Skip Navigation

Philippines

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 5

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2019-2021

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 11
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

Philippines has delivered their 2019-2022 action plan.

Usec Annalyn Sevilla
Philippines

Faces of Open Government: Annalyn Sevilla

Learn how the Philippines is using open government approaches to address the needs and gaps in their education system.

Contact

Point of Contact

Claire Bautista Supervising Budget and Management Specialist, Fiscal Planning and Reforms Bureau, Department of Budget and Management cbautista@dbm.gov.ph

Commitments

Resources

  1. Case Study (2013): Promoting Good Local Governance through Performance-Based Grants in the Philippines

    2013, Research Product, Web page

  2. Early Results of Open Government Partnership Initiatives (2018)

    2018, Research Product, Web page

  3. Enhancing citizen engagement with open government data

    2015, Research Product, Web page

  4. Implementing the Paris Climate Agreement through Transparency, Participation, and Accountability

    2021, Resource, Web page

  5. Learning to Open Government: Findings and Reflections on how the OGP is playing out, in practice, in five countries

    2016, Research Product, Web page

  6. Philippines – First National Action Plan – 2012-2013

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  7. Philippines 2017-2019 Action Plan (Updated)

    2017, Action Plan, Web page

  8. Philippines 2019-2021 Design Report – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  9. Philippines Action Plan 2014

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  10. Philippines Action Plan 2019-2022

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  11. Philippines Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  12. Philippines Design and Implementation Report 2017-2019

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  13. Philippines Design and Implementation Report 2017-2019 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  14. Philippines Design Report 2019-2021

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  15. Philippines End of Term Report 2013-2015

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  16. Philippines End-of-Term Report 2015-2017

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  17. Philippines End-of-Term Report 2015-2017 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  18. Philippines End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2017-2019

    2020, Self Assessment, Web page

  19. Philippines End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2015-2017

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  20. Philippines First Progress Report 2011-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  21. Philippines Mid-Term Progress Report 2015-2017

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  22. Philippines Mid-Term Progress Report 2015-2017 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  23. Philippines Mid-term Self-Assessment 2015-17

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  24. Philippines Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2017-2019

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  25. Philippines National Action Plan 2013-2015 Summary

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  26. Philippines National Action Plan 2015-2017

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  27. Philippines Progress Report 2013-2015

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  28. Philippines SC Application Letter

    2015, Letter, Web page

  29. Philippines Self-Assessment Report

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  30. Seeking Synergy: OGP & EITI

    2019, Research Product, Web page

Current Data

The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Download
Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
2
1
2
Action Plan 3
7
0
0
Action Plan 4
2
0
0

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
2
3

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Download
Action Plan 1

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Download
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Download

Anti-Corruption

Beneficial Ownership
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.00 Sources
Open Contracting
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.16 Sources

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.97 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.37 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.27 Sources

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.15 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.20 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.89 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.20 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.47 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.50 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.03 Sources
Participation
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.24 Sources
Oversight
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.96 Sources

Recent Posts

headway-5QgIuuBxKwM-unsplash
Cabo Verde · Chile · Côte d’Ivoire · Czech Republic · Denmark · Dominican Republic · Estonia · Greece · Indonesia · Netherlands · Norway · Philippines · Seychelles · Sweden

Design for Results: Introducing the IRM’s First Co-Creation Briefs

This year, OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) started rolling out the Co-Creation Brief, a new product that shares lessons from past action plans and open government practice to support reformers in co-designing ambitious and feasible commitments.

Open Gov weeek – Story Blog
Austin, United States · Argentina · Colombia · Italy · Nigeria · North Macedonia · Philippines · Republic of Korea · Republic of Moldova · South Africa

Everyone Has A Story. Together We Have A Mission.

We all have a story about how democracy has affected our lives, our families and friends, our communities, our countries, and the world at large.

Show More
Open Government Partnership