Please help us improve our website by taking this brief survey
Skip Navigation

Inception Report – Action plan – South Cotabato, Philippines, 2022 – 2025

Overview

Name of Evaluator

Krystianne Paul Andree de Pedro

Email

[email protected]

Member Name

South Cotabato, Philippines

Action Plan Title

Action plan – South Cotabato, Philippines, 2022 – 2025

Section 1.
Compliance with
co-creation requirements

1.1 Does a forum exist?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Yes, a forum exists in the form of the South Cotabato Integrity Circle (SCIC) acting as the Multi-stakeholder Forum (MSF) since the 1st Action Plan. Attached as evidence is the Minutes of one of SCIC’s regular meetings where OGP matters were included in the agenda.

Provide evidence for your answer:

OGP Meeting Highlights September 25 2024

1.2 Is the forum multi-stakeholder?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The OGP Local Handbook defines a multi-stakeholder forum as composed of representatives from the government, civil society, and other stakeholders. SCIC is a 21-person forum, with seven members each from the civil society, government, and business sectors. Attached is the same document showing the composition of the SCIC on the first page.

Provide evidence for your answer:

OGP Meeting Highlights September 25 2024

1.3 Does the forum hold at least one meeting with civil society and non-governmental stakeholders during the co-creation of the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The forum held a total of five meetings for the co-creation and subsequent refining and finalization of the action plan. Attached are the Minutes of the said meetings.

Provide evidence for your answer:

OGP Meeting Highlights November-22-2024
OGP Meeting Highlights January-21-2025
OGP Meeting Highlights January-30-2025

1.4 Has the action plan been endorsed by the stakeholders of the forum or steering committee/group?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The final action plan was formally endorsed by three representatives from the civil society. The IRM researcher was able to personally interview the said individuals to verify their endorsement.

Provide evidence for your answer:

OGP Meeting Highlights September-25-2024
OGP Meeting Highlights November-22-2024
OGP Meeting Highlights January-21-2025

Section 2.
Recommended practices
in co-creation

2.1 Does the government maintain a Local OGP website or webpage on a government website where information on the OGP Local process (co-creation and implementation) is proactively published?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

There is a local OGP webpage using the Facebook platform. The general public can easily access the page and is not hidden behind a paywall. It contains information on OGP local processes. Though active at the time of writing, the page was inactive for a considerable amount of time prior to the implementation of the third action plan.

Provide evidence for your answer:

OGP South Cotabato FB Page

2.2 Did the government provide information to stakeholders in advance to facilitate informed and prepared participation in the co-creation process?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Most of the members of the SCIC are already cognizant of the OGP and its processes, but new additions to the forum were only briefed during the first meeting last September 25, 2024. Per the OGP Local Handbook, the government should have “conduct(ed) outreach and awareness-raising activities with relevant stakeholders to inform them of the OGP Local process”.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Sample of Co-Creation Invitation Letter

2.3 Did the government ensure that any interested member of the public could make inputs into the action plan and observe or have access to decision-making documentation?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Despite the wider participation of a larger group of CSOs due to the involvement of the Peoples’ Council, it cannot be ascertained that any interested member of the public could make inputs into the action plan. The same could be said about any interested member of the general public observing or having access to decision making documentation.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Attendance Sheet for Open Goverment Program OGP Commitment Review and Formulation of Action Plan
Sample CoCreation Invitation Letter

2.4 Did the government proactively report back or provide written feedback to stakeholders on how their contributions were considered during the creation of the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

After the initial consultation meeting on September 25, 2024, multiple other meetings were held to refine and finalize the action plan. These meetings involved the presentation of the draft action plan and seeking comments from CSOs and other stakeholders.

Provide evidence for your answer:

OGP Meeting Highlights November-22-2024
OGP Meeting Highlights January-30-2025
OGP Meeting Highlights January-21-2025

2.5 Was there an iterative dialogue and shared ownership between government and non-governmental stakeholders during the decision making process, including setting the agenda?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

During the focus group discussion with the SCIC, both government and civil society members expressed that they felt shared ownership over the action plan and even in its implementation; although the government serves as the lead actor, the CSOs fully support the implementation by initiating information dissemination.

Provide evidence for your answer:

OGP Meeting Highlights November-22-2024
OGP Meeting Highlights January-21-2025

2.6 Would you consider the forum to be inclusive and diverse?

Moderately

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Multiple sectors are represented in the forum such as the youth, women, farmers, religious groups, business groups, indigenous peoples, etc. However, this diversity can be further improved by including more underrepresented sectors.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Attendance 25.09.2024 22.11.2024 21.01.2025 and 30.01.2025

Section 3.
Initial evaluation
of commitments

1. Commitment :

Increasing Access to Participation in Monitoring Infrastructure Projects at the Barangay Level

1.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment is verifiable given that the milestone set is stated in a clear and concise manner. The responsibility, source of fund, as well as the start and end dates were appropriately identified.

1.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

As stated in the attached Commitment Form, the milestones promote the OGP Values of Transparency, Accountability, and Civic Participation at the local level. It will make the local government and project contractors more accountable and responsive in project implementation by increasing the participation of the public via the activity.

1.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

a continuation of ongoing practice in line with existing legislation, policies or requirements.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Open Monitoring and Evaluation was previously taken up during the first action plan.

1.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

is a positive change to a process, practice or policy but will not generate a binding or institutionalized change across government or specific institution(s).

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment’s focus is on enhancing public awareness of certain existing legislations (DILG MC 2020-070) and does not seek to institutionalize any reform or initiative.

1.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

The IRM Researcher recommends the following:
1) Fully utilize the Facebook Page in communicating information about the Co-creation and OGP Local in general;
2) The diversity of Co-creation Participants may still be improved by including other sectors; and
3) Widen the scope of the Co-creation by allocating sufficient time for more citizens to provide their input to the commitments and to the Plan in general.

2. Commitment :

Enhancing Transparency through Information and Cybercrime Education

2.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Similar to the M&E commitment, the milestones were clearly stated.

2.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The three milestones with verifiable deliverables described in the Commitment Form will improve the public’s access to government data; will make government office frontliners more accountable; and will inform the general public of their rights and responsibilities in navigating digital spaces.

2.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

a continuation of ongoing practice in line with existing legislation, policies or requirements.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Open Information was previously taken up during the first action plan.

2.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

is a positive change to a process, practice or policy but will not generate a binding or institutionalized change across government or specific institution(s).

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Like in the M&E commitment, this commitment’s focus is on improving public awareness of certain existing legislations (RA 10173, RA 10175, South Cotabato FOI Ordinance) and does not seek to institutionalize any reform or initiative.

2.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

The IRM researcher’s recommendations to the M&E commitment also hold true to this commitment.

3. Commitment :

Harnessing Youth Power

3.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The present IRM is not in charge of reviewing this commitment.

3.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The present IRM is not in charge of reviewing this commitment.

3.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

a continuation of ongoing practice in line with existing legislation, policies or requirements.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The present IRM is not in charge of reviewing this commitment.

3.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

have no indication of the added value or enhanced open government approach in contrast with existing practice.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The present IRM is not in charge of reviewing this commitment.

3.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

The present IRM is not in charge of reviewing this commitment.

Filed under: Inception Report

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership