral

Department of Social Welfare and Development
Mr. Ariel Castro

Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
Rep. Leonila Chavez

Butil Partylist
Chair, Committee on Food Security, House of Representatives
Col. Juanito Dalmas

Deputy Chief of Staff for Civil Military Operations, J7
Armed Forces of the Philippines
Mr. Max de Mesa

Spokesperson, Citizens’ Council for Human Rights
Chair, Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates
Board of Trustees Member, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines
Atty. Evelyn Dunuan

National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women
Dr. Jasmin N. Galace

Center for Peace Education, Miriam College
Atty. Ibarra Gutierrez

Institute for Human Rights, College of Law, University of the Philippines
Ms. Edeliza Hernandez

Executive Director, Medical Action Group
Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel

Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party
Ms. Resureccion Lao-Manalo

Executive Director, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-Asia
Atty. Carlos Medina

Executive Director, Ateneo Human Rights Center, Ateneo de Manila University
Sec. Domingo Panganiban

National Anti-Poverty Commission
Mr. Wilnor Papa

Coordinator, Amnesty International-Philippines
Ms. Nymia Pimentel-Simbulan

Executive Director, Philippine Human Rights Information Center
Chair Purificacion Quisumbing

Commission on Human Rights
Dr. Mary Racelis

Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University
Commissioner Jannette Serrano

National Commission for Indigenous Peoples
Mr. Jose Torres

Executive Director, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
Participants
Project’s Validation Meeting on the Human Security Framework
Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 15 August 2007
Paz Bumogas
Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government
Eduardo Calbitaza
Department of Agrarian Reform
Miriam Coronel Ferrer

Sulong CARHRIHL and UP Department of Political Science
Jessica Dator Bercilla

Christian Aid
Felina Delfin
Outreach Philippines, Inc.
Romeo Elusfa
Mindanao People’s Caucus
Alma Evangelista
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)–Philippines
Pablo Rey Pio Fuentes

Project Management Office, UNDP–Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building
Programme
Jasmin N. Galace
Miriam Center for Peace Education, Miriam College
Ruben Gamala
UP Visayas Foundation
Chito Generoso
Interfaith Center for a Culture of Non-Violence
Romulo Halabaso
Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
Manuel Ibañez

UP Department of Political Science & Institute for Strategic and Development
Studies
Adel Lambinicio
National Anti-Poverty Commission
Toby Monsod
Human Development Network
Alex Ozoa
Paghiliusa sa Paghidaet Negros
Zenaida Brigida Pawid

Cordillera People’s Forum
Ma. Aurora Quilala

Maria Lourdes G. Rebullida

Karen Tañada
Peace Institute Gaston Z. Ortigas
Col. Domingo Tutaan Jr.

Armed Forces of the Philippines
Eduardo Villena
Philippine National Police
Role Players and Participants

Public Presentation of the Project’s Findings
Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 4 December 2008
Welcome Remarks:
Zosimo E. Lee
Dean, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines, Diliman
Presenters:


Reactors:
Nymia Pimentel Simbulan
Executive Director
Philippine Human Rights Information Center
Raymund Jose Quilop

Moderator:
Perlita Frago-Marasigan
Documentor:
Mitzi Austero
MA Student, UP Asian Center
Participants:
Carmina Acuña
National Security Council
Nex Beñas
Cynthia Bugayong
City Government of Manila
Carlo Caballegan
Staff, Office of Senator Antonio Trillanes VI
Philippine Senate
Melanie Caguiat
City Government of Manila
Elizabeth Carbajosa
Asian College of Science and Technology (ACSAT)
Roderick Castillo
Office of the Mayor, Malabon City
Nelia Cauilan
Cagayan State University
Alex de Guzman
Department of Political Science, Bicol University
Teofista de Guzman
City Planning and Development Office, Quezon City
Vicente Doletin
Vice Mayor, Midsayap, North Cotabato
Rosalyn Echem
Western Mindanao State University
Teresa Encarnacion Tadem

Alma Evangelista
United Nations Development Programme-Philippines
Jose Franco
Josefina Faulan
National Economic and Development Authority
Bernadette Guillermo
Social Sciences and Philosophy Research Foundation
Armando Guzman

UP Department of Political Science and
Institute for Strategic and Development Studies
Ruth Lusterio Rico

Augie Lusung
Melba Manapol
Ateneo de Davao University
Ali Lorraine Manrique

Undergraduate Student, UP Department of Political Science
Ana Elzy Ofreneo

Anna Pacete
Laura Prado
Department of Agriculture
Mary Ann Joy Quirapas

Cicero Triunfante
Mayor, Daraga, Albay
Alleson Villota
MA Student, UP Asian Center
Questionnaire for Individuals in the Community 173
Appendix Two QUESTIONNAIRE

NUMBER.
SURVEY ON HUMAN SECURITY
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMUNITY
Call Order
I Name of Interviewer
2 Date of interview
3 Interview is First Second Replacement
visit visit
4 Time started 5 Time ended

6 Name of Editor 7 Date of Editing
8 Name of Encoder 9 Date of Encoding
Introduction: We are from TWSC-UP conducting a study on people’s perception on

security. This survey interview will take only a few minutes of your time and will be a
key input to our quantitative data analysis. Responses are anonymous and intended
for statistical aggregation purposes only. Thank you.
Block A: Identification
A1. Province
A2. City/municipality
A3. Sex of respondent 1____ Male 2 _____Female
A4. Age: ____________
A5. Stratum 1_____Urban 2 _____Rural
A6. Respondent’s Name (Optional)
A7. Complete Address
Block B: Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics
B1. What is your civil status?

1 _____Single 3 _____Widowed
2_____Married 4______Separated or divorced
B2. When were you born? Month __ Day_____Year_____
B3. Where were you born? Municipality____________ City/Province____________
B4. Are you a member of any minority group?

1_____ Yes -->B4a. Which group? _____________________________________
2_____ No
B5.What is the dialect you most often speak at home?

I _____ Tagalog 4 _____ Kapampangan
2 _____ Cebuano/Bisaya 5 _____ Ilocano
3 _____ Ilonggo/Hiligaynon 6 _____ Other, SPECIFY_____________________
B6. What is your religion?

I _____ Catholic 4 _____ Muslim
2 _____ Protestant 5 _____ Other, SPECIFY
3 _____ Iglesia ni Cristo
B7. What is the highest level of schooling that you completed?

I _____ None 6 _____ Vocational school level
2 _____ Elementary Grade 7 _____ Vocational
3 _____ Elementary Graduate 8 _____ College Level
4 _____ High School level 9 _____ College Graduate
5 _____ High school graduate I0 _____ Post Graduate
B8. Are you currently working?

I _____ Yes --> B9. What is your occupation? _______________________________
2 _____ No
Bl0. What is the reason why you are not working?

l _____ Cannot find work
2 _____ Student
3 _____ Housewife
4 _____ Retired
5 _____ Health reasons/disability
6 _____ Others, SPECIFY______________________________________________
Bll. In the past year, how much is your total family income in the course of an ordinary
month? (6-digit code)
Bl2. In the past year, what is your main source of your family income in the course of
an ordinary month?
l _____ Wages and salaries
2 _____ Rentals of property or any asset
3 _____ Business income
4 _____ Gift/help from relatives and other people
5 _____ Pension and retirement benefits
6 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________
Bl3. In the past year, what are your other source(s) of family income? (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY)
l _____ Wages and salaries

6 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____
Block C: Economic Security
C1. Where would you place your family in the following categories?
1 _____ Very poor 4 _____ Rich
2 _____ Poor 5 _____ Very rich
3 _____ Moderate, just right 97 _____ Don’t know
98 _____ No response
C2. Do you think your family is better off now than three years ago?
1 _____ Better off 97 _____ Don’t know
2 _____ Just the same 98 _____ No response
3 _____ Worst off
C3. Personally, do you think you are better off now than three years ago?
1 _____ Better off 97 _____ Don’t know
2 _____ Just the same 98 _____ No response
3 _____ Worst off
C4. Does your family have a regular source of income?

1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO C6)
C5. What is your source of regular income?

1 _____ Wages and salaries
6 _____ Others, Please specify: _________________________________________
C6. Do you think there are adequate employment opportunities for you?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
C6a. within your barangay? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
C6b. within your municipality/city? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
C6c. within your province? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
C6d. within the country? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
C6e. outside the country? 1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
C7. Are there livelihood opportunities within your locality (municipality/city)?

1 _____ Yes --> C7a. What livelihood opportunities?__________________________
2 _____ No
C8. Are there available credit facilities in your locality?

1 _____ Yes --> C8a. What type of credit facility?_____________________________
2 No (GO BLOCK C12)
C9. Do you have access to these credit facilities?

1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK C12)
C1O. Have you ever tried to get a loan from these credit facilities?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK C12)
C11. Did you get the full amount that you wanted to borrow?
1 _____ Yes --> C11a. How much is the full amount of the loan?_____________pesos
2 _____ No --> C11b. Why not?_________________________________________
C12. Do you have school-age children, ages 5 to 16 years old in your family?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (BLOCK D)
C12a. Do they have access to public school education?

1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
C13. Is there anyone of them studying in a public school?

1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> C13a. Why not?_______________
C14. Do you think the family could support them until they complete high school
education?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> C14a. Why not?________________
C15. Do you think boys and girls have equal access to education?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> C15a. Why not?________________
Block D: Food Security
D1. How frequently have you served rice at home in the past month?
1 _____ at least 3 times a day 4 _____ Seldom
2 _____ 2 times a day 5 _____ Never
3 _____ Once a day
D2. In the past month, from what sources have you acquired the rice you eat? Do
you…(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1 _____ Grow rice yourself
2 _____ Get it free [from relatives/friends]
3 _____ Free, part of company benefit
4 _____ Part of company benefit, supplied at cheaper price
5 _____ Barter/Exchange [e.g., labor or other agricultural products for rice]
6 _____ Buy
7 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________
D3. Do you know where you can buy cheaper government subsidized/NFA rice?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO D5)
D4. Have you ever bought government subsidized/NFA rice?

1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No --> D4a. Why not?__________________________
D5. Approximately, what percent of total household income is spent on rice?______%
D6. Approximately, what percent of total household income is spent on other food items?____%
D7. Have you ever experienced involuntary hunger (without anything to eat) at least
once in the past week?
1 _____ Yes --> D7a. Why?_____________________________________________
2 _____ No
D8. Did you ever experience food scarcity in your barangay?

1 _____ Yes --> D8a. Why? ____________________________________________
2 _____ No
BLOCK E: Health Security
EI. Which of the following health facilities are located within your municipality/city?
(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
I _____ Barangay health station
2 _____ Rural health unit/health center (municipal)
3 _____ Government hospital
4 _____ Private clinic
5 _____ Private Hospital
6 _____ Clinic/hospitals run by non-profit/charitable organizations or persons
7 _____ Traditional Healer or Alternative Healthcare Practitioner
8 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________
E2. From your home, how long would it take you to reach the nearest health facility?
1 _____ Less than I5 minutes 3 _____ 31-6O minutes
2 _____ I6-3O minutes 4 _____ more than one hour
E3. Do you have access to the services provided in these health facilities?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO E6)
E4. Did you or any member of your family use any health facility in the last I2 months?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO E6)
E5. Did you adequately get the medical services that you need from that health facility?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO E6)
E6. Are you or any member of your family a member of any kind of health insurance?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK F)
E7. What kind of health insurance plan do you have? (ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSE)
1 _____ PHILHEALTH
2 _____ Employer-based health maintenance organization
3 _____ Private health insurance, SPECIFY:
4 _____ Community/Cooperative Health financing scheme
5 _____ Others, please specify:__________________________________________
Block F: Environmental Security
F1. What sources of water are available in your barangay? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1 _____ Direct connection, piped
2 _____ Connection through another household piped
3 _____ Communal system (public water source-piped or not)
4 _____ Own well/hand pump
5 _____ Water vendor
6 _____ Rainwater
7 _____ Bottled purified/mineral water, water refilling station
8 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________
F2. What is your family’s main source of water?

6 _____ Rainwater
8 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________
F3. Where does your family usually get drinking water?

6 _____ Rainwater
8 _____ Others, SPECIFY:
F4. In the past year, did you experience any natural disaster in your barangay?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
F5. What type of natural disaster?

1 _____ Typhoon 4 _____ Land slide
2 _____ Earthquake 3 _____ Volcanic eruption
5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________
F6. Did the disaster affect your economic activities?

1 _____ Yes --> F6a. In what way?_______________________________________
2 _____ No
F7. What other environmental problem do you experience in your barangay?

1 _____ Pollution
2 _____ Flooding
4 _____ Waste disposal
3 _____ Toxic wastes from factories
5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________
Block G: Community Security
G1. Is the land where this house is located … ?

1 _____ Owned by you
2 _____ Inherited
3 _____ Owned w/o any obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)
4 _____ Owned w/ obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)
5 _____ Rented
6 _____ Supplied free by employer
7 _____ Supplied free by relative or other person
8 _____ Living without permission of owner
9 _____ Others, SPECIFY: _____________________________________________
G2. Is the house where you presently live …?

1 _____ Owned by you
2 _____ Inherited
3 _____ Owned w/o any obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)
4 _____ Owned w/ obligations (e.g. loans, mortgages)
5 _____ Rented
6 _____ Supplied free by employer
7 _____ Supplied free by relative or other person
8 _____ Living without permission of owner
9 _____ Others, SPECIFY:
G3. Was there ever a time when you were forced to leave your residence?
1 _____ Yes --> G3a. Why were you forced to leave your residence?_____________
2 _____ No
G4. How long have you been residing in this community? ______months_____years
G5. Would you describe your community as safe?

1 _____ All the time 4 _____ Rarely
2 _____ Most of the time 5 _____ Not at all
3 _____ Sometimes
G6. In your opinion, what are the top three most serious security issues that your
community faces?
1 _____ crime
2 _____ insurgency
3 _____ ethnic conflict
4 _____ natural disaster
5 _____ pollution
6 _____ health and sanitation
7 _____ lack of livelihood
8 _____ other, SPECIFY: _______________________________________________
G7. Did you ever experience any violent conflict in your community?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO G11)
G8. Do you still experience this (violent conflict) in your community?

1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No
G9. How often did you experience violent conflict in your community in the past year?
1 _____ Often --> G9aI. How many times in a month?_________________________
2 _____ Seldom --> G9a2. How many times in a year? _______________________
3 _____ Rarely
G10. Who are involved in this (these) violent conflict(s)?

1 _____ Insurgents
2 _____ Ethnic/tribal groups
3 _____ Criminals
4 _____ Gangs
5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________
G11. Do you think that the level of safety in your community change during the past
year?
1 _____ Safety has improved --> Why? ___________________________________
2 _____ Safety has remained the same
3 _____ Safety has deteriorated --> Why? _________________________________
G12. Does the level of safety in your community push you to migrate to another place?
1 _____ Yes, which place?______________________________________________
2 _____ No
3 _____ Undecided
G13. Do you know of anyone in the community other than the military/police who
possess a weapon?
1 _____ Yes
2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK H)
G14. What kind of weapon? _____________________________________________
G15. Why do you think they possess this weapon? ___________________________
Block H: Personal Security
H1. Have you or has anyone in your family been a victim of physical aggression or of
some criminal act in the past year?
1 _____ Yes 98 _____ No response
2 _____ No (GO TO H6) 99 _____ Not applicable
97 _____ Don’t know
H2. What is the nature of the physical aggression or criminal act? (ACCEPT
MULTIPLE RESPONSE)
0 _____ None 97 _____ Don’t know
1 _____ Robbery/theft 98 _____ No response
2 _____ Kidnapping 99 _____ Not applicable
3 _____ Property disputes
4 _____ Shootings/fighting with guns
5 _____ Other, SPECIFY:_______________________________________________
H3. You said that you’ve been a victim of physical aggression or some criminal act in
the past year. Did you report it to any authority?
1 _____ Yes 98 _____ No response
2 _____ No (GO TOH5) 99 _____ Not applicable
97 _____ Don’t know
H4. To what agency or institution did you report the crime?

1 _____ Police/PNP
2 _____ Military/AFP
3 _____ Barangay Chair
4 _____ Local government/Mayor/Governor
5 _____ Public prosecutor
6 _____ Press or other media
7 _____ Tribal leader
8 _____ Religious leader
9 _____ Nongovernment organization
1O _____ Other
97 _____ Don’t Know
99 _____ Not applicable
H5. Why did you not report the crime? (ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSE)
1 _____ It makes no difference
2 _____ Danger or fear of retaliation
3 _____ Lack of evidence
4 _____ It wasn’t serious
5 _____ Didn’t know where to report it
6 _____ Other, SPECIFY:______________________________________________
97 _____ Don’t Know
99 _____ Not applicable
H6. If you were a witness to a crime, to whom would you report it? (ACCEPT
MULT1PLE RESPONSE)
1 _____ Police/PNP
2 _____ Military/AFP
3 _____ Barangay Chair
4 _____ Local government/Mayor/Governor
5 _____ Public prosecutor
6 _____ Press or other media
7 _____ Tribal leader
8 _____ Religious leader
9 _____Non-government organization
10 _____ Other, SPEC1FY:_____________________________________________
Block I: Political Security
I will mention some political concerns/issues. How much are you affected by this
concern/issue personally?(ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE CODE)
1- Very Much 2-Much 3-A little 4-Very little 5-Not at all 6-Don’t know
I1. Corruption in government 1 2 3 4 5 6

I2. Freedom of expression 1 2 3 4 5 6
I3. Autonomy 1 2 3 4 5 6
I4. Participation in election 1 2 3 4 5 6
I5. Warring political families 1 2 3 4 5 6
I6. Unresolved wars involving insurgents 1 2 3 4 5 6
I7. Loss of livelihood due to armed conflict 1 2 3 4 5 6
I8. Displacement of people in the community 1 2 3 4 5 6
I9. Participation in community decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 6
I10. Participation in local council decision-making 1 2 3 4 5 6
What is your level of trust on the following?(ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE

RESPONSE CODE) 1-Much trust 2-Moderately trust 3-Little 4-Very little 5-None
I11. President 1 2 3 4 5
I12. Vice President 1 2 3 4 5
I13. Supreme Court 1 2 3 4 5

I14. Senate 1 2 3 4 5
I15. House of Representatives 1 2 3 4 5
I16. Local government officials 1 2 3 4 5
I17. Upper Courts 1 2 3 4 5
I18. Lower Courts 1 2 3 4 5
I19. Barangay officials 1 2 3 4 5
I20. Military 1 2 3 4 5
I21. Police, law enforcers 1 2 3 4 5
There is a close link between feeling of security and trust. Please tell me the level of
trust that you have on government officials and agencies.
I22. Did you ever experience having armed conflict due to insurgency in your
locality?
1 _____ Yes --> 122a. When was the last time it happened? ___ (month) ____ (year)
2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK J)
I23. How did the armed conflict due to insurgency affect you? (ACCEPT MULTIPLE
RESPONSE)
1 _____ Loss of economic opportunities
2 _____ Death of relatives and friends
3 _____ Poor peace and order situation
4 _____ High out-migration
5 _____ Other, SPECIFY: ______________________________________________
I24. Do you think you can (or together with others) do something to prevent or mitigate
insurgency in your locality?
1 _____ Yes 2 _____ No (GO TO BLOCK J)
I25. In your opinion, what can be done to mitigate insurgency in your locality?
___________________________________________________________________
Block J: General Perception on Human Security
J1. In the past three months, what are the top 3 issues that caused you the most concern?
1. ________________________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________________
J2. Which of the following potential threats to general security do you fear most?
1 _____ Food shortage 5 _____ Economic instability
2 _____ Disease outbreak 6 _____ Political instability
3 _____ High crime rates 7 _____ Armed conflict
4 _____ Environmental Disaster 8 _____ Other, please specify: ___________
J3. Do you think you can (or together with others) do something to prevent or mitigate
these potential threats to general security?
1 _____ Yes
2 _____ No (GO TO J5)
J4. In your opinion, what can be done to mitigate this (these) threat(s)? ____________
___________________________________________________________________
J5. In your opinion, to what extent is there a threat on your….(ENCIRCLE THE

CORRESPONDING RESPONSE CODE)
5-Very high 4-High 3-Moderate 2-Low 1-Very Low 97-Don’t know
a. Food security (lack of basic nutrition and food supply) 5 4 3 2 1 97
b. Health security (disease and injury due to lack of 5 4 3 2 1 97

access to safe water, safe living environment, access to
health services, and basic knowledge to live a healthy
life)
c. Economic security (poverty due to lack of basic 5 4 3 2 1 97

income and employment, and access tosuch social
safety net)
d. Personal security (physical violence such as crime, 5 4 3 2 1 97

rape, child abuse, accident)
e. Environmental security (pollution, environmental 5 4 3 2 1 97

degradation and resourcedepletion)
f. Community/Cultural security (ethnic discrimination, 5 4 3 2 1 97

ethnic conflicts, and lack of protection of indigenous
people)
g. Political security (violation of human rights, political 5 4 3 2 1 97

repression)
Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Appendix Three
SSPRF-TWSC
DEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX FOR THE PHILIPPINES
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
1. Questions to open the discussion:
a. Generally, do you feel secure as an individual?

b. What are the top issues that caused you the most concern in the past year?
c. Why were you concerned about this issue?
d. Do you consider this issue a threat to your security? Why is it a threat?
e. What are the sources of these threats to security?
2. Questions to deepen the discussion:
People can be harmed by such vast array of threats and individuals require protection
from them.
a. What would you consider as short-term or long-term threat? Why?

b. What would you consider as severe threat? Why?
c. In which threat do you need to be protected?
d. Why do you think it is necessary to be protected from this threat?
e. What would you consider critical threats that cut into core activities and
functions?
f. What would you consider as pervasive threats or those that are large scale or
recurrent dangers?
3. Questions to focus on specific indicators of human security?
a. What would you consider as threats in relation to your:
i. Economic security (e.g. loss of livelihoods due to financial crisis, disasters, or

resettlement)
ii. Environmental security (e.g. reduced access to resources [land, water,
forests, etc.] and loss of lives and livelihoods due to environmental
damage such as floods and drought)
iii. Food security (e.g. food shortages, hunger)
iv. Health security (e.g. disease outbreak, inaccessibility of health and medical
facilities, exorbitant prices of medicines)
v. Community security (e.g. ethnic conflicts, cultural risks and loss of unique
identities, values and traditions) PROBE: incidence of armed conflict in
his/her locality
vi. Personal security (e.g. crimes such as physical violence, rape, robbery,
etc.)
vii. Political security (e.g. corruption in government, lack of freedom of
expression, lack of participation in local decision-making)
b. Why do you consider these as threats?

c. What are the sources of these threats?
d. Which of these threats would you consider as immediate? Critical? Pervasive?
Are these threats persisting? Why?
e. In your opinion, what can be done to mitigate these threats?
f. Do you think you can (or together with others) do something to prevent or
mitigate these potential threats to general security?
g. Do you know of agencies or organizations that could help you address these
concerns?
h. What assistance do they provide?
4. Questions to look at improvement in human security.
a. Would you say that you feel more secure now than before?
b. What brought about these changes/significant improvements? Who are the
major actors? Who should be involved but are not yet involved?
c. What do you think should be done to improve your personal security?
d. What do you think should be done to improve human security in the
Philippines?
Highlights of the Proceedings of the Public Presentation 187
Appendix Four
DEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX FOR THE PHILIPPINES:
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PROJECT’S PUBLIC
PRESENTATION (COMMENTS AND REACTIONS)
December 4, 2008, 9:30am–12:00nn
Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
WELCOME REMARKS
Zosimo Lee
Dean, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman
Ang kahalagahan ng nagawang report ay napakinggan ang boses ng iba’t ibang

pamayanan sa iba’t ibang pook ng buong bansa. Iyong mga researchers ay merong
pinuntahan na ilang project sites para talaga makakuha ng mga data o datos sa community.
Siguro, alam natin na kung gobyerno lang o estado lang ang ating pakikinggan, meron
silang pananaw tungkol sa national security at ang tingin minsan ng mga nasa national
security sector ay sila lang ang taga-pangalaga ng human security. Pag titingnan naman
natin ang mga pamayanan, iba po siguro yong kanilang mga mithiin o mga ninanais
tungkol sa human security at higit siguro dito yong mga tinatawag natin kadalasan na
basic needs, food, environmental degradation, atsaka iyong threat to their personal
security. (The value of this report is that the voices of the different people from different
communities and different places were heard. The researchers really went to some
project sites to obtain data from the community. We all probably know that if we only listen
to the state on their notion of national security, sometimes the view of the state is that they
are the only protectors of human security. But when we look at the communities, they
might have different aspirations or wants pertaining to human security, they are more
concerned with what we call basic needs, food, environmental degradation, and threat to
their personal security.)
Dati-rati po, at minsan minsan pumupunta din naman ako sa Mindanao at iba-ilang
parte ng Visayas at pumupunta din doon sa mga liblib na lugar, kunyari sa Pikit, North
Cotabato na kung saan ngayon matindi ang labanan. At bagamat napakalakas ng threat
to their community and personal security, ang isa pong napaka-hopeful na sign para sa
akin kung nagkukumpulan yung community mismo para magamit yung mga resources na
meron sila sa kanilang sarili atsaka sa kanilang kapaligiran para sila din mismo ay
magbigay ng seguridad para sa kanilang sarili. At kadalasan, kunyari kung sino yung
mga magiging perceived na magiging kaaway nila ay nakakausap nila. Ang tinutukoy ko
po dito ay basically yong Christian-Muslim conflict, for example sa Carmen, North Cotabato.
Naka-capture din ng report na ito kung paano mapapalakas yong human security kung
mas magkakaroon ng community efforts. (I used to go to Mindanao, in some parts of
Visayas and to far flung areas like Pikit, North Cotabato where there is now an intensifying
armed conflict. Even though there was a tremendous threat to their community and
personal security, they show signs of hope, for me, when they convene within the
community to use whatever resources they have around them and provide security for
themselves. More often than not, those who are perceived to be the enemies are the
ones that they talk to. I am pertaining to the Christian-Muslim conflict, for example in
Carmen, North Cotabato. This report also captures how human security can be
strengthened if there are more community efforts.)
Palagay ko po ngayong umaga, magiging mayaman ang ating palitan ng kuro-

kuro. Pero ang naging achievement ng report na ito ay napakinggan nga ang boses ng
mga pamayanan at ito po ay idudulog natin sa pamahalaan pati na rin sa iba pang
naniniwala pa na ang human security ay nakabase lamang sa military approach. (I think
that we will have a rich exchange of ideas this morning. But for me, the main achievement
of this report is that it was able to listen to the voices of the communities and the results will
be given to the government as well as to those who still believe that human security is only
based on the military approach.)
REACTIONS FROM DISCUSSANTS
Nymia Pimentel Simbulan

Executive Director
Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)
On the definition of human security, it’s very nice to know that such kind of studies are
conducted and are coming up with indicators or ways of measuring human security. Also
as borne out by the study, and as shared by different respondents and participants in the
study, contrary to how the state—particularly those coming from the military establishment—
would define human security, primarily associating the concept with defense or national
security, many of our people would have a broader concept of human security even in
conflict areas. Human security has a very different definition from the state’s perspective.
In fact, a very concrete illustration that human security is viewed from a limited perspective,
not only by the military but even by members of our legislature, would be the promulgation
of the Anti-Terror Law which has been euphemistically termed or labeled as the Human
Security Act. So, even members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are
showing a limited concept of human security.
But I suppose, as far as the human rights defenders and advocates are concerned,
human security would be viewed as a state or condition, and that has been supposed to
be weeded in the study, where the people’s human rights are respected, protected and
realized, allowing them to live in dignity and to develop their capacities and potentialities
to the fullest possible. In other words, we are associating or linking up the concept of
human security to the issue of human rights. So it is a state where people, especially the
vulnerable and marginalized, are able to enjoy their economic, social, and cultural rights
such as the rights to food, health, education, housing, work, and social security, and at the
same time, their civil and political rights, like the right to freedom of expression and
peaceful assembly, freedom from torture and cruel or degrading treatment and punishment,
right to religion, organization, and to due process.
Viewed from a human rights perspective, human security is both a consequence

when human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled, and a condition necessary for
people to develop as individuals or as human beings and as members of society. I agree
that the human security concept is a relational concept. Viewed from a rights perspective,
it involves the relation between two major actors in society—the state as duty bearers with
particular human rights obligations and accountabilities, on one hand, and the citizens as
rights holders with duties and responsibilities, on the other. These would be the key actors
or players, both in conflict and non-conflict situations. Although human rights are inherent
entitlements, in modern times, there is a general recognition of the need to translate and
institutionalize these inherent entitlements in the form of laws, policies, treaties or covenants.
Thus, when states sign and ratify these laws, treaties or covenants, they become legally
bound to adhere to and comply with these instruments as reflected in their various
obligations.
On threats and sources of threats to human security, when rights are violated, all
sorts of threats to human security emerge: widespread landlessness, social inequities
and injustice. Deprivation and exclusion give rise to what the military would view as a
major threat to human security, acts of insurgency, “terrorist” activities or acts. At present,
what may be considered as major and serious threats to human security, if not sources of
human rights violations because of their impact to human rights, would be globalization
and the war on terror.
Globalization is exemplified by neoliberal policies of governments, including the

Arroyo government. Examples of such policies are privatization, liberalization, and
deregulation. Globalization has greatly contributed to the worsening of the poverty among
our people with the destruction of the environment and livelihoods, particularly in the
agricultural sector, labor issues due to unemployment and underemployment, and the
spread or worsening of hunger and disease in our midst. For instance, it has been
mentioned in the study that one source of threat would be the phenomenon of aggression
which we find existing in many parts of the country, particularly in the rural areas. So,
development aggression has resulted to massive displacement, fiscal and economic
displacement of poor communities, farmers, agricultural workers, and indigenous
communities.
Liberalization policies have also resulted to massive fiscal and economic dislocations
and one concrete illustration of these would be the opening up of the mining industry and
entry of multinational corporations engaged in large scale mining activities in the country.
The “Mining Act” of the [Arroyo] government has identified twenty-three strategic
communities that will be opened to large-scale mining operations. Then, of course, you
also have the commitment of the current government, again in the context of globalization,
of entering into various bilateral agreements which have various implications on human
rights, both civil and political but more so economic and cultural. A very good example of
the serious implications of bilateral agreements which have been recently entered into by
the Philippine government would be the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership
Agreement. There are actually a lot more bilateral agreements that are about to be ratified
or entered into and ratified by the Philippine Senate.
Now, when it comes to the war against terror, the very concrete effects of this,
whether it be in Mindanao, Metro Manila, or in other parts of Luzon and Visayas, would
be the labeling and discrimination, particularly of our Muslim brothers and sisters. It has
also resulted to militarization in the countryside, physical and economic dislocations as
evidenced by the phenomenon of internal refugees, illegal arrest and detention, enforced
disappearances and extrajudicial killings. In rural areas—I don’t know if this has been
experienced in the countryside or the rural areas which are part of this study, part of the
campaign against terrorism would be the use of psychological operations by labeling and
classifying even of legitimate nongovernment organizations (NGOs) or people’s
organizations as “enemies of the state”. In fact, we have had experiences in some
factories where members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines go around factories and
urban poor communities showing a film where the political spectrum being shown is
aligning NGOs, people’s organizations, and trade union organizations as part of the
“enemies of the state” or as terrorists and terrorist supporters occupying one end of the
spectrum. And of course, this would result to the sowing of seeds of distrust and fear, as
well as difficulty on the part of people to move around and to engage actively in criticizing,
expressing, and defending their rights.
Addressing threats and the sources of threats to human security requires people
and communities to empower themselves so that they are able to effectively claim and
defend their rights. In fact, this has also been one of the points raised in the results of the
study. Civil society groups, the religious sector, academe, and mass media play a critical
role and can greatly contribute to the empowerment of peoples and communities. They
contribute in such areas of work like education and information dissemination, training,
resource generation, legal case involvements like filing of cases against erring government
officials, whether at the local or the national levels, and involvement in national and
international projection of lobby work of issues and concerns.
Based on this point, I just like to emphasize that as far as Philippine Human Rights
Information Center (PhilRights) and other human rights groups are concerned, we are
very much involved and would like to greatly emphasize that for human security issues
and rights to be addressed, you have to build capabilities of people in terms of raising their
level of awareness and education, particularly on what their rights are. Because for
people to be able to move in claiming and defending their rights, it would be very
important to know what their rights are and then, you proceed with other skill-building
activities. One area which we are emphasizing among the human rights community is the
area of monitoring and documentation of rights violations, whether civil and political or
economic, social, and cultural. So, being able to maximize and make use of legal struggles
by filing cases in courts or by doing lobby work in the Philippine Congress would require
both documentation work, being able to arm themselves with evidence-based data and
information so that when you confront or engage with government officials, whether this
be at the local or national level, the people are properly armed in theory, data, and
information.
Raymund Jose Quilop

Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
For my initial points, let me just say that personally as I was going over the executive
summary and the presentation, I think the study paves the way for a better understanding
of human security which all of us have been talking about but sometimes, you really have
to be able to describe and conceptualize it. I must admit that even at this point in time, I
have concerns when we talk about the concept of human security which I will be elaborating
later on. So I find the study as an opportunity to further flesh out how human security both
at the conceptual level, and more importantly, at the policy level, could be implemented on
the ground.
The challenge about human security is that it is a challenging task, particularly

because of the fact that the individual becomes the referent object and therefore, the
question: who are these individuals? And related to this, when you have to prioritize
things, if the referent object is the individual, then things almost become anarchical: who
gets to have the priority? For us who have been exposed to a certain degree with the
idea of human security, we know that the individuals we refer to here are the ordinary
people—the marginalized sectors. But my concern refers to the other individuals out
there—the elite, the rich, and the powerful could equally make claims and sometimes,
people have this kind of argument that the idea of human security equally applies to them.
So, how do we draw the line? We know human security is a sort of advocacy for the
marginalized sectors but other witty people could also utilize it.
This is the reason why as far as the study is concerned, I find it very useful when
you included the idea of individuals still as the referent object but you brought in the
community as another dimension, short of course of including the state. But the question
I would like to ask is, when you talk of community, at what particular level? Maybe you
could elaborate later on if you are talking of the barangay at that level or something bigger
and higher than the barangay.
My comments and reactions are actually divided into three areas or points. First, I
would now go to the conceptual concerns that I have. The first thing is, most of the threats
to security identified by the key informants, focus group discussions’ participants, and the
survey respondents, if you look at them, they are practically problems related to
governance—good governance for that matter. Thus, the question that we need to ask
ourselves is, how do we make the conceptual distinction between what items to put under
the concept of governance and what items to put under the concept of security? Why am
I concerned about this? Basically, at the conceptual level, we have to be clear about
certain concepts, but more importantly, at the policy level, it has certain impacts. For
example, if we are able to put almost everything under the rubric of security, then we
would not wonder anymore if one day we wake up, as I always say, with a security sector
that has practically been given a very wide role as far as these things are concerned. So
that’s a consideration, how do we make that distinction?
A second conceptual clarification that I would like to raise has something to do with
the identified violent conflicts. Maybe the study could later on further flesh out or if it is there
already, elaborate further what exactly are these violent conflicts that individuals perceive
and have actually experienced so that we have a clearer sense.
The second concern that I have, for lack of a better term—I know it’s not really a
methodological concern but for the lack of a better term at this point—I simply label it as
such. This has something to do with the finding that majority of the respondents think that
the armed conflict made the peace and order situation worse in their areas. But this is
something that is supposed to be expected because the sites of the study are actually the
sites where there are armed conflicts. So, if we’re fleshing out a human security index and
the area of study are these particular sites, maybe it would be good to put them on the
side. Put these items on the side in the meantime and just apply it later on when you apply
the index to a wider setting, including areas where there are no violent conflicts.
The third point I would like to raise has something to do with policy concerns. As the
study itself acknowledged, the context of the study are the conflict-affected areas and
more interestingly, they limited and narrowed down the area of study in those areas
where the state is one of the actors involved. I do not know if I just have this sense, and
I maybe wrong, but I have this sense that the state is put in a way in a position where it
appears that it undermines by default human security. We have to clarify that. Although in
some of the findings, you have practically emphasized that some of the respondents
practically say the state undermines or promotes human security. But I have this sense,
there seems to be an inherent bias against the state so much so, that the state is almost
always seen to be against human security, which of course is understandable to a certain
extent because national security has always been perceived to be for the state. So, I was
just wondering if maybe we can also flesh out those areas where the state is an actor—
it is also involved but in a more positive light. What I mean is, maybe the project can focus
on those areas where the state, to a certain extent even if it only a little bit practically
contributed, if there is such an area, to human security. Maybe your future study could
look into this and include it in the proposal.
Another policy concern that I have is maybe, how the study can further flesh out the
government’s claim as embodied in its policies, and if you look at it, there are indeed official
policies to this effect, that the tenets of human security are already embodied in its “redefined”
notion of national security. This notion defines national security, as I have always argued
in several other fora, to be already multidimensional. So, what really bothers me is this:
why is it that in spite of the fact that the state has been claiming that the notion of national
security is already multidimensional, and it has several elements, there is this prevailing
notion that national security is still all about military and defense? So, maybe the study
could look into the factors why this is the case. You have on the one hand a state that
claims that the national security concept is already redefined, there is a new notion of
national security and this is something not really new. It has been there for a very long
time. And yet, on the other hand, the other actors involved—the citizens, the people—
practically have this notion that national security is still all about the military and defense.
So maybe, we need to look into that.
This brings me to the point that respondents have been talking of the critical role of
the national government. Now, what exactly is this critical role? Well, I assume that it’s for
promoting human security which is interesting because some of the participants and
respondents say that they have the capability to address threats to their security and yet,
on the other hand, I do not have the exact figures, you have another group of respondents
that say there is a critical role to be played by the state. And yet, there is this perception that
the state has been primarily involved in undermining human security. So, I don’t know, as
a reactor I was asked to ask as many questions that I could ask, and this is the interesting
thing being a reactor in a forum like this, you get to ask all the questions but you never get
to answer them unlike presenters.
Which then again brings me to the point that the state actually needs to be brought
into the picture which is something acknowledged by the participants as well. The question
is: how do we really make the state appreciate this whole notion of human security,
particularly if it already claims that it recognizes it? Therefore, maybe the issue that we
should be looking at is how do we translate that official policy pronouncement into actual
programs? Or maybe, for all we know, there are already actual existing programs that
are being implemented. So, how do we tie all these things together?
Finally, in spite of the caveat that the study does not intend to come up with an index
at the end of the day, and it’s basically understandable; developing an index is very
difficult and to a certain extent after getting all these things, it’s really challenging to put them
altogether in one index. So, maybe the comments on the proposed human security index
itself could be considered in future examination of this index. From a layman’s point of
view, when I see the word index, I basically think of a measuring instrument wherein you
have certain indicators, if you have a score for all these indicators. At the end of the day,
you come up with a sum total, a composite score which would now give you an idea of
how high, how low is the sense of human security.
Now, the result of the factor analysis that the group practically conducted apparently
resulted to four factors: perceived threats to security; protection of rights; economic and
health wellbeing; and direct threats to life. My concern about these factors is, if you look at
the perceived threats to security, I do not think they add up to an index. Protection of
rights, yes. Economic and health wellbeing, yes. Direct threats to life, it has an opposite
effect as far as an index is concerned. Maybe this point will be better appreciated if we
compare the proposed human security index with the Human Development Index. The
Human Development Index is quite clear, you all have a sum of those things which would
now enable you to measure at a certain degree, the level of human development there is
in a particular society. That is one aspect of it. The other aspect is the difficulty in really
measuring the sense of security. For example, perceived threats to security; it’s very
difficult to measure. We all understand that protection of rights, I believe, is again difficult to
measure. Economic and health wellbeing is relatively easier. Finally, direct threats to life;
its measurability actually is dependent on what actually are these direct threats to life.
OPEN FORUM
Vicente Doletin
Vice Mayor
Midsayap, North Cotabato
I have a number of concerns. The result of the data gathering might be in conflict with
what is happening now since the study was made in 2007 to early 2008. Since June 2008
until the present day, there is a new conflict that has emerged.
The conflict in Midsayap started around the 1970s, when there were what were
called the “black shirts” going around and killing Muslims and dumping their bodies in the
place. There were so many deaths in Midsayap and the conflict continued after that.
When former President Estrada declared an all out war with the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front (MILF) back in 2000, there were also a lot of deaths on both sides. So, we can see
what happened, why a war broke out. And then again in June 2008, another war broke
out, again in Midsayap.
The findings of the research project are relevant. They are true but the first problem
in our area is that there are too many weapons but our government is not doing anything
about it. Because the culture among Muslims is like this, even though they do not have
food, they would prioritize buying weapons. For them, it is a status symbol that when you
have weapons, that’s your security. Among us, we are talking of a different security, but for
them that is how it is. So, they buy weapons instead of food. Never mind that they have
no food as long as they have weapons. That is what is happening although all the findings
are true. But the main problem is still, there are so many weapons that the government
cannot control the situation.
Second, the national government’s reports are different from what is out there. What
the national government is saying is different from what the local government is saying;
they are not true in our area. I tell you, in Midsayap alone, we have nine thousand
swampy areas and that’s where our Muslim brothers are. I was saying, if only the
Department of Agriculture can see the swampy areas and put irrigation in it, that’s where
our conflict can be resolved. The ones who are at war with us have no work—they have
nothing else to do but wage war. Health and education are very poor in the Muslim areas,
not only in North Cotabato but also in Maguindanao and Sharif Kabunsuan. In one
barangay, you can try, but you cannot even see a single restroom, they do not even
have a health center. What you see in the pictures—the Muslims just sitting and drinking
coffee, that is what they do as work. I am not sure if it is because we were not able to
educate them, we were not able to help them or we were not able to reach out. Maybe,
these can be looked into.
I also have a number of recommendations for the research team. First, maybe the
next time the group goes there, they can look for me. We are focused on areas where
there are armed conflicts. We could go deeper into those actual areas where you will see
the actual situation. It would really be good if you can see what I see in the area: the
dilapidated schools, the conflict areas, and as well as the flooded areas. Also, when we go
to the sites, it is better to go without the military so you can really go deeper into the actual
areas. And it is much safer to go without the military.
Second, I would also like to let you know—just for your study and hopefully you can
help—of the problem in our area, especially in Maguindanao and North Cotabato. This
is flooding. The problem of our Muslim brothers is not only the war but the flooding as well.
Pulangi River is a catch basin area and it is silted already, so, when the water comes out,
it goes to the area of the Muslims and does not leave Cotabato to go to the sea. Classes
are suspended for days because of flooding even when there are no rains. This is a
permanent problem with or without the problem of armed conflict. Maybe, we can pass
this on to the national government because the local government does not have the
capacity to address this problem. If there is rain, we have evacuees; when there is armed
conflict, we also have evacuees. It is a national issue that has not been addressed to this
day.

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science
Mine are just a few comments and some are actually somewhat responding to, not
necessarily raising questions, about Professor Quilop’s points earlier. My belief is that the
national security framework we have is predominantly military in terms of its orientation.
Actually, Professor Quilop is right but this goes into what he raised: whether this is a
security issue or governance issue. For example, the different agencies of the government
use the language of security within the context of that national security framework. The
Department of Agriculture (DA), they talk about food security. I am just not sure if the food
security for the DA is part of a much larger framework which is used by the government
itself. The way I understand the national security framework, it is actually utilized by the
National Security Council and some other agencies but it is not necessarily a framework
that the entire national government actually has adopted. Meaning to say, that even if you
have the DA talking about food security, it’s not necessarily something that is connected to
an overall framework that the government is actually utilizing. Of that, I am not really too
sure. This relates to the problem being pointed out by Professor Quilop. You might have
this framework but the question is, to what extent is it really something that interconnects all
of the approaches of different government agencies. But that’s not a problem with the
human security index.
Let us look at the caveats said by the group. First, in terms of the sampling and the
triangulated approach to finding the data, it gives a fairly good outline at the national level,
but it would be difficult to interpret data as something that actually illustrates local government
conditions, for example, at the provincial level. You need a much more extensive research
for that. That is why, I appreciate it when people actually say “maybe when you come
back next time,” which might mean they have an interest in continuing this project.
But I think those comments actually illustrate the value of the index, because what the
index or what this project is actually indicating to us is that it is not true for all times. It is like
taking a picture at a point in time where the index illustrates the situation. So, the index
gives you a better picture if you actually do it over time repeatedly. Maybe, that is what we
should think about, once this index is formalized, what is needed to be done. We really
have to do this over a regular period of time.
The other thing with the index perhaps is the idea that it also indicates to us—this is
where the governance versus security will come—it also indicates to us where government
resources should actually be focused. As an illustration, in many of the communities that
were looked into, majority of them would say that their problem would be economic. But
there are some who would say that their human security issue is not economic, the focal
point is different. What I mean is, if we look at the index, it indicates to us what it is the
government should do in specific areas. The response should be customized to what the
community needs.
The index is actually good in that way. One, over time, it gives you a picture of what
is going on, what it is that people feel insecure about, and where the threats are coming
from. The second thing is, precisely because that’s the point, then it means there is an
indication of what government should actually be doing in specific areas. Given that, that
is what the value of this project is. But hopefully, at some point we can approximate what
the Human Development Index has actually achieved, where we will become capable of
coming up with a composite score that will allow us to work quantitatively and actually give
measurements as far as the human security issues of the country are.
Cicero C. Triunfante
Mayor
Daraga, Albay
From the presentation, I think there is one common problem that we have in Albay.
It is not logging because that is only true for Rapu-Rapu. Our problem then was the illegal
cutting of coconut trees because they were no longer productive after typhoon Reming.
So, the only possible source of income was coco lumber. That has already been addressed.
Now, our problem is the human security with respect to insurgency which has never
been perhaps given a special role. The reason why most of the constituents in Albay are
reluctant to cooperate in addressing the problem of security is because during elections,
the congressmen and the governors themselves pay the so-called “permit to campaign”
and “permit to win.” So, if these elected officials were having some sort of an alliance with
the insurgents, then, where will people go to for security reasons? To whom will they
address their problems when they are being asked for a portion of their agricultural
products, their salary in the case of the teachers, their honoraria in the case of barangay
officials?
Of course, there are some areas, as you have reported, which are good because
during that time, if the constituents are disciplined and there is no crime, that means that it
is an “influenced” barangay. It would be the New People’s Army (NPA) who punish these
people, especially the cattle hustlers. They kill them, as well as the burglars. But now, this
is no longer the case. The NPAs are no longer moved by idealism, but more of profit-
making ventures. You have to pay in order to campaign and you have to pay for the
ballots to be counted, otherwise, even if you were allowed to campaign but you did not
pay for the “permit to win,” your ballots will be confiscated. So, that is the very problem that
we have and people are already used to this because even congressmen and governors
are paying these dues. There is nobody to turn to because the police are only operational
in the poblacion areas but not in the rural areas. They are not visible and understandably
because we lack police personnel.
No matter how much we request the provincial or national command, they have no
budget to send additional police. We are apprehensive that Daraga has been chosen to
be the site of a future international airport. How will it be when the proposed location is
situated in a rural area and we can only secure the poblacion? I think as early as today,
we should start preparing for the security of investors in that area.
As of now, we are used to all these threats and nobody would even dare say things
in public because they are ashamed and scared as well. So, you cannot get this information
from them. When it comes to the insurgency, they will not say anything but that is the
problem we are facing. Even our livelihood is affected. If you want to raise pigs, the NPAs
will also ask for the profits from the sale, same as in small business enterprises. There are
no delinquent tax payers when it comes to “the other side.” They also have records of
real properties; they know who the tax payers are in the area.
Of course, right now, we are more preoccupied with shelter and livelihood security
because of our experience with typhoon Reming. I have 4,679 families to be resettled. I
have only so far succeeded after one year and a half to furnish house and lots for free for
1,600 families. There are still many more left behind so that is the problem we are
addressing. It is good that we have so many NGO partners. We have the United Nations
Children’s Fund, the International Organization for Migration, the Project for Compassion,
Gawad Kalinga, Plan International, etc. Of course, the Department of Social Welfare and
Development is only one of those helping us.
Ana Aelzy Ofreneo

As you know, this is compatible with what we are doing in the area of human rights.
If we could remember, the United Nations (UN) came out with the Declaration to the Right
to Development in 1986, which focuses the discussion of development on the people.
Everything should be focused on the person—the person is not only the object but also
the subject of development. In 2003, the UN created a Commission on Human Security.
Their framework is very simple, they are pushing for freedom from fear and freedom from
want. Freedom from fear pertains to the civil and political rights protection. Freedom from
want pertains to the protection of our economic, social, and cultural rights.
Related to this, the UN also came out with a reform program. In the framework for
reform of former Secretary General Kofi Annan entitled “In Larger Freedom,” human
rights was still the basic tenet. And because of that reform initiative, it became a trend in the
UN what we call the rights-based approach to development programming, supporting
initiatives, etc. And right now, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights is coming out
with how to ensure that these initiatives from the UN can be crystallized and operationalized
locally through these indices. So, I am curious to see this human security index. I am
hoping that we can already develop an economic empowerment index, social
empowerment index, political empowerment index, cultural empowerment index, etc.
since what we want to happen is to emancipate and empower the human person because
the human person is at the center of the initiative of every development that we can
imagine and think of.

Developing A Human Security Index For The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing A Human Security Index For The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPING A HUMAN

Maria Ela L. Atienza

© 2010 University of the Philippines and United Nations Development

Reproduction of this document is permitted, provided due

Edited by Maria Ela L. Atienza

Image of the human hand in the cover taken from www.dreamstime.com/

Back cover photograph by Maria Ela L. Atienza

Printed and bound in the Philippines

Third World Studies Center

About the Authors 159

1 Directory of Project Participants 161

2.1 Dimensions of traditional and human security 30

1.1 Human security framework 12

This book would not have been possible without the

We are most grateful to Teresa S. Encarnacion Tadem,

We acknowledge the contributions of Josephine C. Dionisio,

We extend our gratitude to the meaningful contributions

For financial and logistical support, our gratitude goes to

Despite the changes in structure and personnel of the

We are grateful for the support we received from different

Outside the formal structures of OPAPP, UNDP, and

This published version of the project report benefitted from

This publication would not be completed without the able

We are indebted to the reliable administrative staff of the

Finally, we are grateful to our loved ones for their

Maria Ela L. Atienza

Office of the Presidential Adviser

Since the publication of the United Nations Development

This publication, entitled Developing a Human Security Index

Though exploratory, the study contains notable results

We are grateful to the Third World Studies Center for

We are likewise grateful to the UNDP through its CPPB

SECRETARY AVELINO I. RAZON JR.

United Nations Development Programme

The initiative to develop a Human Security Index (HSI) in

At the global level, the United Nations Development

The development of an HSI is meant to create a planning

beneficial to individuals and communities who are at the core

The 1986 People Power Revolution opened up a potent

non-governmental organizations, and church groups among

One of the more important aspects of the project, which

Philippines, for one, aims to serve as an indispensable planning

All of these would not have been possible without the

support given to this project by Sharon M. Quinsaat and

Special thanks also go to the consultants of this project:

It seems only fitting that this publication comes at a time

TERESA S. ENCARNACION TADEM

DEVELOPING A HUMAN SECURITY INDEX FOR

Maria Ela L. Atienza

Human security, which seeks to shift the meaning of

Amidst various attempts to define human security and

Given the current limitations of human security as a

The Development of Human Security as a Concept

Bajpai (2000, 4) asserted that the idea of human security

which the issues of environment, population growth and

However, a review of literature shows that human security

Considerable debate remains among scholars on the scope

under human security. Paris (2001) argued that various

How do Filipinos understand human security? The national

After the 1986 People Power movement, national security

“mainly responsible for the management of the national

Thus, the national security framework nominally considers

Beyond the national security framework, various attempts