WHAT IS GOVERNANCE?

MEANING OF GOVERNANCE
Governance in General
The word governance came from the Latin verb gubernare, or more originally from the Greek
word kubernaein, which means to steer. Basing on its etymology, governance refers to the
manner of steering or governing, or of directing and controlling, a group of people or a state.
Governance is essentially related to politics, in that politics is often defined as the art of
governance. Just as politics talks about governments, institutions, power, order, and the ideals of
justice, governance also deals with the public sector, power structures, equity, and ideals of public
administration. Nevertheless, they are distinct from each other in the sense that politics is broader
than governance. Traditionally, the study of politics entails the concept of the good life and the
ideal society, which are so broad they include a web of subjects and every possible form of
government. The study of governance, on the contrary, is generally attuned to the concept of
democracy, and on how the government and the civil society arrive at a decision in meeting their
needs.
Definition of Governance
Governance is commonly defined as the exercise of power or authority by political leaders for the
well-being of their countrys citizens or subjects. It is the complex process whereby some sectors of
the society wield power, and enact and promulgate public policies which directly affect human and
institutional interactions, and economic and social development. The power exercised by the
participating sectors of the society is always for the common good, as it is essential for demanding
respect and cooperation from the citizens and the state. As such, a great deal about governance is
the proper and effective utilization of resources.
Governance and Government
Governance is traditionally associated with government. In literatures, they are often used
interchangeably. But in the 1980s, political scientists broadened the meaning of governance as
including, not just government actors, but also civil-society actors.[1] Today, governance includes
three sectors: the public sector (state actors and institutions), the private sector (households and
companies), and the civil society (non-governmental organizations). These three sectors are said
to work hand in hand in the process of governance. This new use of the term focuses on the role of
networks in the achievement of the common good, whether these networks are
intergovernmental, transnational, or international.[2] In other words governance is broader than
government in that other sectors are included in it.
Many authors also distinguish the two by associating government with control and domination,
and governance with decentralization and relational management. On the one hand, government
refers to a central institution which wields power over its subjects. It is the instrument patterned
after the model of command and control, the government being in command over the affairs of
the people. On the other hand, governance is closely associated with the concept of
decentralization of power and the need for inter-sectoral management. Governance is based on
the realization that the government cannot do everything for the people, so that in order to survive
the state should not only rely on government but also on the other sectors of the society.
Thus, under the current trend, there is a need to move from the traditional hierarchical exercise of
power by the government to the new notion of a dispersed and relational power in governance
from government to governance. To govern should now mean to facilitate or regulate, not to
dominate or command.
Importance of Studying Governance
From the information learned in the discussion of governance, the people, most especially the
citizens, will be aware of the need for good governance. Consequently, such awareness should

move them to action. For their continued empowerment and sustainable development, they have to
know how to fight for their rights by knowing what to expect from Philippine governance. Thus,
what will follow is an exposition of the basic concepts of governance, the ideal type of governance,
and the status of the Philippines vis--vis the indicators of good governance.

PROCESSES AND ACTORS IN GOVERNANCE

Decision-Making and Implementation
Governance entails two processes: decision-making and implementation of the decision. In broad
terms, decision-making refers the process by which a person or group of persons, guided by sociopolitical structures, arrive at a decision involving their individual and communal needs and wants.
Implementation is the process that logically follows the decision; it entails the actualization or
materialization of the plan or decision. Governance is not just decision-making because decision
without implementation is self-defeating. Neither is it just implementation because there is nothing
to implement without a decision or plan. Thus, the two processes necessarily go hand-in-hand in,
and are constitutive of, governance.
Actors and Structures
Understanding the two processes requires an analysis of the actors involved and structures
established for making and implementing a decision. An actor is a sector or group or institution that
participates in the process of decision-making and implementation. A structure refers to an
organization or mechanism that formally or informally guides the decision-making process and sets
into motion the different actors and apparatuses in the implementation process.
Having such a broad scope, governance has different facets and may be applied in different
contexts, such as corporate governance, international governance, and national and local
governance.[3] In each context, governance has different actors and structures. Depending on the
kind of decision made and the structure implementing it, governance may be good or bad
governance.
The government is almost always the main actor in governance, whether it is in the corporate,
international, national or local level. The government is called the public sector. While it is the
biggest actor in governance, it is not the only actor. Modern complex societies, in order to meet the
growing demands of development, are managed in different levels by various actors. Even
communist governments work with other sectors, especially with international organizations and
multi-national corporations, in meeting their communist ends. The main role of the public sector is
to provide an enabling environment for the other actors of governance to participate and respond
to the mandate of the common good.
All actors other than the government are called the civil society. The civil society includes nongovernmental organizations, and other community-based and sectoral organizations, such as
association of farmers, charitable institutions, cooperatives, religious communities, political parties,
and research institutes. These organizations are private in nature but have public functions or
objectives. The Philippine Red Cross, for instance, is a non-governmental organization. It is a
private charitable institution the serves the community especially during disasters and emergencies
by providing medical assistance and disaster support services.
The study of Philippine governance, however, includes the business or private sector as an
indispensable partner in development. To cope with the ever growing demands of development,
the public sector must necessarily tie-up with the private sector most especially in the financial
In the national and international level, decision-making is greatly influenced by actors like the
media, international organizations, multi-national corporations, and international donors. Thus,
from the foregoing, it should be clear that governance involves several actors in multi-level
structures.

Informal Actors and Bad Governance

Other informal actors also exist, such as organized crime syndicates and powerful families. Their
influence is felt more clearly in local governments, and in rural and urban areas. Most often than
not, these actors are the cause of corruption, in that legitimate government objectives are distorted
by their illegal and private interests. Worse, they manipulate government officials and agencies,
and cause widespread yet organized violence in the community. In urban and rural areas, for
example, the rich and powerful families control the economy by controlling the local government
officials. They bring about a controlled environment so that decisions must always favor them.
Allegedly, even government officials, both local and national, are not just influenced but themselves
members of organized crime syndicates with the purpose of using public office and, consequently,
public funds for personal aggrandizement.
When these actors and informal structures disrupt, corrupt and upset the legitimate objectives and
ideals of the society, bad governance will result which is considered as the chief problem of the
society. Problems deepen and multiply because of bad governance. Inasmuch as economics and
politics are interrelated, poor economy is caused by bad governance. International aids and loans,
for instance, are scarce in a badly governed country. International donors and financial institutions
are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure good
governance are undertaken.[4] Recognizing these realities, current economic and political goals of
countries all over the world are aimed at good governance. It is an ideal so broad and elusive the
realization of which is yet to be achieved. More so, the contemporary meaning of development is
good governance, or more specifically a reform from faulty governance to good governance. What
good governance is will therefore be discussed next.

INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

Eight Indicators of Good Governance
Good governance is understood through its eight indicators or characteristics: (1) Participatory; (2)
Rule of Law; (3) Effective and Efficient; (4) Transparent; (5) Responsive; (6) Equitable and
Inclusive; (7) Consensus Oriented; and (8) Accountability. They are inextricably related to each
other. For instance, without active participation among the various actors in governance, there
would be a concomitant lack of responsiveness. Likewise, if decision-making is not transparent,
then inevitably there would be no participation, accountability, and decisions are not consensus
oriented. These indicators should, however, be understood in the context of good democratic
governance. Some of the indicators cannot be applied in other forms of government. For example,
good communist governance could never be consensus oriented or genuinely participatory.
It must also be emphasized that good governance and development should not be based
exclusively on economic growth. Through global persuasion, good governance and development
signify a broader spectrum of things, such as protection of human rights, equitable distribution of
wealth, enhancement of individual capabilities and creation of an enabling environment to foster
participation and growth of human potentials. As it evolved today, sustainable development
necessitates people empowerment and respect for human rights.[5] After all, economic
prosperity or the minimization of poverty and unemployment depends on how the state unleashes
the full potential of its human resource by recognizing their vital roles and according full respect for
human rights.
Participation
Good governance essentially requires participation of different sectors of the society. Participation
means active involvement of all affected and interested parties in the decision-making process. It
requires an enabling environment wherein pertinent information is effectively disseminated and
people could respond in an unconstrained and truthful manner. It also means gender equality,
recognizing the vital roles of both men and women in decision-making.

More fundamentally, the need for participation is a recognition of the limits of a verticalized
system of governance. A verticalized system, or the top-down approach, refers to a state or
government monopoly both of powers and responsibilities. While the government is still the most
potent actor in the process of governance, the participation of other sectors is already a necessity
because of the always evolving complexity and ever growing needs of the societies, especially in
the financial sphere. What should now be utilized is the so-called horizontal system where the
government works hand in hand with other sectors of the society. The different sectors are
considered partners of the government in attaining development goals. Governance should no
longer be government monopoly but government management or inter-sectoral participation.
Participation in representative democracies may either be direct or indirect, and recommendatory
or actual. It could be indirect and recommendatory because in principle the form of government is
based on delegation of powers. In the Philippines, which possesses features of both direct and
indirect democracy, indirect participation is done through public consultations or hearings, while
direct participation is through elections, initiatives and referendums.
The management of highly complex societies and of their ever growing needs requires a
participatory form of governance by diffusing power. The move for decentralization is a response to
this as it widens the base of participation and allows local government units to exercise
governmental powers directly within their respective districts. Service delivery is enhanced
because of the proximity of local government units to their constituents, and because of the linking
which happens between the national government and regional concerns.
Participation is one of the strengths of Philippine governance. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is
replete of provisions dealing with relational and inter-sectoral governance. The Local Government
Act of 1989 was borne out of the need for decentralization in Philippine governance. As such,
these and other related legislations may be considered as normative standards for good
governance.
Rule of Law
Democracy is essentially the rule of law. It is through the law that people express their will and
exercise their sovereignty. That the government is of law and not of men is an underlying
democratic principle which puts no one, however rich and powerful, above the law. Not even the
government can arbitrarily act in contravention of the law. Thus, good democratic governance is
fundamentally adherence to the rule of law.
Rule of law demands that the people and the civil society render habitual obedience to the law. It
also demands that the government acts within the limits of the powers and functions prescribed by
the law. The absence of rule of law is anarchy. Anarchy happens when people act in utter disregard
of law and when the government act whimsically or arbitrarily beyond their powers. In more
concrete terms, rule of law means peace and order, absence of corruption, impartial and
effective justice system, observance and protection of human rights, and clear, publicized, and
stable laws.
What the law seeks to promote is justice. When there is dearth of legislation for curbing social
evils, or even if there is, but the same is ineffectual or unresponsive, and when there is no faithful
execution of the law, then justice is not attained. When the justice system is biased and
discriminatory, when it favors the rich and the influential over the poor and lowly, or when the legal
processes are long, arduous, unavailable or full of delays, then justice is not attained. Then when
the actors of governance can minimize, if not eliminate, these injustices, then there is said to be
rule of law.
Rule of law also requires that laws are responsive to the needs of the society. Archaic or irrelevant
laws must be amended or repealed to cater to modern demands.
The Philippines does not fare well in this aspect of good governance. In spite of being one of the
oldest democracies in the region, the Philippines ranked as last among seven indexed Asian
countries according to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. Generally, the reasons for
ranking last are lack of respect for law, pervasive and systemic corruption in the government,
and circumvention of the law. Lack of respect for law is generally caused by distrust on the
integrity of law enforcement agencies. Order and security are compromised and criminal justice is
rendered ineffectual.

Systemic corruption has long been a problem in the Philippines that like a malignant tumor it keeps
on sucking the life out of the country. Allegedly, it is the key officials in the government who direct
the perpetration of this crime. What became clear from a long string of corruption and plunder
cases is the true motive of many aspiring politicians money. The huge amount of money spent
during election campaigns are but mere investments for a more profitable return during their term
in office.
In addition, the justice system is flooded by legal practitioners who are experts at circumventing the
law. Circumvention happens when there is compliance with the letter of the law but violation of its
spirit and purpose. Due to technicalities, for instance, highly paid lawyers can find ways for their
rich and powerful clients to evade the law. Although apparently there is observance of law, it is only
superficial as the real end of the law is forfeited. As such, there is a concomitant violation of
fundamental rights of the people and ineffective administration of justice.
Nevertheless, the Philippines has exerted efforts in promoting the rule of law. The series of cases
filed against high ranking officials, previous Presidents, members of the judiciary, and high profile
persons for graft and corrupt practices prove one thing clearly: the honest drive of the current
administration to clean the government from corrupt traditional politicians. In addition, legislations
were made to hasten the legal process. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (R.A.
9285), for instance, seeks to unclog the court dockets by promoting a speedy, efficient, and less
expensive resolution of disputes. The Judicial Affidavit Rule issued by the Supreme Court in 2013
also lessened to a great extent the time and expenses of litigation.
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Good governance requires that the institutions, processes, and actors could deliver and meet the
necessities of the society in a way that available resources are utilized well. That the different
actors meet the needs of the society means that there is effective governance. That the valuable
resources are utilized, without wasting or underutilizing any of them, means that there is efficient
governance. Effectiveness (meeting the needs) and efficiency (proper utilization of resources) must
necessarily go together to ensure the best possible results for the community.
Concretely, effectiveness and efficiency demands enhancement and standardization of the quality
of public service delivery consistent with international standards, professionalization of
bureaucracy, focusing of government efforts on its vital functions, and elimination of redundancies
or overlaps in functions and operations, a citizen-centered government, and an improved
financial management system of the government.[6]
Public service delivery, especially of front-line agencies, must promptly and adequately cater the
needs of the citizens. Doing so requires simplified government procedures and inexpensive
transaction costs. Cumbersome procedures and expensive costs trigger corruption and red tape.
Red Tape refers to the disregard for timeframes in procedures by government agencies through
procrastination in public service delivery or under-the-table or unofficial transactions.[7] To further
curb such possibilities, the government agencies must comply with their citizens charter and use
up-to-date information and communications technology to reduce processing time. There must also
be coordination among various government agencies to eliminate redundant information
requirements.
Professionalism in Philippine bureaucracy requires competence and integrity in civil service.
Appointments to civil service must be depoliticized and must be based solely on merits.
Effectiveness and efficiency also demands that the programs and objectives of the various
government agencies are aligned with individual performance goals. The increases in
compensation are likewise necessary for the economic well-being, sustained competence and
boosted morale of the civil servants.
Although still insufficient, efforts were made to attain effectiveness and efficiency in Philippine
governance. The Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (ARTA), for instance, was passed to require the setting
up of Citizens Charter for a simplified procedure and to facilitate governmental transactions. Also,

many government departments and agencies pursued a rationalization program to check

excessive and redundant staffing.
Transparency
Transparency, as an indicator of good governance, means that people are open to information
regarding decision-making process and the implementation of the same. In legal terms, it means
that information on matters of public concern are made available to the citizens or those who will
be directly affected. It also means that transactions involving public interests must be fully
disclosed and made accessible to the people. It is anchored on the democratic right to information
and right to access of the same. Transparency is necessary not just from government transactions
but also in those transactions of the civil society and private sector imbued with public interests.
The reason why there should be transparency is to promote and protect democratic ideals. When
there is transparency, people are placed in a better position to know and protect their rights as well
as denounce corrupt or fraudulent practices in the public sector and in the private sector.
Although again insufficient, efforts were made in pursuit of transparency in Philippine governance.
As far as the government sector is concerned, the current administration, consistent with its drive
of curbing corruption, promotes honesty and integrity in public service. It is currently pursuing the
passage of the Freedom of Information Bill and other related legislations, as well as intensifying
peoples engagement in local governance. Transparency in budget and disbursements are,
however, still far from being substantially implemented.
Responsiveness
Responsiveness means that institutions and processes serve all stakeholders in a timely and
appropriate manner. It also means that actors and structures of governance easily give genuine
expression to the will or desire of the people. In other words, the interests of all citizens must be
well protected in a prompt and appropriate manner so that each of them can appreciate and take
part in the process of governance. While responsiveness is also a characteristic sought from the
private sector and civil society, more is demanded from the government or the public sector.
Gender equality is engrained in the egalitarian principles of democracy. Gender concerns that
respond to the women and their community must always be part of the agenda of public sector and
civil society. Thus, emerging as important areas in the study of democratic governance are
Gender and Development and Gender Responsiveness. The participation of women in
governance within the context of gendered socialization rests on how responsive the structures
and processes are to their roles and needs.
Some of the important efforts made to attain responsive governance in the Philippines are
decentralization, creation of citizens charter in all frontline agencies (as required by ARTA), and
gender sensitivity programs. First, through decentralization, local governments, which are more
proximate to their constituents, serve more promptly the people, who in turn become more involved
in decision-making. Second, every government agency now has it Citizens Charter, which
provides timeframes for every step in attaining frontline services. Agencies now must also respond
to written queries sent by the stakeholders or interested parties within a period of ten days,
otherwise there will be delayed service. However, this aspect of governance still remains to be one
of the causes for the decline of publics confidence in the public sector. Although the ARTA has
been passed, there is still so much delay in public service delivery. The failure of the government
agencies to explain the charters to the stakeholders is one of the main reasons why there is still
delay.
Equity and Inclusiveness
Equity and inclusiveness means that all the members of the society, especially the most vulnerable
ones or the grassroots level, must be taken into consideration in policy-making. Everyone has a
stake in the society and no one should feel alienated from it. Particularly, those who belong to the
grassroots level must not only be the subject of legislation but they must be given the opportunity
to participate in decision or policy making.
Social equity refers to a kind of justice that gives more opportunity to the less fortunate members of
the society. It is based on the principle that those who have less in life should have more in law.

Good governance demands that the actors must give preferential attention to the plight of the poor.
Laws must be geared towards this end and the society must actively participate in the promotion of
the same.
The Philippine Government has done extensive efforts in promoting equity and inclusiveness. The
Constitution makes it as one of its state policies the promotion of social justice. Pursuant to this,
the Congress has enacted social legislations like the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
aims at freeing the farmer tenants from the bondage of the soil. Also, representation in the
Congress, under the party list system, is constitutionally mandated to have sectoral representation
of the underprivileged. Gender and Development programs are in the process of being integrated
with the various structures and institutions in the country. But legislation is one thing;
implementation is another. It is in the faithful implementation of these laws that the country failed.
Inequality is especially felt in the justice system, electoral system, and even in the bureaucracy
itself.
Consensus Oriented
Governance is consensus oriented when decisions are made after taking into consideration the
different viewpoints of the actors of the society. Mechanisms for conflict resolution must be in place
because inevitably conflict that will arise from competing interests of the actors. To meet the
consensus, a strong, impartial, and flexible mediation structure must be established. Without such,
compromises and a broad consensus cannot be reached that serves that best interest of the whole
community.
Fundamentally, democratic governance is based on the partnership of the actors of the society in
providing public services. Decisions-making must therefore entail recognition of their respective
interests as well as their respective duties. The essential of governance could never be expressed
in a unilateral act of policy making by the public sector or other dominant sectors. Public hearings
or consultations in arriving at a consensus are therefore inherently necessary in the process of
governance.
Among the things done by the Philippines in promoting a consensus oriented governance are: (1)
creation of a wide-based of representation in the Congress; (2) a two-tiered legislature or
bicameralism which subjects legislation to the evaluation of national and district legislators; and (3)
necessity of public hearings or consultations of various governmental policies and actions.
Accountability
Accountability means answerability or responsibility for ones action. It is based on the principle
that every person or group is responsible for their actions most especially when their acts affect
public interest. The actors have an obligation to explain and be answerable for the consequences
of decisions and actions they have made on behalf of the community it serves.
Accountability comes in various forms: political, hierarchical, and managerial accountability.
Political accountability refers to the accountability of public officials to the people they represent.
Hierarchical accountability refers to the ordered accountability of the various agencies and their
respective officers and personnel in relation to their program objectives. Managerial accountability
refers to employee accountability based on organization and individual performance. A system of
rewards and punishment must be in place to strengthen the processes and institutions of
governance.
The Philippines in the recent years had endeavored to comply with the requirements of
accountability. It had put in action the concept of political accountability as it held answerable erring
public officials involved in graft and corruption and for acts contrary to the mandate of the
constitution. It had also strengthened parliamentary scrutiny through legislative investigations and
creation of special committees exercising oversight functions. The Office of the Ombudsman,
considered as the public watchdog, has become ever so active in investigating and prosecuting
graft and plunders cases. Citizens Charter, as required by ARTA, was also an important tool in
promoting professional public service values. In this area, Philippine governance has done
relatively well.

CURRENT STATE OF GOVERNANCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

The Philippines is plagued by bad governance. Based on the six dimensions of governance in the
Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), it ranks in the lower half of the percentile. In 2010-2011,
the Philippines ranked only 85th in the Global Competitive Index (GCI), lagging behind most of its
Southeast Asian neighbors. The decline of trust on the actors of governance and the consequential
poor economic condition were brought about by the systemic corruption among and between
public officials and private organizations. In 2013, it ranked 94th among 177 countries in the
Corruption Perception Index. Among the key institutions in the Philippines perceived to be most
corrupt based on the Global Corruption Index are political parties, judiciary, police, public
officials and civil servants, and legislature. This means all branches of the Philippine government
are now challenged.
As perceived and experienced by the common Filipino masses, the foremost indicators of bad
governance in the Philippines are the unending cycle of poverty, the huge gap between the rich
and the poor, the deep-seated tradition of corruption, mistrust on formal government institutions,
yawning cynicism on the true motive of political actions, instability of the economic environment,
constant threats to the authority of the established government, and questions on accountability
and transparency. These are the usual content of everyday broadcast media, so common that
there perceived to be the normal state of affairs in the Philippines.
Bad governance is the root cause of all evils. It is what prevents the Philippines from achieving its
Millennium Development Goals. Rising above such state of governance is a political imperative
and the ideal solution to a wide range of politico-economic problems. While the Philippines has
already created islands of good governance[8] in some national agencies and local government
units, its overall state is still miserable.[9]