Overview
The Philippines has a long tradition of giving and volunteering. The bayanihan spirit, a community acting together to help its members, best captures the essence of Filipino generosity. Pakikipagkapwa (a shared sense of humanity), pagtutulungan (mutual self-help), and kawanggawa (charity) are cultural traits that tend to underlie Filipino philanthropy. The Church is another significant driving force in reinforcing neighborliness and charitable giving.
Traditionally, philanthropic work in the country has been practiced within the family and kinship groups, and not through institutions. If ever there was individual contribution to organizations, it was either to church-related organizations or social welfare agencies.
History
Philanthropy in the Philippines traces its roots to the cultural traits and interaction of pre-colonial Filipinos. Formal philanthropy saw its beginnings during the Spanish occupation as the Church directed a share of personal fortunes to its charities or obras pias. Among the biggest obras pias was the Hermanidad de la Miscericordia, established in the late 16th century. Catholic religious organizations also established and maintained orphanages, schools, hospitals and asylums, usually supported by contributions from the political and economic elite.
One of the few philanthropic organizations created independent of the Church was the Sociedad Economica de los Amigos del Pais. The society sought contributions from Manila’s elite and business firms in order to support various economic ventures.
The first Philippine Corporation Law (Republic Act No. 1459) was passed in 1906. It recognized religious corporations, colleges and other educational institutions as nonstock corporations and allowed for tax exemptions of donors to nonstocks, thus encouraging local private philanthropy.
The government in 1915 created the Public Welfare Board for coordinating philanthropic activities in social services. In 1917, the Associated Charities of Manila was set up to centralize and simplify public fundraising for various charitable institutions and hospitals in the city. Following the Second World War, public rehabilitation organizations were formed to further bolster support for private organizations undertaking philanthropic work. In the 1950s and 60s, private philanthropy gained more prominence as wealthy individuals and corporations began spearheading fundraising activities and campaigns, complementing the work of the Church and government.
In 1958, the Philippine Congress enacted the Science Act (Republic Act No. 2067) that recognized the important contribution of private foundations and gave official recognition to their efforts, especially in the areas of scientific and social services arena. Tax deductions were granted to donors of these institutions and the National Science and Development Board was created in order to officially recognize them. The renewed emphasis of the Catholic Church on social responsibility in the mid 1960s gave further impetus to the creation of philanthropic institutions by the Church and private individuals.
By the early 1970s, efforts to coordinate their work resulted in the creation of new organizations like the Philippine Business for Social Progress (catering to development and funded by a number of business groups), the Bishops- Businessmen's Conference on Human Development (a dialogue group between Church and business leaders) and the Association of Foundations (a major alliance of philanthropic institutions in the country).
References:
Abad, F. (1982). ‘Historical Review,’ in Association of Foundations: 1973- 1982, A Ten Year Report and Directory of Foundations.
Alegre, A.G. (1996). Trends and Traditions, Challenges and Choices. Quezon City: Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs.
Cariño, Ledivina V. and Ramon L. Fernan (2002). ‘Social Origins of the Sector,’ in Ledivina V. Cariño (ed.), Between the State and the Market: The Nonpofit Sector and Civil Society in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.
Faustino, Jaime (1997). Traditions in Philippine Philanthropy. Manila: Philippine Business for Social Progress.
Velasco, Ma. G.T. (1995). ‘Overview of Organized Philanthropy in the Philippines,’ in T. Yamamoto (ed.) Emerging Civil Society in the Asia-Pacific Community. Singapore: Institute for Southeast Asian Studies and APPC.
Policy Environment
The perceived central role of civil society organizations and networks in the anti-dictatorship struggle, as well as in the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution, provided a radically changed milieu for state-civil society relations. Empowerment and people’s participation became official policy overnight, although the formalization of this phenomenon was not easy during the complicated transition from dictatorship. Yet the Aquino government, despite its shortcomings, provided the legal and policy environment for civil society to flourish. This was extended and probably even intensified by the Ramos administration that came to power in 1992. The succeeding administrations sent mixed signals about ‘NGO-friendliness.’
Key policy instruments. The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly recognizes NGOs and POs as the extension of “people’s power” and enshrines their right to participate on all levels of decision-making. The Policy Agendas as well as Medium Term Development Plans of all the post-EDSA governments recognized NGOs, POs, and cooperatives as partners in development.
There are also several socially progressive pieces of legislation that have been enacted following long and hard advocacy and lobbying work by civil society. Though not perfect, these laws contain significant provisions advantageous to civil society organizations, and are generally seen as positive policy instruments for pushing sectoral agendas. These include: the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the Urban Development and Housing Act, the Women in Development and Nation Building Act, the Generic Drugs Law, the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, the Cooperative Code, the Local Government Code, the Anti-Rape Bill, the Act Repealing the Anti-Squatting Law, and the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act.
The enactment of these laws indicates the strength of the nonprofit sector in the Philippines. These laws in turn explicitly recognize the role civil society organizations play in society and provide a policy framework for a multi-stakeholder approach to development that involves the third sector organizations. (All these legal instruments, however, do not contain specific regulatory provisions for the third sector, though some entail civil society organization participation in program formulation and delivery.)
An innovation of the 1987 Constitution is the ‘party-list system,’ by which marginalized sectors could be directly represented in Congress. The system reserved 20% of the House of Representatives to representatives of peasants, fishers, indigenous peoples, urban poor, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals. They had a special place in the ballot and could garner a seat with as little as two percent of all voters exercising their party-list option.
Decentralization. The Local Government Code of 1991 (lobbied for heavily by civil society organizations for devolving power from the central government) further highlighted the role of NGOs in the local governance process. It provided for civil society organization participation in the following areas: membership in local special bodies, sectoral representation in local legislative bodies and processes, partnership with government in joint ventures in development projects, and as recipients of funds as well as other forms of State assistance. Though implementation has been spotty as many local government units are resistant to genuine civil society organization partnership, enough best practices and institutional mechanisms have been set up for decentralization to take root and continue as an area for strategic intervention of civil society organizations.
References:
Cariño, Ledivina V. and Ramon L. Fernan (2002). ‘Social Origins of the Sector,’ in Ledivina V. Cariño (ed.), Between the State and the Market: The Nonpofit Sector and Civil Society in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.
Co, E. & A.G. Alegre (1996). NGO Relations with the Government. In A.G. Alegre, ed., Trends and Traditions, p.108.
Taxation
Tax incentives given to the civil society organizations in selected cases include: duty and tax free foreign donations; exemption from income tax; exemption from donor's (gift) tax; and, income tax deduction for donors. To avail of these incentives, civil society organizations must file a secondary registration with appropriate government agencies.
Venues for Secondary Registration of CSOs Availing Tax Incentives
|
Registering Agency * |
Tax Incentives and Appropriate CSO Availing (and the legal basis) |
|
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) |
Income tax exemptions for non-profit corporations (National Internal Revenue Code or NIRC; BIR-NEDA Regulations) |
|
Department of Finance (DoF) |
Special |
|
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) |
Endorsement |
|
DOLE** |
Income tax exemption for labor organizations (Labor Code of the Philippines) |
|
CDA** and DAR (for agrarian reform cooperatives only) to avail of other benefits |
Tax exemption for cooperatives on:
exemptions from all national, city, provincial, municipal or barangay taxes of any nature · o exemptions from duties and tariffs on importation of machinery and equipment not locally available
(Cooperative Law of the Philippines and the Cooperative Development Authority Act) |
* Specific government agencies may also have other special requirements from civil society organizations (eg. financial reports, articles of incorporation/constitution and by-laws, pertinent organizational information, registration fees, etc.).
** The latter two agencies extend tax incentives to their civil society organizations upon the latter's primary registration.
The registration of a civil society organization with the BIR confers on it “tax-exempt donee status.” This enables its donors and contributors to claim tax deductions or credits for contributions as per existing regulations. Aside from donors’ tax exemption, corporations and individuals engaged in the practice of profession are allowed to deduct total annual contributions up to a percentage of their taxable income before contributions: 5 percent in the case of corporations and 10 percent in the case of individuals.
Tax deductions and credits apply to contributions, donations or gifts to government agency or political subdivision, exclusively for public purposes, or to accredited domestic corporations or associations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, youth and sports development, cultural or educational purposes or for the rehabilitation of veterans, or to social welfare institutions or to NGOs.
Lawyers studying the intricacies of nonprofit law assert that Philippine tax laws provide little incentives to donors, because pure compensation income-earners are not allowed to deduct contributions made to nonprofit organizations from their gross income in computing their income tax. Though corporate philanthropy is being encouraged, individual giving is not being given enough incentives—especially for compensation income-earners who represent the bulk of taxpayers in the country.
Registration and licensing are considered one and have the same process in the Philippines. Registration, however, is not required per se for the existence of civil society organizations. It is a requirement for NGOs/NPOs to obtain a legal personality in order for them to be eligible for opening bank accounts, to enter into contracts, to raise public funds, and to be eligible for tax deductions and credits on danations received. Civil society organizations usually obtain their primary registration from any of the following state agencies:
Agencies for Primary Registration of civil society organizations
|
Registering Agency |
Appropriate CSO (and the legal basis) |
|
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) |
All non-stock, non-profit corporations (Corporation Code of the Philippines) |
|
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) |
Cooperatives (Cooperative Law of the Philippines and the Cooperative Development Authority Act) |
|
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) |
Labor unions and federations; rural workers' associations (Labor Code of the Philippines) |
Corporations and associations intending to perform social work and to function as mutual benefit associations and trusts for charitable uses secure appropriate licenses from the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Insurance Commission, respectively. Nonprofit educational institutions and health organizations obtain permits to operate from the Department of Education and Department of Health, respectively.
Accreditation refers to the official acknowledgment of the merits of a person, corporation, entity, or organization in meeting a set of standards required for the delivery of a specific service. Accreditation is usually a requirement for specific state-sponsored program or project participation. For a growing number of projects funded by ODA, it is the project itself that specifies both the selection criteria and mechanisms for civil society organization involvement. All civil society organization accreditation systems are effectively decentralized and devolved to the local government units and the national government agencies. Hence, these systems vary depending on the ori
As a general rule, to be accredited by the relevant government agency, a nonprofit organization must have integrity and commitment to social issues, reputation and acceptability to the community, adequate resources, technical capability, and track record.
National government agencies which have developed accreditation systems- or at a minimum, have set up NGO/PO liaison desks with screening and accreditation functions- include: the Departments of Health (DOH), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Agrarian Reform (DAR), Trade and Industry (DTI), and Agriculture (DA); and National Economic Development Agency (NEDA).
Though there is more openness now between government and civil society organizations, the latter's bias for self-regulation as well as the former’s inherent tendencies of bureaucratic control constantly pushes the civil society organization community to discuss and debate specific accreditation guidelines.
Promoting accountability of civil society organizations is becoming an important concern as a result of the growing partnership with the State and donor agencies, as well as the proliferation of pseudo-NGOs. The Caucus of Development NGO Networks (CODE-NGO) has been trying to establish a Philippine NGO Accreditation Committee, a self-regulating mechanism independent of sState intervention. Its starting point is the Code of Conduct of Development NGOs.
Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC)
NGOs in the Philippines have taken the accreditation process a step further with the creation of a new accrediting body—the Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC). Organized by six national NGO networks in partnership with the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the PCNC certifies NGOs and nonstock, nonprofit corporations for ‘donee’ status after a stringent review of their qualifications. The certification then becomes the basis for the BIR’s granting ‘donee’ status to the organizations certified. Local donors are given tax incentives when they provide assistance and/or largess to donee institutions.
Apart from being a body that helps donee institutions earn larger revenue by ensuring tax benefits to the donors, the PCNC is also a mechanism enabling NGOs to exercise professionalism, transparency, and accountability. Further, a Memorandum of Agreement has been signed between the PCNC and the Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants (PICPA) to provide financial management training and free auditing services to small NGOs to build their financial management capacities.
For further information on PCNC and NGO accreditation in the Philippines, please contact their Executive Director, Fely Soledad, at pcncert@mozcom.com.
References:
‘Breakthroughs in Philippine Development,’ Pamphlet. Caucus of Development NGO Networks.
Chamberlain, R.A. (1998). Regulating Civil Society: The Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC).
Interview, Fely Soledad, Philippine Council for NGO Certification
Lerma, Carol C. and Jessica Los Baños (2002). ‘Law and Nonprofit Sector,’ in Ledivina V. Cariño (ed.), Between the State and the Market: The Nonpofit Sector and Civil Society in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.
Philippine Council for NGO Certification (1999). PCNC Update Vol.1, Issue 1.
Philippine Council for NGO Certification, Brochure.
Quizon, A.B. (1997). Country Report: Philippines (Draft).
Data and Resources
Individual giving occurs mostly through faith-based personal tithing or Sunday collections; contributions “for a cause;” social events (e.g., raffles, bazaars, fairs, dance parties, movie premieres, bingo socials) and donations to regular and special fund campaigns (i.e., Christmas fund-raising drives, school fund drives, disaster relief, high-profile environmental projects, or direct mail campaigns by big welfare agencies).
Among ‘high net worth individuals,’ giving is deeply rooted in family examples, values and traditions. Parents, grandparents, teachers and mentors, and family expectations of sharing and taking responsibility for others are the strongest influence in their giving. Exposure to the plight of the poor also prompts them to do something concrete.
The incidence of private giving in the country is rather high as affirmed by the Philippine Nonprofit Sector Project’s (PNSP) survey on giving and volunteering in 1999 in six areas in the country (i.e., Metro Manila, Benguet, Iloilo, Southern Leyte, Davao del Sur and Zamboanga del Norte) at 84% for the ‘past year’ and 92% for ‘ever giving’ (Fernan 2002). Household contribution as a percentage of income is also favorably comparable with other countries, at 1.8%. Giving to organizations is almost as prevalent as giving directly to persons in need. Except for Metro Manila, giving to churches is the most common form of institutional giving and the amount makes up about two thirds of total institutional giving. The amount given, however, tends to be low (PhP 502 per household, on an average, for church). The next preferred organizations are those into social services, culture and recreation, and education and research. The feeling of compassion for people in need and the joy felt when able to help other people seem to be the most important reasons for giving.
As with giving, the incidence of volunteering is also high at 80% for the ‘past year.’ There also appears to be a great degree of volunteering for organizations, with about half of such volunteering directed towards government agencies and programs. However, in terms of type of volunteer activities engaged in, the preference is for those that involve direct assistance for a particular person (i.e., help someone, lend money, pray for someone), those that have immediate perceptible effects (i.e., assisting someone), or those that involve helping out in community affairs (i.e., community health, community cleaning).
Investing in Ourselves, a study on individual gift giving habits of Filipinos published by APPC in 2002 highlights the strong culture of giving among Filipinos even in times of difficulty and poverty. The study finds the incidence of giving to be high in all areas, with money/cash donations as the most preferred form of gifts. Churches and other religious institutions are the principal beneficiaries, although the amounts given per donor are small. Next to churches are social service groups and culture and recreation associations. Between direct (informal) and indirect (through institutions) giving, Filipinos tend to choose the former, that is giving to individuals. However, when they give to institutions, the amount is substantially more.
To download the complete study, please click here.
Corporate giving, on the other hand, is manifested in different ways: through corporate donation programs implemented by a company unit, the activities of corporate foundations, and other innovative mechanisms for practicing philanthropy.
The Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) undertook several surveys of giving by corporations. In 1992, 111 companies (number of respondents) contributed PhP295m with an average of PhP2.66m per corporation. In 1993, total contribution from 106 corporations was PhP309.2m with an average of PhP2.92m per corporation. In 1994, 92 corporations contributed PhP315.4m (US$13.14m) with an average of PhP3.43m per corporation. The annual increase in average contribution is 27 percent.
|
Survey on Corporate Giving (1992-94) Total Amounts |
|||
|
Year |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
|
Total Amounts Reported |
PhP 295,001,759 |
PhP 309,219,003 |
PhP 315,431,125 |
Source : PBSP
The third sector organizations in the education sector have always been the largest recipient (18%) of corporate giving. In 1994, economic development (16%) and health (11%) were in the second and third places, respectively. Corporate resources to civil society organizations is likely to remain because for-profit organizations have their own logic, yet “giving” decisions can only but align with the priorities inherent in that.
|
Survey on Corporate Giving (1992-94), The Top Three Beneficiary Sectors |
|||
|
Year |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
|
Sectors receiving most assistance (% of total) |
|
|
|
Source: PBSP
The expanding concept of, ‘corporate citizenship’ being developed by PBSP may be significant in the convergence of priorities of corporations and CSOs/TSOs if it succeeds in instilling in corporations the ultimate value of investing in concerns beyond the corporations’ framework and priorities.
PBSP is a social development foundation whose member corporations (numbering 183 as of 2004) pledge one percent of their net income before taxes for social development, part of that going through PBSP which pools all of these pledges and channels them to projects aimed at reducing poverty in the country. In 2004, support from PBSP member companies amounted to PhP45.85m, representing 12% of the Foundation’s total approved financial assistance for the year.
References:
Fernan, Ramon III L. (2002). ‘Giving and Volunteering,’ in Ledivina V. Cariño (ed.), Between the State and the Market: The Nonpofit Sector and Civil Society in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.
Tolentino, Ma. Aurora F. (2005). ‘Philanthropic Leadership and Development: Perspectives from the Philippines,’ in Philanthropic Leadership and Development: Perspectives from Six Asian Countries (Monograph). Quezon City: Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium. pp. 65-76.
Intermediaries
Fundraising Organizations. Nonprofit organizations involvement in fund raising has not been as many as in other fields of philanthropic activity. This is due largely to the fact that majority of NGOs in the country are dependent on grants. Due to a decrease in the levels of ODA and governmental support, more third sector organizations have begun to explore other alternatives to generating funds.
Venture for Fund Raising is the only Philippine non-profit organization known to be involved solely in fund-raising in the country and around Asia. It is dedicated to assist people and organizations ensure financial sustainability to fulfill their missions.
Since the start of its operation in 1999, it has helped over 400 organizations from 13 countries raise funds through professional training, consulting, and research and public information services.
Contact: Jaime Faustino or Marianne Quebral
Telephone: (632)634-8889 to 90
Fax (632)637-3545
E-mail: venture@venture-asia.org
Website: http://www.venture-asia.org/
The Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) documents cases of fund raising successes and provides training based on the Indiana Fund Raising School methodology. The PBSP has been implementing Fund-Raising Seminars under APPC’s guidance. Similarly, the Netherlands-based International Fund-Raising Group (IFRG) has twice co-hosted the Asia-Pacific Fund Raising Workshop in the Philippines for non-profits in the region.
E-mail: pbsp@pbsp.org.ph)
References:
Alegre, A.G. (1998). Civil Society Resource Organizations and Development in Asia: The case of the Philippines. Manila: The Synergos Institute.
Association of Foundations (1995). The 1995 Development Directory: Philippine Foundations, NGOs, and People’s Organizations. Manila: Association of Foundations.
Quarterly newsletters of the Philippine National Volunteer Service Coordinating Agency (PNVSCA).
Interview, Deanie Go-Ocampo, ivolunteer.ph
Interview, Norman Jiao, Association of Foundations
Interview, Ruth Honculada, Philippine Business for Social Progress
Websites of the organizations
Volunteerism
The Philippine Association for Volunteer Efforts (PAVE) is a network of organizations engaged in diverse volunteer programs and capacity building for volunteerism and mobilization of all sectors of society to promote volunteerism as a Filipino way of life. It has 34 institutional members and six government partners plus over a hundred individual members. Its financial resources come mainly from foreign membership dues, foreign grants, fees, and fund raising activities.
Contact: Tim Gabuna
Teephonel: (632)426-6119
Fax:(632)426-6118
Email: sirtim@admu.edu.ph)
Another network of nonprofit organizations promoting voluntarism, volunteer managers and institutions with volunteer programs is the Volunteer Organizations Information Coordination and Exchange or VOICE . It is engaged in the coordination and exchange of information and resources in the field of volunteer work. VOICE has 120 organizational, institutional and individual members.
Contact: Grace Aguiling-Dalisay
Telephone: (63922) 8121924 / (63917) 8984423
Pinoy-rin.net (www.pinoy-rin.net) has an interactive program promoting volunteerism through the Internet run by ivolunteer.ph (www.ivolunteer.ph) where various organizations can post volunteer opportunities. Interested individuals can then conveniently browse these volunteer opportunities by issue/cause, location, duration and other parameters. Online sign-up facilities are provided or volunteers may make arrangements with participating organizations directly.
Since it was launched in 2002, close to 2,000 volunteers have signed up with ivolunteer.ph.
The Philippine National Volunteer Service Coordinating Agency (PNVSCA) is a government coordinating body for foreign volunteer organizations sending expatriates to the Philippines. Aside from the foreign volunteers, PNVSCA also recruits Filipino volunteers and deploys them in local government units in far-flung areas. PNVSCA's funding comes largely from government through congressional allocations.
Telephone: (632)929-6376
Fax (632)927-6851;;)
E-mail: ppis@pnvsca.neda.gov.ph
Website: www.pnvsca.neda.gov.ph
Professionals and other skilled individuals, on the other hand, are the focus of the Alliance of Volunteers in Development Foundation, Inc. (AVDF). It aims to send volunteers to at least 2,000 villages in the Country by the year 2020.
Contact: Alexis Naraval-Bantiles
Email: leclec@csi.com.ph;).
Grantmaking foundations
Private foundations in the Philippines have been active for a long time. In 1958, the Philippine Congress enacted the Science Act (Republic Act No. 2067) that recognized the important contribution of private foundations and gave official recognition to their efforts, especially in the areas of scientific and social services arena. Tax deductions were granted to donors of these institutions and the National Science and Development Board was created in order to officially recognize them.
Most grant-making foundations operating today, however, were established in the 1980s, particularly after 1986 revolution.
The Association of Foundations (AF) (tel: (632)911-9792/913-7231; e-mail: afonline@info.com.ph; contact: Norman Jiao) is the umbrella organization of foundations in the country. AF is a community of 138 foundations pursuing programs that create a just and equitable future to improve quality of life collaborating with local, national and international institutions. Two other networks of foundations are PBSP (see below) and LCF. LCF is a network of over 50 corporate foundations and corporations engaged in social development work in the Philippines.
Grant-Making Foundations in the Philippines
|
Foundation |
Year Founded |
Fields (ICNPO) |
Annual Grants |
Average |
Maximum Grant Size |
Donates Outside the Philippines |
|
1992 |
Development |
PhP 35 million (2004) |
PhP 940,000 (2004 site-focused projects) PhP 900,000 (2004 pro-active projects) PhP 1 million (2004 special projects) PhP 100,000 (2004 action grants) |
-- |
No |
|
|
2001 |
Culture |
PhP 63,409,552 (2004) |
PhP 431,357.50 (2004) |
-- |
No |
|
|
1970 |
Education and Research |
PhP 216.31 million (October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004) PhP 61,144,244.6 (for 2004 only) |
PhP 794,081.10 (for 2004 only) |
-- |
No |
|
|
1979 |
Education and Research |
PhP 100 million |
-- |
-- |
No |
|
|
1970 |
Education and Research |
PhP 23 million (2005) |
-- |
-- |
No |
|
|
1978 |
Development and Housing |
PhP 17 million (2005) PhP 3 million annually to PBSP (Angelo King Building Fund) |
-- |
PhP 300,000 |
No |
|
|
1995 |
Development |
PhP 2 million (2004) |
-- |
PhP 100,000 |
No |
|
|
1997 |
Development |
PhP 10 million (2004) |
PhP 142,857.14 (2004) |
PhP 200,000 |
No |
|
|
1993 |
Education |
PhP 150 million (2004) |
Ranges from PhP 250,000 to PhP 3 million |
-- |
No |
|
|
1995 |
Development |
PhP 7.3 million (2004) |
PhP 317,391 (2004) |
PhP 1.5 million (for project-based proposals under the Sustainable Livelihood/ Eco-Enterprise Framework) PhP 500,000 (for activity-based proposals) PhP 100,000 (for proposals falling under the advocacy framework) |
No |
|
|
1973 |
Research |
PhP 5,769,280.00 (2004) |
PhP 824,182.86 (2004) |
-- |
No |
|
|
1988 |
Education |
-- |
-- |
PhP 500,000 except in cases which are truly meritorious for higher grant assistance |
-- |
|
|
1990 |
Development |
PhP 925,000 (2003 Democracy Fund) |
PhP 77,083.33 (2003 Democracy Fund) |
PhP 100,000 (2003 Democracy Fund) |
No |