AN ANALYSIS

OF THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS (PMP)

IN THE PHILIPPINES:
(Case Study between the Philippines and Korea on Education
and Social Welfare Programs)

MEMBERS:
JENNYLYN VERZOLA MATILA – 131i422i
MARIA CONSUELO ONATE LIM – 131i419i
WOO SEUNG HEUI – 138ib09i

1
 
ABSTRACT:

This study aims to know the policy making process of the Philippines and how it
is being done and how it is affected the country as a whole. This study also purports to
uncover the strengths and weaknesses of the policy making process as well as the
interplay among the different actors of the society. Furthermore, this study shall compare
specific programs on social welfare and education of the Philippines with that of Korea
and shall analysis the differences as reference for improvements.

KEY WORDS:

1. AGENDA SETTING

2. POLICY FORMULATION

3. LEGISLATION

4. IMPLEMENTATION

5. MONITORING

2
 
INTRODUCTION:

Public policy is defined as a system of courses of action, regulatory measures,

laws, and funding priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by a government
entity or its representatives 1 . Numerous issues can be addressed by public policy
including crime, education, foreign policy, health, and social welfare. Public policy is, in
fact, the product of a public policy making process.

According to Sabatier (1999), “public policy making process includes the manner
in which problems get conceptualized and brought to the government for solution;
governmental institutions formulate alternatives and select policy solutions; and those
solutions get implemented, evaluated and revised” 2. As such, the establishment of a
public policy making process is indispensable, yet, may vary from country to country.

The Philippines, being a democratic and republican state, has three branches of
government, namely: the executive, legislative, and judiciary which are co-equal and
inter-dependent of each other. As regards legislation or policy making, each branch has a
role to play. The legislative branch formulates laws, the executive implements the
enacted laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws.

As regards administrative policies, the executive branch takes the lead. The
President of the Republic designs his/her platform of government or his vision for the
country. On the basis of his platform or reform agenda, national policies and programs
are designed.

The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Board is the country’s

premier social and economic development planning and policy coordinating body. It is
composed of the President of the Philippines as chairman, the Secretary of Socio-
Economic Planning and NEDA Director-General as Vice-Chairman, and the heads or
secretaries of the different departments of the government as members. [NEDA] It is to
be noted, though, that the members of the board may be changed from time to time or as
deemed necessary by the President of the Republic.
                                                                                                                       
1
 Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org.
2
Trillanes FA, 2002

3
 
 The policy cycle of the Philippines takes five steps, namely: agenda-setting;
policy formulation; legislation; implementation; and monitoring (Trillanes A.F., 2002).
Firstly, the board conducts performance review of the prior year, considers emerging
issues and concerns locally and internationally and also considers any shift in the policy
agenda of the present administration. Secondly, the board formulates policies on
education, health & nutrition, social welfare, housing, investment, infrastructure
development etc. The process also includes the determination and review of the
corresponding budget by the Department of Budget and Management. The output is the
so-called proposed National Budget which is submitted to Congress for deliberation.
Thirdly, the Lower House (House of Congress) deliberates on the proposed National
Budget in three (3) readings. Once done, they submit the proposed National Budget to
the Upper House (Senate) for deliberation which also comes in three (3) readings. After
which and once signed by both houses, the proposed National Budget is forwarded to the
Office of the President for approval. It becomes a law when the President signs it or
when the President fails to act on it within 30 days from receipt thereof. However, if the
President vetoes the proposed budget in whole or in part, the same shall be given back to
both houses for reconsideration. The veto power of the President may, however, be
overridden by at least two-thirds vote in both houses, otherwise, the proposed changes of
the President be made effective. The passage of a bill for specific policies or programs
follows the same process. Basically, proposed policies or programs by the legislative
branch emanates from the executive branch. Fourthly, the implementation of the
aforecited policies and programs are delegated to the different concerned departments of
the government like the Department of Education (DepED), Department of Health
(DOH), Department of Tourism (DOT), Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Agriculture (DA),
National Housing Authority (NHA), Philippine National Police (PNP) etc. Finally, the
NEDA Board coordinates closely with the implementing departments to get feedbacks as
basis for evaluation of the present programs and as reference for improvement for the
next policy cycle.

The role of the judiciary in the policy making or legislation process is the
interpretation as to the legality or validity of the same. Apparently, their role is more of
an indirect function. They may not be a direct participant to the process, but the
knowledge of their presence and role as interpreters, would somehow remind, frame, and
4
 
guard the legislators (legislative) and implementers (executive) to do their part well. Of
course, their direct function as interpreters is called for when issues, disagreements, or
conflicts arise from the implementation of laws, policies or programs.

Knowing and understanding the policy making process of the Philippines, as well
as comparing it or its result of policies and programs with that of other countries like
Korea, is of utmost importance to all stakeholders including civil servants like us who, in
a way, participate in the implementation process. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses
of the policy making process would help us appreciate and improve the same. The best
way to address the weaknesses or loop holes would be knowing the process and the role
of each player in the society, sharing proper information with others, willingness to
coordinate and participate, feedback mechanisms, and acceptance of changes. Practically,
policy making process is never an absolute or permanent thing. It has to be flexible and
should be continuously reviewed and revised according to the needs of the present times
or the current trends and situations. As long as there is cooperation and proper direction
among stakeholders and actors, there is always a hope for improvement and development.
(input for purpose of study, how to address issues, and expected conclusion)

LITERATURE REVIEW:

This section discusses two (2) empirical studies on public policy and policy
making process which are found to be relevant as they both provide a more detailed and
clearer explanation on the matters discussed in this paper.

Geurtz, in his study on Public Policy Making: The 21st Century Perspective,
explained that public policy making “is a complex, dynamic, constantly evolving,
interactive, and adaptive system.” Geurts also emphasized that policy making can be
affected by the correlation between the expected output and the imposed constraints. In
the process, the policy maker plays a very important role as he has the power to influence
and establish policies and practices according to his/her perspective. Besides direct
stakeholders, there are other participants with influence on the policy making process,
especially the media and citizens. Furthermore, the study of Geurtz explained the
different bottlenecks of a policy making process namely: political & administrative,
5
 
organizational, knowledge, communication, and media. In this regard, Geurtz pointed out
that: “policy makers are regarded as being out of touch with reality”, “multitude of
stakeholders is very difficult to oversee due to changing roles, interests, and coalitions”,
“policy makers lack efficient mechanisms to identify dependencies between regulations
and to stimulate and verify effects”, “there can be difference between communicated and
factual intentions and considerations”, and “there is a mutual dependency between
government and media but there can also be a risk of misinterpretation or exaggeration.”

As regards the study of Hallsworth, Parker, and Rutter (2011), it mentioned of the
four elements of policy making which are the process, structures, qualities, and politics.
These are basically the “what, how, why, and who” of the process. More importantly, the
authors explained the gap between theory and practice in terms of policy making.
According to them, the gap could have been due to the use of unrealistic models of
policy making or due to the absence or insufficient support to turn desired practices into
reality. Along this line, they argued that civil servants basically know their roles but they
find difficulty in putting them into practice. As observed by the authors, policy processes,
in the present times, underestimate the importance of policy design. Ideally, the people
who are expected to implement policies must have the capability and opportunity to
adapt by these policies considering current situations or demands and changing
circumstances.

FORMAL ANALYSIS:
It is worthy to mention that the policy making process in the Philippines is good,
allows opportunity for the interplay of the different actors, and is geared towards
progress and development. But why is it that up to this time, the Philippines has
remained a third world country such as a developing one? Sad to say, it has been left
behind by some of it contemporary countries in Southeast Asia and worst, it has even
been tagged as a “sick man of Asia.”

One reason is the party system in the country. There is so much fragmentation.
One may support a bill of an ally or party-mate and denies that of an opposition. As
regards the formulation of programs/policies, the President has a say, thus, may pursue
or support programs which benefit his/her favoured areas. He also has the power to veto,
6
 
in whole or in part, a proposition of an opposition member. More than anything, personal
or party interests could be considered over public interests.

Another reason is the policy/program itself or its ineffective & inefficient

implementation. This may be due to insufficient funding since it’s not a top priority of
the administration; misinformation or lack of proper information dissemination such that
the intended beneficiaries may not avail or may not support the program; and lapses in
the implementing guidelines giving rise to confusion on its coverage and real end-
purpose.

In order to establish better understanding of the impact of the policy making

process of the Philippines, we opted to compare its programs and policies with that of
Korea. Particularly, their programs on social welfare and education are compared. In
South East Asia, Korea is one of the developed countries. Just like the Philippines, Korea
adopts a presidential system of government. It also has three branches of government-
executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The policy-making framework of Korea is
rooted in the concentration of power and is much affected by the strong influence of the
President. Throughout the policy-making process, the Korean President is in a position to
solicit assistance from a relatively larger number of advisory and administrative
agencies. 3 Even though Korea has a similar fundamental system of government as the
Philippines, the development gap between these two countries is so big enough. As this
perspective, Korea is a good comparison target to understand better the impact of the
policy making process in the Philippines. Also, we believe that education and social
welfare are basically two (2) of the most essential sectors of development. The
evaluation and analysis of these programs are based on our personal experiences and
observations as stakeholders and civil servants in our respective countries.

In the Philippines, the latest program on education is the enhanced basic

education system which is called the “K-12 program” under Republic Act 10533,
approved on May 15, 2013 and took effect on June 8, 2013 [Multilingual Philippines].
This program includes additional two years in secondary education. The lead agency is
the Department of Education (DEPED). This program aims to establish a globally

                                                                                                                       
3
LEE Jooha, Politics of Policy-Making in Korea and Japan, 4th Annual EASP International Conference , 2007, pp.9-12

7
 
competitive education system in the country. It also offers the children opportunities of
learning technical and vocational fields. The purpose is noble but a lot of people are
hesitant about it because it requires not only additional spending for the parents but extra
effort for the children. Apparently, a lot of people have been misinformed about the
concepts, purpose, and long-term benefits of the program. The issue on misinformation
surely affects the successful implementation of the same.

In Korea, after liberation in 1945, the Education Law was enacted and
promulgated followed by the provision for educational autonomy and the
implementation of compulsory education. Korea’s education system is basically
managed by the Ministry of Education. Korea has “a single-track 6-3-3-4 system”, which
maintains a single line of school levels in order to ensure that every citizen can receive
primary, secondary, and higher education without discrimination.4 The main track of the
system includes six years of elementary school, three years of middle school, three years
of high school, and four years of university education. Education for the first nine years
is obligatory including six years of elementary school and three years of middle school.
This is the fundamental frame of education system in Korea and it has actually been in
place for 68 years already. Under the relatively stable “a single track 6-3-3-4 system”,
Korea achieved huge development in the field of education in terms of enrolment rates.
Primary and secondary enrolment rates have been nearly universal since about 1990.
There was an unprecedented increase in primary and secondary education from around
1975 to 1990, though this increase was basically due to the increase in population5. As
observed, Koreans have low passion for education. Most Koreans consider educational
institutions as convenience stores or business centers where they could shop or get
learnings in exchange of their payments. Educational institutions are not well considered
as second homes where students could experience love, support, and such other values
other than education. Apparently, there has been problem on the orientation of young
Koreans on the value of schools or educational institutions.

In the area of social welfare, the Philippines has the so-called “Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program or commonly known as “4 P’s.” This has been implemented
by the Department of Social Welfare and Development pursuant to Senate Bill No. 92
                                                                                                                       
4
Homepage of The Ministry of Education in South Korea, www.moe.go.kr
5
LEE Jisoon, Education Policy in the Republic of Korea:Building Block or Stumbling Block?, School of Economics Seoul National
University, 2001, pp.20-23

8
 
which was signed in the year 2010. This program aims to give a maximum grant of
P1,400.00 per month per family belonging to the poorest of the poor bracket. P500.00 of
which is intended for health and P300.00 per child, for a maximum of three children per
family, for education purposes. The very aim of this program is to at least augment the
basic needs of the subject-families. While the program has a good purpose, it has caused
doubts and disagreements on the criteria of identifying qualified beneficiaries as it covers
limited areas. Accordingly, there are poor families in areas not included, yet, they meet
the supposed requirements. Also, it is of our view that the huge funding for this purpose,
which is basically for a ten year period, could have been used for other economic or
livelihood projects. These projects could teach the beneficiary-families to be more self-
reliant. As mentioned in a famous quotation, “Give me a fish and I will have food just for
the day. Teach me how to fish and I will live for life.”

On the other hand, Korea has the “National Basic Livelihood Security System
(NBLSS)” which has been implemented by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, being
the lead agency for social welfare policies. This program focuses on the poor population
who were not eligible to receive social benefits and services under the previous law,
called as The Livelihood Protection Law.6 Basically, the NBLSS secures the basic
livelihood households that struggle from absolute poverty and it realizes the idea of
productive welfare through assisting the self-reliance program service. Also, it includes
several sub-purposes like job training system, benefits of housing, education, and
medical, and loan service which help people become self-reliant and able to find ways to
earn and support their basic needs. While the intention of this program is for social
welfare, its method of implementation is quite complicated. Before the intended
beneficiaries receive the financial assistance, they have to pass through six stages and its
takes a long time to finish each stage of the process. 7 Secondly, the standard of
determining qualified recipients is vague. In fact, the assessment on the qualification of
beneficiaries rely on the officials-in-charge of the process, hence, the possibility of
political intervention or the exercise of subjective judgement.

It can be gleaned from the above discussion that the Philippines and Korea do
share the same form of government and pattern of policy-making process. While their
                                                                                                                       
6
KIM Jisun, ‘Self-reliance Program’ in South Korea: Focused on the Experiences of the Participants, Social Policy Research Centre,
pp.4-6
7
Homepage of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, www.mw.go.kr  

9
 
programs on education and social welfare may differ in form, the very intention or
purpose of their programs are the same. These are all geared towards provision of quality
education and welfare service to the intended beneficiaries or stakeholders. Nonetheless,
these programs are not perfect as they have their weaknesses. In the case of the
Philippines, the weaknesses include lack of proper information and guidance to intended
beneficiaries, poorly defined policies, poor feedback mechanisms or poor monitoring of
implementation. On the other hand, the issues faced by Korea are poorly defined
policies and procedures and less appreciation of the real value of education. Nonetheless,
what makes Korea in a better position than the Philippines is the fact that, in terms of
education, it was able to provide proper information to people hence, its education
system has remained in place for a long time. Also, in terms of social welfare, Korea was
able to include in its program the value of self-reliance and self-sustainability on the part
of the beneficiaries which the social welfare program in the Philippines failed to consider.

CONCLUSION:

Indeed, policy making process is inevitable in each and every country. A policy
making process determines the foundation of a country and determines its directions
towards development. It can make or unmake a country, so to say. Accordingly, a good
policy making process results to good policies. In the formulation of policies and
programs, the policy/program makers should consider the needs of the present times or
current trends and conditions. Further, proper information should be disseminated to all
stakeholders or beneficiaries. Furthermore, these policies should be carried out
efficiently and effectively to achieve the real end-purpose. Along this line, the actors of
the society (President, Legislature, Judiciary, civil society, mass media, etc) should play
their respective roles in the implementation thereof. The monitoring process should
likewise be considered in order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the policies,
thus, help improve the same.

In this light, there is yet hope for the Philippines. Its policy making process is
already good. There is just a need to strengthen the system of coordination among the
different actors. There is just a need to revitalize the Filipino spirit of unity and
integration towards its goal of development. With regard to Korea’s case, there is a
10
 
similar hope for an improvement, particularly on the revision of its program on education
which has been in place for more than half a century already.

As regards final analysis, except for the matters discussed in the final paragraph
of the formal analysis part, this study cannot make or provide a definitely clear one on
which programs are better or which country has a better policy making process. The data
gathered are limited and, as earlier mentioned, the discussions are basically based on our
personal experiences and observations, hence, more likely subjective in nature.
Nevertheless, it is hoped that, in the near future, a similar study be made with a broader
scope and extensive data in order to establish a more positive and objective analysis on
the topic at hand.

11
 
REFERENCES:

Trillanes AF, “Understanding the Philippine Public Policy Process: An Executive Branch
Perspective, available at: www.trillanes.com.ph
Department of Education (DEPED) website, available at: www.deped.gov.ph
Department of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD) website, available at:
www.dswd.gov.ph
Multilingual Philippines, available at: mlephil.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/implementing-
rules-regulations-of-the-enhanced-basic-education-act-of-2013/
National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) website; available at:
http://www.neda.gov.ph/?page_id=72
Senate of the Philippines 16th Congress: www.senate.gov.ph/about/legspro.asp
Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org.
LEE Jooha, Politics of Policy-Making in Korea and Japan, 4th Annual EASP
International Conference , 2007, pp.9-12
Homepage of The Ministry of Education in South Korea, www.moe.go.kr
LEE Jisoon, Education Policy in the Republic of Korea:Building Block or Stumbling
Block?, School of Economics Seoul National University, 2001, pp.20-23
KIM Jisun, ‘Self-reliance Program’ in South Korea: Focused on the Experiences of the
Participants, Social Policy Research Centre, pp.4-6
Homepage of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, www.mw.go.kr

12