Social Protection in the Philippines:

In Pursuit of Inclusive Growth

Janet S. Cuenca1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is the Philippine

government’s lead agency in social welfare development, policy development, and
program implementation as emphasized in Executive Order 221, Series of 2003. It
was created by virtue of Republic Act 5416 of 1968 with the mandate to set standards
and policies to ensure effective implementation of public and private social welfare
programs. In particular, the DSWD is responsible for, among others, (i) formulating
policies and plans that provide direction to intermediaries and other implementers
in the development and delivery of social welfare and development services and (ii)
providing social protection to the poor, vulnerable, and disadvantaged sector. It
envisions “a society where the poor, vulnerable, and disadvantaged are empowered
for an improved quality of life” by developing, implementing, and coordinating social
protection and poverty reduction solutions for and with the poor, vulnerable, and
disadvantaged.

The President’s Social Contract with the Filipino People reiterates DSWD’s role as
the active lead in social protection, which is a priority area of the Aquino government
as reflected in the overall goal of inclusive growth in the 2011-2016 Philippine
Development Plan. Inclusive growth is encompassed in the President’s Social Contract,
which envisions “a country with an organized and widely shared rapid expansion of
our economy through a government dedicated to honing and mobilizing our people’s
skills and energies as well as the responsible harnessing of our natural resources.” It
is expected to result in reduced poverty and increased employment through three
broad strategies such as (i) high and sustained economic growth, (ii) equal access to
development opportunities, and (iii) effective and responsive social safety nets.

Achieving inclusive growth entails development of human resource by improving

access to quality social services and enhancing social protection that is intended to
empower the poor and vulnerable and, in turn, enable them to participate in the growth
process (PDF Working Group on the MDGs and Social Progress 2013). DSWD plays
a crucial role in this regard especially in the area of social protection. In an effort to
formulate the DSWD’s sectoral reform agenda in 2006, the agency defined its critical
role and contribution in rationalizing social protection in the Philippines. As a result,
social protection in the Philippine context gained formal definition on 13 February
2007.

1 Supervising Research Specialist, Philippine Institute for Development Studies. The author
acknowledges with thanks the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for providing
the materials used in this paper.

347
On the other hand, several studies assessing social welfare and protection programs
in the country suggest the need to harmonize social welfare programs to avoid
overlaps and improve targeting of areas and beneficiaries. Also, there is a need for the
government to harmonize and coordinate poverty reduction with social protection
especially in crafting interventions and strategies. In response, DSWD, in collaboration
with NEDA and SSS, formulated an operational framework to harmonize all social
protection programs. To date, the NEDA Social Development Committee (SDC)
approved the use of the framework “by all stakeholders involved in recommending
and implementing social protection policies, programs, and projects in the country”
(NEDA-SDC Resolution No. 3, series of 2012).

This short paper aims to share the Philippine experience on social welfare policies,
which are embodied in the said operational framework. The paper is organized as
follows. Section II provides an overview of the Operational Framework on Social
Protection. Section III presents the country’s experience on social welfare policies,
particularly in terms of DSWD’s Convergence Strategy, which orchestrates the
agency’s core social protection programs. In addition, it discusses some of the successes
as well as issues and challenges confronting the Philippine government with regard
to social welfare policies. The paper ends with the concluding remarks in Section IV.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIAL PROTECTION OPERATIONAL

FRAMEWORK 2

As mentioned earlier, the social welfare policies in the Philippines are embodied in
the Social Protection Operational Framework (Figure 1), which is a common guiding
framework in proposing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating social protection
policies, programs, and projects to avoid duplication of interventions (NEDA-SDC
Resolution No. 3, Series of 2012). The framework was formulated cognizant of the
need to harmonize all social protection policies, programs, and projects to ensure
greater impact on the poor and vulnerable. The need springs from the fact that
multiplicity of programs and government agencies involved tends to bring about
poor coordination, redundancy in providing services, and overlapping of program
beneficiaries (DSWD 2012).

SOCIAL PROTECTION DEFINED

The Operational Framework on Social Protection defines social protection as

“policies and programs that seek to reduce poverty and vulnerability to risks and
enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized by promoting and protecting
livelihood and employment, protecting against hazards and sudden loss of income,
and improving people’s capacity to manage risks.” 3 It is regarded as one of the pillars
of poverty reduction (Figure 2) considering that “exposure to risks and the inability
of individuals/families to manage and cope with these risks lead to poverty.” As such,
it forms part of the overall inclusive development goals and overall poverty strategy
of the country.

2 Draws heavily on DSWD and NEDA (2012) and PDF Working Group on the MDGs and Social
Progress (2013).
3 The Operational Framework adopts the definition used by the Sub-Committee on Social Protection
(SCSP) as follows: (i) “poor” refers to individuals and families whose income falls below the poverty
threshold as defined by the government and/or those that cannot afford in a sustained manner to provide
their basic needs of food, health, education, housing, and other amenities of life; (ii) “vulnerable” refers

348
 Figure 1. Enhanced Social Protection Framework and Strategy

Figure 2. Enhanced Analytical Framework for Poverty Reduction

to households confronted by ex ante risk that, if they are currently non-poor, will fall below the poverty
line, or if they are currently poor, will remain in poverty. It is also defined in terms of exposure to
adverse shocks to welfare and not only in terms of exposure to poverty; and (iii) “marginalized” are
those groups in society who, for reasons of poverty, geographical inaccessibility, culture, language,
religion, age, gender, migrant status, or other disadvantage, have not benefited from health, education,
employment, and other opportunities and who are relegated to the sidelines of political persuasion, social
negotiation, and economic bargaining.

349
The core of the Operational Framework is the objective of social protection, i.e., better
and improved quality of life for its beneficiaries, which can be achieved by reduction
in poverty and vulnerability and inclusion and enhancement of the social status and
rights of marginalized (Figure 1). The other elements/features of the Framework are
discussed below.

Identifying and Responding to Major Risks and Vulnerabilities

Table 1. Types of Risks/Vulnerability and Responses*

Assessment Responses
Types of Risks/ Household Government Private and Civil
Vulnerability or Informal Society Sector
Mechanisms
Individual Lifecycle
Hunger and Support from Health and Provision of
malnutrition relatives, nutrition policy, nutrition services,
subsistence farming programs, and soup kitchens, etc.
projects
Illness, injury, Extended family, Social security, Private insurance
disease (including community health insurance, schemes
HIV-AIDS) support and microinsurance

Disability Hygiene, Social security, Private insurance

preventive health social assistance, and microinsurance
employees
compensation
Old age Asset/savings Pension plan Old age annuities,
reduction private pension
Death Debt Social security Private life
insurance
Economic
End of source of Diversified sources Sound macro and Privatesector
livelihood of livelihood sector policies for investments that are
job generation; job-generating
emergency and
guaranteed
employment
Unemployment Private transfers, Regional and Private job search
child labor rural development institutions
policies, emergency
and guaranteed
employment
Low and irregular Depletion of assets/ Labor market Banking services
income savings policies, social to the poor,
assistance, microfinance
conditional cash
transfers

350
Price instability of Reduced Price control Sales discounts
basic commodities consumption of inflation
basic goods management
Economic crisis Migration Social funds,
subsidies,
emergency
employment
Environmental and Natural
Drought, rains and Migration Environmental Relief and
floods, earthquakes Community action policy, programs, rehabilitation
volcano eruption Private transfers and projects programs
and landslides Extended family Infrastructure
support investments
Asset/savings Relief and
depletion rehabilitation
Relocation-
temporary and
permanent
Disaster prevention
and mitigation
measures
Geo-hazard
mapping
Insurance against
disasters
Social/Governance
Social exclusion Community Inclusive growth, Good corporate
networks good governance, governance
transparency, and Corporate social
accountability responsibility
Corruption Community Public information, Strengthening
pressure transparency and participation of
accountability NGOs and CBOs
campaign;
bottoms-up
budgeting
Crime and Women’s groups Providing security Peace and order
domestic violence and watchdogs and equal access to promotion
justice (e.g., anti-drug
campaigns)
Political instability Migration Participation of Advocacy for
and armed conflict citizens and civil democracy and
society groups; democratic
peace negotiations transitions
Adopted mainly from the ADB Social Protection Strategy Paper, 2001 and Aldaba
(2008)
* Lifted from DSWD and NEDA (2012)

351
The Operational Framework envisions social protection to respond to various
types of risks and vulnerabilities (e.g., lifecycle and individual risks, economic
risks, environment and natural risks, and social and governance risks) confronting
households and individuals. Table 1 provides the responses that can emanate from
different sectors (e.g., households, government, private sector, and civil society).

A. Core Program Responses

The responses to the risks and vulnerabilities listed above are categorized into four
core programs as follows:

(i) social welfare - social welfare programs providing basic protection

to the poor, excluded, discriminated against, and marginalized;
preventive and developmental interventions aimed at supporting
the minimum basic requirements of the poor (e.g., Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE)-coordinated National Convergence Plan
Against Child Labor in the Philippines, DSWD’s Supplementary
Feeding Program, and DSWD’s Social Pension for Indigent Senior
Citizens)
(ii) labor market interventions - include employment facilitation
schemes, active labor market programs (ALMPS), and emergency
and guaranteed employment; examples include DOLE’s free
placement and job-assistance services, career guidance and
counseling, and skills training; DOLE’s convergent programs (e.g.,
institutionalization of the Philippine Qualifications Framework,
strengthening of Public Employment Service Offices, and
improvement of Phil-Job Net through the integration of the Skills
Registry System and DOLE Human Resource Data Warehouse)
to address job-skills match and to increase employability of the
Filipino workforce
(iii) social safety nets – refer to time-bound (i.e., short-term) stop-gap
and bridge measures (e.g., cash transfers, food-for-work programs,
and emergency and employment programs) meant to assist and tide
over affected families during crisis until such time that they have
developed their potential to earn income and meet their future needs
(iv) social insurance and related programs – include premium-based
schemes protecting households from lifecycle and health-related
risks (e.g., old age, illness, and disability); examples include
expanded PhilHealth coverage and expanded coverage for work-
related contingencies under the Employees Compensation Program

352
B. Key Response Elements

i. Identifying and responding to priority target areas and sectors

The Operational Framework expects social protection to be able
to identify and focus its target areas and target groups because
prospective beneficiaries may include both poor and non-poor. To
ensure better targeting of social protection programs, the DSWD
established the National Household Targeting System for Poverty
Reduction (NHTS-PR), which is a targeting system based on proxy
means test that unified the criteria for the selection of the poorest
segment of the population and created a database of poor households.
In 2010, the government mandated all national government
agencies to adopt the NHTS-PR as mechanism for identifying poor
households that will be beneficiaries of social protection programs
(Executive Order No. 867, Series of 2010).
In addition, based on various indicators, the government should
target priority areas that have concentration of poverty, conflict, and
disasters for the provision of programs and projects. Also, it should
target areas that are exposed to potential risk due to climate change.
Likewise, it should aim social protection programs at marginalized
sectors that include, but are not limited to, women, children,
youth, elderly, families, indigenous peoples (IPs), and persons with
disabilities (PWDs). The Operational Framework emphasizes that
the target areas and target sectors are not mutually exclusive, thus
addressing concerns on cross-cutting sectors such as gender.
ii. Working toward universal coverage
Due to limited resources, the government can only target households
and individuals who are poor and highly vulnerable (i.e., based
on NHTS-PR) as beneficiaries of social protection programs.
Nevertheless, increases in government’s resource base may enable
major social protection programs, particularly those reducing or
mitigating education- and health-related risks, to reach universal
coverage and to form part of the delivery of basic social services.

C. Implementation of Participatory Strategies

The Operational Framework identifies key participatory strategies for implementation.

They are as follows:

i. Scaling up of community driven development (CDD)4

Community-driven development is viewed as important strategy
considering that implementation of social protection programs

4 An approach helping poor communities (i.e., barangays) to develop necessary skills and providing
them with resources to be able to select, implement, and sustain small-scale community infrastructure
projects and key social services

353
 starts at the ground level. In the Philippines, Kapit-Bisig Laban
sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social
Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) and Makamasang Tugon are leading
CDD programs. According to the Operational Framework, the
Philippine government is scaling up CDD activities including
institution building (e.g., formation of CDD units within sectors and
departments, developing CDD modules for use by existing training
institutes, and conducting interagency CDD pilots).
ii. Convergence in the delivery of core responses (i.e., social protection)
Convergence entails the synchronization and coordination of all
interventions of government (i.e., both national and local) and the
private sector in a particular geographical area with the objective of
ensuring that reforms pertaining to poverty alleviation are realized.
Operationalization of convergence requires convergence (i) in the
target areas/municipalities, (ii) with the private sector in the delivery
of social protection programs, (iii) in the package of intervention to
be delivered in the target areas/municipalities, (iv) of coordinating
mechanisms/feedback systems from the top to the ground and vice
versa, and (v) of resources that are available for the implementers
from the national to the local levels, more importantly in budgeting.
iii. Building adaptive capacities at all levels of implementation
The Operational Framework requires that social protection programs
at all levels should include crucial assessment of adaptation in view
of the various types of risks as well as their negative consequences.5
Adaptation, as used in the Framework, is more than the physical
provision of better infrastructure and warning systems and it
necessitates an integrated participatory process involving individuals
and their social networks, local units, and national agencies, thus
consistent with the convergence approach of the overall Framework.
Table 2 provides the mechanisms by which social protection can
build adaptive capacity.
iv. Institutionalized monitoring and evaluation system
Institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation systems is deemed
important for the rationalization of various social protection
programs. In particular, a regular monitoring and evaluation system
is critical in adjusting, refining, or even terminating programs to
ensure that appropriate responses to the various types of risks are
implemented and sustained. Also, it is useful in assessing how
convergence among stakeholders at all levels is achieved.

5 A process consistent with improving human capital, better governance, and rights-based conditions.

354
 Table 2. Promoting Adaptation Through Social Protection*

SP Category SP Instruments Adaptation Benefits

Protective - Social service provision - Protection of those most
(coping strategies) - Social transfers (food/ vulnerable to climate
cash) including safety risks, with low levels of
nets adaptive capacity
- Social pension schemes
- Public works programs
Preventive (coping - Social transfers - Prevents damaging
strategies) - Livelihood diversification coping strategies as
- Weather-indexed crop a result of risks to
insurance weather-dependent
- Social insurance livelihoods
Promotive (building - Social transfers - Promotes resilience
adaptive capacity) - Access to credit through livelihood
- Asset transfer or diversification and
protection security to withstand
- Starter packs (drought/ climate-related shocks
flood resistant) - Promotes opportunities
- Access to common arising from climate
property resources change
- Public works
programmes
Transformative (building - Promotion of minority - Transforms social
adaptive capacity) rights relations to combat
- Anti-discrimination discrimination
campaigns underlying social and
- Social funds political vulnerability
- Proactively challenging
discriminatory behavior

Source: Davies et al. “Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction and
Social Protection,” in Promoting Pro-Poor Growth Social Protection, OECD, 2009, p.
205 as cited by UP CSWCD (2012).
* Lifted from DSWD and NEDA (2012). Protective measures provide relief from
deprivation. Preventive measures avert deprivation. Promotive measures aim to
enhance real incomes and capabilities of the poorest and most vulnerable populations.
Transformative measures aim to address vulnerabilities arising from social inequity and
exclusion of the poorest and most marginalized groups.

6 Draws heavily from the 2010 DSWD Annual Report and DSWD Memorandum Circular 18, Series of
2012 (i.e., Guidelines on Internal Convergence of the DSWD Core Social Protection Programs).
7 English translation: Three Torches Against Poverty.

355
III. PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE IN SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES

As mentioned in the previous section, convergence in the delivery of core responses

(i.e., social protection) is one of the key participatory strategies identified in
the Operational Framework. In this regard, the DSWD launched in 2010 the
Convergence Framework/Strategy,6 dubbed as “Tatsulo” or “Tatlong Sulo Laban sa
Kahirapan,” 7 which reflects the complementation of strategies such as the country’s
conditional cash transfer program (i.e., Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or
4Ps), community-driven development program (i.e., Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-
Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services or KALAHI-CIDSS), and
sustainable livelihood program (i.e., Self-Employment Assistance-Kaunlaran [SEA-K]
Microenterprise Development and the Guaranteed Employment Program).

The 4Ps is a human investment program that aims to improve the living conditions of
the poor by providing cash grants subject to some conditionalities, thus inducing poor
households to invest in human capital and, in turn, break the intergenerational cycle
of poverty among them. On the other hand, the KALAHI-CIDSS is a community-
driven development project that seeks to reduce poverty by empowering communities
and promoting good local governance through community projects. On the one
hand, SEA-K Program and Guaranteed Employment Program are intended to sustain
and expand the benefits provided to 4Ps beneficiaries by ensuring the sustainability of
income after they graduate/exit from the program.

The Convergence Framework/Strategy that orchestrates these core social protection

programs is geared toward maximized use of government’s resources and capacity
and also, empowerment of the Filipinos out of poverty. As DSWD (2012) puts it, the
said strategy “maximizes the complementary aspects of the Department’s three core
social protection programs, which in sum provides parallel micro and macro level
interventions to address poverty.” It should be noted that while DSWD strengthens its
own convergence strategies, it also strengthens external convergence strategies with
other national government agencies. In particular, DSWD works together with the
Department of Education (DepEd) and Department of Health (DOH) for the delivery
of the package of interventions under the 4Ps. In addition, DSWD collaborates with
the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to implement guaranteed employment
programs for the same target beneficiaries (DSWD and NEDA 2012).

To date, DSWD has gained success in the complementation of social protection

programs, particularly in terms of harmonization of 4Ps with DepEd and DOH
operations and coordination with LGUs on the supply side of the program;
convergence in DSWD’s three major programs (i.e., 4Ps, KALAHI-CIDSS,
Sustainable Livelihood Program) at the operational levels, thus maximizing resources
and fast-tracking delivery of services for greater impact; and DSWD’s partnership
with DPWH, Department of Agriculture (DA), and DENR for employment
facilitation and livelihood opportunities for Pantawid Pamilya beneficiaries (DSWD
2013a). As of the first quarter of 2013, 4,634 4Ps beneficiaries were hired under the
Employment Facilitation Program, which is in partnership with DPWH. In addition,
117,388 families were provided with capital seed fund in connection with the SEA-K
Program (DSWD 2013b).

356
Nevertheless, DSWD (2013a) recognizes some challenges confronting the government
in the area of social protection. On coordination, there is a need for synchronization and
harmonization of program implementation/operations across sectors and institutions
to raise the number of self-sufficient social protection beneficiaries. Although the
DSWD has gained some success in this regard, more work is required to operationalize
the existing policy of convergence of antipoverty and social protection programs
(PDF Working Group on the MDGs and Social Progress 2013). In addition, there is a
need for strengthening/enhancing of governance and mechanisms to improve access
to social protection interventions especially at the local level. Moreover, the lack of
timely and disaggregated data delays implementation of interventions and hinders
better targeting of beneficiaries of social protection programs.

IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The paper highlights the Operational Framework on Social Protection, which

embodies the social welfare policies in the Philippines. In particular, it delves into the
key features/elements of the said framework, particularly the risks and vulnerabilities
addressed, core program responses, key response elements, and key participatory
strategies. The formulation of the Operational Framework is indicative of the
Philippine government’s commitment in ensuring that social protection programs are
well-designed (e.g., programs drawn-up address the identified risks and vulnerabilities)
and well-implemented (e.g., key participatory strategies), and in turn, the ultimate
goal of better and improved quality of life for program beneficiaries is achieved. In
addition, it also shows the government’s effort in ensuring efficient and effective use
of limited resources, i.e., by harmonizing all social protection programs.

It should be noted that due to scarce government resources, many of the social
protection programs in the country are targeted to priority areas and groups. For
instance, the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) is a targeted social welfare
program whose beneficiaries are identified through the National Household Targeting
System. Nevertheless, the lack of financial resources did not preclude the government
to implement social protection program with universal coverage. In June 2013,
President Aquino signed Republic Act 10606 (i.e., National Health Insurance Act of
2013) or “An Act Amending Republic Act 7875, otherwise known as the National
Health Insurance Act of 1995, as Amended and for Other Purposes.” Such Act is
aimed at ensuring that all Filipinos, especially the poor and persons with disabilities,
are covered by health care insurance.

To see the figures and tables in color, please see the online version at
http://dfa.gov.ph/index.php/apec-2015-policy-studies

357
References

DSWD. 2010. DSWD Annual Report. Department of Social Welfare and

Development.

DSWD. 2012. DSWD Memorandum Circular No. 18 (Series of 2012). Department

of Social Welfare and Development.

DSWD. 2013a. National Social Protection Initiatives: An Overview. Presented at the

Conference on the Philippine Social Protection Agenda on 12 April 2013.

DSWD. 2013b. Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program: Program Implementation

Status Report, First Quarter of 2013. Department of Social Welfare and
Development.

_______ and NEDA. 2012. Enhancing the Social Protection Operational Framework
and Strategy for the Philippines. Department of Social Welfare and
Development and National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).

NEDA-SDC. 2012. NEDA-SDC Resolution No. 3 (Series of 2012). National

Economic and Development Authority-Social Development Committee.

PDF Working Group on the MDGs and Social Progress. 2013. “An Assessment of 2010-
2012 Performance and Commitments for 2013-2016.” Philippine Development
Forum Working Group on the MDGs and Social Progress.

358