CITIGOV Course Syllabus and Modules Citizenship and Governance: Making A Difference in Philippine Politics

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329017066
CITIGOV Course Syllabus and Modules Citizenship and Governance: Making a

Difference in Philippine Politics
Book · December 2010
CITATIONS READS
0 1,220
1 author:
Rizalino Noble Malabed

University of the Philippines
27 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Against normalized emergency is the faithful subject of the event as EDSA (Middle class fantasy and politics in post-EDSA Philippines) View project
Philippine politics, culture, and history View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rizalino Noble Malabed on 17 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CITIGOV Course Syllabus and Modules
CITIGOV
Citizenship and Governance:
Making a Difference in Philippine Politics
Department of Political Science

College of Liberal Arts
De La Salle University - Manila
1
Table of Contents
To the Teacher/Facilitator Page 3
Syllabus 4
Course Description 4
Course Objectives 4
Learning Methods and Strategies 5
Course Requirements and Grading 5
Group project schedule and output 6
Course Outline and Schedule 6
Part 1: Will I make a difference? 11

Module 1: Understanding state, government and society / 12
The self (or individual) as citizen
Module 2: Governance and citizenship: the experience of 19
Athenian democracy as ideal type / Philippine governance
and citizenship: continuity and disparity
Part 2: Where will I make a difference? 26

Sites of Governance
Module 3: Governance and Government 28
Module 4: Governance and Society 34
Module 5: Democratic governance: political efficacy, 42
social capital, economic capacity
Part 3: How will I make a difference? 45

Paths to Citizenship
Module 6: The Philippine Constitution and Filipino Citizenship 47
Module 7: Self, citizenship and social responsibility 53
Module 8: Democratic citizenship: participation, 66
sociality, economic wellbeing
Part 4: Nexus: Citizen governance in practice 69

Group Citizenship Project Presentations
2
CITIGOV
Citizenship and Governance: Making a Difference in Philippine Politics
To the Teacher/Facilitator
The syllabus and modules provide a general outline on how the CITIGOV course
should proceed during the term. The class activities, readings, class procedures, and
learning and evaluation methods are all suggestions. You have the freedom to
implement the modules as is or to substitute entirely different ones, as long as they
follow the general themes of the course that were agreed upon by the Department. The
themes are contained in the the three questions that make the title of this document's
three parts: (i) Will I make a difference? (ii) Where will I make difference? and (iii) How
will I make a difference? If you do substitute activities or entire modules, we would like
to request copies of those substitutes, as well as feedback regarding their
implementation. These modules will improve more from departures and alterations
than with strict implementation.
The readings for the course are tentative and we will appreciate other readings
that you think are relevant. Readings from other social science disciplines are welcome
as the Department recognizes that CITIGOV is an interdisciplinary course.
As much as possible, the student citizenship project should be implemented.
It is a course activity that will run through the whole term and that will integrate and
make practical all that the students will learn from the course.
There are other suggested activities that are opportunities for students to learn
research methods such as archival/library work, interview, survey, participant
observation, etc. You teach whatever is appropriate for the activity and the students.
As a transformative learning course, CITIGOV presents itself as an opportunity
to test the concepts that it aims to elicit. The challenge is to co-govern the course in
such a way that the course objectives are achieved and that accompanying common
governance problems are resolved. One issue that is frequently encountered in class
group activities is the free-rider problem. Like free-riding in larger governance contexts,
the problem must be addressed by students (and facilitator) at the governance site that
they are involved in first hand. The classroom is a governance site wherein the
students can make a difference as socially responsible citizens.
3
Course Description
The ideal situation is when the practice of citizenship is itself governance. To an extent,
this is what citizens of ancient democratic Athens lived. However in the history of
political communities, we encounter, as well, practices of governance that equates
citizenship with obedience, with suffrage, with legitimation, etc., and as source of what
government styles as common good. Only recently has governance taken on the
meaning of increasing citizen participation through various manifestations of association
in civil society. This is usually attributed to the diminishing role of government in
governance. Society substitutes functions that government continues to abandon or fail
to fulfill.
Yet, is citizen participation in governance an indication of a weakening state?
Shouldn’t we see it, instead, as greater democratization of the political community?
This course provides students with a setting to critically examine and evaluate
the multiple expressions of citizenship in democratic governance. It also makes
possible exploration into the limits and overlaps of citizenship and governance in theory
and in practice.
In particular, students will contextualize citizenship and governance through the
Philippine experience, and in the actual practice of citizenship in class projects that
promote good democratic governance. Transformative learning as format of the course
itself is an opportunity to co-manage the classroom and the conduct of the class. The
classroom is a site of governance wherein the students can make a difference as
citizens. The diminished or delimited authority of the teacher becomes an opportunity
for greater classroom democratization with the end goal of co-producing more socially
responsible students.
Citizenship is making a difference. Governance is a space, an opportunity to
make a difference. The point of the course is to make students want to make a
difference… and to guide them where and how to make a difference.
Course Objectives
During the course of the term students are expected to:

1. conceptually comprehend the structures and processes of democratic
4
governance, as well as recognize such (or its corresponding deficits) in actual

practice
2. understand that citizenship is not just something that happens by virtue of
membership in a political community (not just a matter of entitlement and duty)
but something that we consciously and conscientiously perform and practice in
our everyday lives and that this understanding is fundamental to the practice of
democratic governance
3. realize that the autonomous self is at the same time social, and this sociality is
best expressed in the recognition of community among the others that we
encounter everyday and in the commitment to the common good of this
recognized community
4. utilize social science methods of research such as library/internet research,
surveys, interviews and participant observation
5. practice citizenship through a group project that promotes good democratic
governance
(Evaluation for objectives 1-3 can be done through essays or oral exams. But a more
consistent evaluation is a Journal/Portfolio that the facilitator can regularly check after
major activities and that the students will have to submit at the end of the course. The
Journal can substitute for the final exam.)
Learning Methods and Strategies
The course will use a variety of learning activities, including:

Lecture-discussions, In-class exercises and activities, Journal-keeping, Writing
of analytical papers, Film viewings, Fieldwork and other research activities, Outbound
education, and Group project planning, implementation, and presentation
Course Requirements and Grading
The following are the requirements for the course and their grade equivalents:
Class participation, including in-class exercises 30%
Short papers 20%
Group Project 30%
5
Final exam or Journal 20%
Group project schedule and output

Weeks 1 to 3 – tentative list of Philippine governance and citizenship
issues that interest the students and that they see themselves as working on for the
group projects that will run through the whole term
Weeks 4 to 6 – description of the governance/citizenship issues (e.g., what
is the problem? how did it arise? what are the causes? what are the effects? who or
what are affected? etc.), as well as accounts of government and civil society
involvement in these issues
Weeks 6 to 10
Beginning of week 6 – strategies, solutions, plans: students insert
themselves into the governance issues they have identified and described earlier,
appropriating these governance issues as their own, and situating themselves as
citizens in these specific governance contexts by devising strategies and solutions, and
materializing these into plans
Beginning of week 7 to end of week 10 – implementation: students
implement their plans
Weeks 11 to 12 - group project presentations: the presentations should
include a description of their governance issue, a narration of their activities and efforts
to address the issue, an evaluation of their effectiveness and recognition/understanding
of problems they have encountered, and a reflection on what they have learned
individually and as a group
Course Outline and Schedule
Weeks 1 to 3
Will I make a difference?
Introduction. Wherein students get to familiarize themselves with the concepts
of citizenship and governance foremost, while exploring the related concepts of
government, state, society, and the self (or the individual). These will be contextualized
with an ideal type derived from an historical practice: Athenian democracy, in which
governance and citizenship actually mean the same thing (without, of course, eliding
the realities of slavery and the exclusion of women from Athenian politics). At the end of
the second week, students are to produce initial list of Philippine governance and
6
citizenship issues that they will work on as group projects for the rest of the course.
Content. 1) Understanding state, government and society; understanding the
self (individual) as citizen; 2) Governance and citizenship: the experience of Athenian
democracy as ideal type; Philippine governance and citizenship: continuity and disparity
Learning Methods. Lecture Discussion, In-class activities and exercises
Evaluation. Class participation, Journal entry, Worksheets, Definition and
description of group project
Resources.
Any introduction to political science textbook that defines the concepts of state,
government, and society.
A source for the practice of democracy in ancient Athens is Chapter 1 of George
Sabine’s A History of Political Theory, New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1956. (or
Pericles’ speech to the Athenian assembly in Thucydides’ History of Peloponnesian
War)
Christopher Blackwell's “An Introduction to the Athenian Democracy,” available
online at http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home?greekEncoding=UnicodeC
Randolf David’s Nation, Self and Citizenship, Pasig City: Anvil, 2004.
Weeks 3 to 6
Where will I make a difference?
Sites of Governance. Wherein students will learn the historically changing role
and functions of government and of civil society in governance; the current thinking and
practices of governance; as well as, principles and requirements of good and effective
democratic governance. These will be contextualized by specific governance practices
in the Philippines as demonstrated by the governance issues identified earlier by the
students as possible group projects or by a specific governance issue determined by
the facilitator and that students can role-play. At this point, the aim is a description of
these governance issues, as well as accounts of government and civil society
involvement in these issues.
Content. 1) Governance and government; 2) Governance and society; 3)
Democratic governance: political efficacy, social capital, economic capacity
Learning Methods. Lecture discussions, In-class exercises and activities
(including IT assisted exercises), Role-playing, Journal keeping, Paper writing, Group
project
Evaluation. Class participation, Short paper, Presentations, Journal entries,
Plan and schedule for group project
7
Materials and References.

Parts I and II of Jon Pierre and Guy Peter’s Governance, Politics and the State,
London: MacMillan, 2000.
Karina Constantino David’s “Intra-Civil Society Relations” in Civil Society Making
Civil Society, Miriam Coronel Ferrer (ed.), Quezon City: Third World Studies Center,
1997.
Miriam Coronel Ferrer’s “Civil Society Making Civil Society” in Civil Society
Making Civil Society, Miriam Coronel Ferrer (ed.), Quezon City: Third World Studies
Center, 1997.
Marlon Wui and Glenda Lopez’ “State-Civil Society Relations in Policy-Making”
in State-Civil Society Relations in Policy-Making, Marlon Wui and Glenda Lopez (eds.),
Quezon City: Third World Studies Center, 1997.
Eva Cox’s “A Truly Civil Society,” The Boyer 1995 Lectures, online: www.idb.org
Francis Fukuyama’s “Social Capital and Civil Society” online: www.imf.org
Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1993.
Paul Hirst’s “Democracy and Governance” in Debating Governance, Jon Pierre
(ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Weeks 6 to 9
How will I make a difference?
Paths to Citizenship. Wherein students understand themselves as individuals
and citizens, learn how they constitute (themselves) and are constituted as such by
state and societal structures. At the most basic, they learn about Filipino citizenship as
defined in the Philippine Constitution and as practiced through the country’s laws and
institutions. Students also appreciate that individuality and citizenship imply affinities
and belongingness (foremost of which is the nation), as well as authorities (state,
church, market). They become aware to the requirements, entitlements as well as limits
of citizenship, that the structures and processes of governance is ultimately dependent
upon individual willingness to see themselves as parts of a social whole; that is, that the
pursuit of individual happiness runs parallel with the attainment of the common good.
These will be contextualized by the group projects: herein, students insert themselves
into the governance issues they have identified and described earlier, appropriating
these governance issues as their own, devising strategies and solutions, situating
themselves as citizens in these specific governance contexts.
8
Content. 1) The Philippine constitution and Filipino citizenship; 2) Self,

citizenship and social responsibility; 3) Democratic citizenship: participation, sociality,
economic well-being
Learning Methods. Lecture discussions, Library and fieldwork, In-class
activities and exercises, Journal keeping, Paper writing, Outbound education, Group
project
Evaluation. Class participation, Short paper, Presentations, Journal entries,
Implementation of group project
Materials and References.
Maria Serena Diokno (ed.) Democracy and Citizenship in Filipino Political
Culture, Quezon City: Third World Studies Center, 1997.
Chapter 10, “Political Socialization: The Making of a Citizen” in Thomas
Magstadt’s Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues, 7th Edition, Thomson
and Wadsworth, 2006.
Chapter 1, “The Promise” in C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination
available online at http://homepages.uconn.edu/~akb01004/SocImg.pdf
Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, 1994.
Chapters on: “Disciplines and Sciences of the Individual” and “Practices and
Sciences of the Self” in The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow, Pantheon, 1984.
Leslie Paul Thiele's Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of the Soul, Princeton
University Press, 1990.
Dana Villa’s Socratic Citizenship, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press, 2001.
John Rawls’ Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
See also: Robert Axelrod on Tit for Tat and the Evolution of Cooperation in a
self-help context, and Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work
Weeks 10 to 12
Nexus: Citizen governance in practice
Group Project Presentations. Wherein students present their projects. The
students, in the course of their projects, are required to document their progress and to
report such in regular group consultations. The presentations are therefore a kind of
show for their fellow students. They are encouraged to be as creative in their shows as
possible. They should also view their presentations as a kind of pitch, an opportunity
wherein the goal is to involve and persuade their fellow students to become citizens in
9
their governance projects. The presentations should include a description of their

governance issue, a narration of their activities and efforts to address the issue, an
evaluation of their effectiveness and recognition/understanding of problems they have
encountered, and a reflection on what they have learned individually and as a group.
Learning Methods. Class presentations and reactions to presentations
Evaluation. Class presentations
Week 13
Course Integration
Week 14
Final Examinations
10
Part I
Will I make a difference?
Introduction and Overview
In this part of the course, students get the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the
concepts citizenship and governance, while exploring the related concepts of
government, state, society, and the self (or the individual). These will be contextualized
with an ideal type derived from an historical practice: Athenian democracy, in which
governance and citizenship actually mean the same thing. At the end of the second
week, students are to produce initial list of Philippine governance and citizenship issues
that they will work on as group projects for the rest of the course.
There are two modules in this part of the course designed for three to four 1.5-
hour meetings. The first and second modules consist in two introductory themes: the
first module deals with the boundaries and overlaps in the concepts and practices of
state, government and society (more specifically, civil society), and the location/practice
of the self or the individual within these as citizen; and the second module deals with
the reinterpretation of ancient Athenian democracy as an ideal type (not ignoring the
exclusions that it entailed historically) and comparing this to contemporary Philippine
governance and citizenship.
Of course the facilitator has leeway in the conduct of the class in terms of time
depending upon the needs, interests and progress of the class. This is also the case for
the rest of the modules. Facilitators can omit, add or substitute their own activities,
readings, lectures, etc. Facilitators can also devise alternative means of evaluation.
The first meeting for the course will be devoted to an overview of the syllabus
and the laying down of expectations. The last meeting will be devoted to organizing
groups for the students’ course project (the governance/citizenship project) and the
identification of project themes or topics. Students should start with at least three topics
per group. Similarities should not be a problem. An objective is for students to realize in
the course of the term what kind of governance/citizenship projects are possible given
the limitation that citizens are also individuals with commitments beyond the political (or
more specifically, that they are also students at the same time).
11
Module 1
Understanding state, government and society / The self (or individual) as

citizen
Preface
Ambivalence about the importance of prior knowledge or students’ initial ideas about
the course topic is the right attitude for the teacher as both facilitator and resource.
There is the Zen suggestion that learning cannot start without an emptying of the mind
(a full tea cup is the metaphor, which overflows as more tea is poured in), and there is
the transformative learning principle that prior knowledge is the starting point of relevant
and effective education. Yet the two (or multiple) minds of this ambivalence must be
both addressed in the course of this module (and set the tone for the rest of the
course). When students are encouraged to articulate their initial ideas/ prior knowledge
about the module themes, they should interpret this articulation as a kind of letting go
(an emptying of the mind). Commitment to a point of view must come only after the test
of deliberation and debate (and even then, as scientific facts show, these remain
tentative). The aggregation of these initial ideas is the starting point of learning.
Students must be encouraged to put themselves in others’ shoes. Initial ideas, for
example, can be explained by a student other than the one who first articulated it (an
exercise of letting go). The class discussion that follows is the test for these initial ideas
and an opportunity for the teacher to act as facilitator and resource for more
sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the topic.
In this module, the political concepts of state, government, society and
citizenship will be introduced vis-à-vis the new concept of governance. These lend to
the process of transforming prior knowledge into a better understanding of the topic.
Objectives
By the end of the module, students should be able to:

1. differentiate between state, government and civil society
12
2. understand that in modern political communities, these concepts do not equate

so readily to the idea of governance
3. realize that citizenship is essential to governance and goes beyond what the
concept of nationality implies
4. realize the benefit of articulating and letting go of their ideas, of thinking within
another’s point of view, of deliberation and debate with other students
Materials and References

Worksheets
Manila paper/cartolina/illustration board and crayons
Any introductory political science textbook (e.g., the POLISCI textbook)
Estimated Number of Hours

Two 1.5-hour meetings
Expected Initial Ideas/Prior Knowledge
• There is no difference between state and government. To an extent, state is an

abstract way of looking at government and when push comes to shove, pointing
to an actual state is the same pointing to the government.
• Civil society is the result of states/governments governing. That part of society
that is uncivil is what states/governments proscribe.
• Governing by the state/government is the same as governance.
• Citizenship is individual rights and obligations by virtue of being a member of
society governed by a state.
• Citizen participation in governance is limited to citizen obligations, specifically
voting and paying taxes.
Key Points for Understanding
• The state is a political association or community with a distinct set of institutions

(branches of government, police, military, bureaucracy, etc.) whose specific
13
concerns are the production of order and the organization of control in the name
of common good within a defined territory. From Weber, it involves three
aspects: the states’ territoriality, monopoly of the means of force, and legitimacy.
• This fundamental view of the state may be amended with Antonio Gramsci’s
account of the state’s role in the production of consent through ideology and/or
Foucault’s account of the society of control, where the state is internalized and
“works [most effectively] within us.” These amendments lead to the inclusion of
population and people in the list of things that constitute the state, which
confuses its distinction from that of society. Nevertheless, the operative word is
political, at least from the point of view of the state. While the rest of society
maybe politicized or subject to politics, they are not necessarily political (Are not
our utopias devoid of politics and our dystopias overly burdened by it?). Thus,
as population we become subject to the state. And as people, we become
politicized as the source of the state’s legitimacy.
• One can think of government as that part of the state that oversees or manages
it as a political community (of course these distinctions are never hard and fast).
It is that part of the state that changes during elections or the demise of a
regime (authoritarian or totalitarian). State then is a larger idea wherein the
concept of government resides. The features of government are the institutions
of the state. Depending upon the presence/absence, combinations and
characteristics of these institutions: a government maybe democratic
(presidential, parliamentary), authoritarian, totalitarian, etc. Unless one is an
official of government (a member of state institutions) one is not a member of it.
But everyone who is a citizen is a member of the state. The state can be
democratized, authoritatively ordered, totalized...
• State and government are not governance.
• Society is the assemblage of individuals and their interactions. It is usually seen

as limited by the boundaries of the state but this is not necessarily the sole case
in practice. Society may be “Western society” or a society of intellectuals like the
academe, but these are not so relevant to the topic at hand. It consists of
spheres of interaction other than those defined as political, which is the claimed
domain of the state. Society links people through rituals, tradition and familial
14
ties (Weber’s gemeinschaft) and self-conscious agreement or contract

(gessellschaft). One can think then of society as something that runs parallel to
the state, that set of other affinities and belongings that individuals are
committed to other than the state. (Nation seems to embrace both, which just
goes to show how important nation-building is to the state.) Contemporary
scholars choose to speak of civil society, referring to the range of relationships,
interactions and organizations/associations (other than state institutions,
economic organizations and extended family ties) that support or uphold a
political system. Thus civil society is potentially political. (Thus Antonio
Gramsci’s seemingly confused formulations: state = political society; state =
political society + civil society; state = civil society.)
• Citizenship is, at the minimum, defined by the rights and obligations that are
entailed by membership in a political community (state). These rights and
obligations, of course, differ with different forms of government and are usually
promulgated through law. With the recent thinking of governance as something
more than government (and the state), the meaning of citizenship has
expanded. Governance is dependent upon citizen involvement within and
without government. Governance is the governing of the state and of society
with or without government and with the participation of citizens. Participation
here means more that mere voting or paying of taxes. It is steering, managing,
and maintaining state and society (and economy) through the many forms of
interaction and association within civil society. More than entitlements and
duties, citizenship then is a conscious and conscientious practice of involvement
in the governance of state and society.
Procedure, Activities and Discussion Questions
Meeting 1 Syllabus presentation, explanation of requirements, etc.
Meeting 2
1. Activating activity: Here, students will identify and recognize their assumptions.
The students will be given the task of articulating their initial ideas about the
concepts of state, government, society, governance and citizenship. These will
15
be, at first, listed or written down on a worksheet or a matrix with the concepts
as headings. The question is: What comes to their mind when, one after the
other, the words state, government, society, governance and citizenship are
uttered? They should write down their answers under the appropriate headings
in their worksheet.
Activity 1.1 Individual Worksheet

State Government Society Governance Citizenship
2. Processing activities: The students are encouraged to investigate their

assumptions through a discussion. The facilitator and the students will make a
common worksheet on the board. Students are encouraged to volunteer their
initial ideas and the facilitator will write them. Students then are told to mark
ideas that they have themselves written down. The facilitator can initially ask
students to explain their own ideas. Students should then volunteer (or called
upon) to explain ideas they have not thought of; that is, ideas on the board that
are not present in their worksheet. Other students are encouraged to comment
on the answers of their classmates. The authors of the specific ideas can also
intervene. The question is: Why do they think that these assumptions came to
the minds of their classmates?
3. Ask students to work on a second worksheet, this time as groups. From the
common worksheet on the board, they should choose the ideas that they
believe in. What conceptualizations of state, government, society, governance
and citizenship do they have after the discussion? Ask them to compare it to
their first worksheet. (This can be homework.) Ask the groups to bring illustration
boards or manila papers and crayons for the next meeting.
Activity 1.2 Group Worksheet

State Government Society Governance Citizenship
Meeting 3
1. Integrating lecture: Students are asked to share the results of activity 3 above.
Point out to the more nuanced understanding of the concepts after the previous
meeting’s discussion. The teacher can attempt to introduce more sophistication
16
at this point.
2. Further processing activity: Tell students to imagine the concepts of state,

government, society, governance and citizenship as spheres/circles. Now based
on the common worksheet: Are these spheres/circles separate, overlapping, lie
on top of each other, coinciding? Identify interface points or overlaps using the
ideas in their worksheet. Ask the students to discuss these overlaps. What do
these points or overlaps imply? Is the understanding of governance possible
through these overlaps? Ask last meeting’s groups to illustrate their ideas on
their manila papers or illustration boards. Also ask the students to represent and
draw the concepts as something else other than circles or spheres. Instruct
them to use their imagination. What do their representations mean? Derive
explicit and implicit meanings together with the students. What do these say
about how they understand the concepts.
3. Further integrating lecture: See points of understanding above. The facilitator

can do his/her own drawing on the board to illustrate lecture points. Explain that
the lecture is the mainstream view of the political science discipline but doesn’t
exhaust all possibilities of interaction and overlap between these concepts in
practice. The facilitator’s drawing also serves as basis for students in evaluating
their own work.
4. Concluding activity: Ask the groups to briefly present their work.
Outputs
Student worksheets (individual and group)
Class worksheet
Evaluation
Individual and group worksheets
The group drawings and illustrations
17
Rubric
State, Government, Society, Governance, Citizenship (Activities 1.1 and 1.2)
OBJECTIVES 70-79% 80-88% 89-96% 97-100% SCORE

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)
The group was able to logically Needs work Fair Good Superior
explain and justify why they chose
certain ideas from the common
worksheet of the class and relate
their preliminary understanding of the
concepts of state, government,
society, governance and citizenship
on their choices.
The group was able to compare and Needs Fair Good Superior
contrast the difference between Work
concepts in their individual
worksheets and those in their group
worksheets and point out what were
the changes insofar as their
understanding is concerned during
and after the class and group
discussions.
The group was able to come up with Needs Fair Good Superior
a creative illustration that showed Work
how they understood the overlaps
and interfaces of the concepts. The
members were able to explain why
the group chose such illustration and
what does it represent in the modern
political community.
The group’s output was able to elicit Needs Fair Good Superior
reactions from the class which Work
helped in deepening both the explicit
and implicit meanings of the
concepts. Members were able to
handle questions and disagreements
from the class to further justify their
points.
• The average of the scores in each objective will be the grade of the student for the activity.
• A grade of 0.0 will be given to students who: 1) did not submit any output and; 2) did not meet the
any of the objective within the passing score.
18
Module 2
Governance and citizenship: the experience of Athenian democracy as

ideal type / Philippine governance and citizenship: continuity and disparity
Preface
In this module, the historical experience of democracy and citizenship in ancient Athens
is reinterpreted and constructed as an ideal type. The process involves the
reinterpretation and abstraction of Athenian democratic practices into conceptual
themes that define what Athenian democracy is all about; e.g., the procedures and
rules of the Assembly, the requirement of jury duty, etc. abstracted as direct
participation, which then defines Athenian democracy as direct participatory democracy.
The ideal type of citizenship and governance is then compared to students’
reading/analyses of the current condition of Philippine governance and their personal
experience of being Filipino citizens.
Objectives

1. describe the Athenian practice of democracy
2. go through the process of abstracting historical experience to construct an ideal
type
3. perform rudimentary comparative analyses by comparing their experience and
their reading of Philippine governance and citizenship with that of the
constructed ideal type

Worksheets
Chapter 1 of George Sabine’s A History of Political Theory, New York: Henry
Holt and Co., 1956. (or Pericles’ speech to the Athenian assembly in Thucydides’
19
History of Peloponnesian War)

Christopher Blackwell's “An Introduction to the Athenian Democracy,” available
online at http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home?greekEncoding=UnicodeC
“The Spirit of Citizenship” and “A Lesson from Oseola” in Randolf David’s
Nation, Self and Citizenship, Pasig City: Anvil, 2004.

• Athenian democracy is direct democracy and everybody is a citizen.

• From the movie Troy, Athens is not actually a democracy but a monarchy.
• From a possible knowledge of Plato’s Republic, philosophers rule Athens.
• From a possible knowledge of Aristotle’s polity in Politics, the middle-class rules
Athens.
• Athens was an empire and not really a democracy.
• Aristotle differentiates Greeks (especially Athenians) from barbarians (for

example, Persians) because Greeks know and practice self-rule. This is the
starting point of the idea of the Greek city-state – that their experience of
governance is self initiated and maintained. As such, the Athenian views
citizenship as the highest calling in social life (that is, life among others). The
practice of Athenian citizenship is self-rule; that is, governance is citizenship.
This is done through the institutions of the Assembly, The Council of Five
Hundred and the courts and its powerful juries. All citizens are the assembly,
from which the members of the council and the courts are chosen. The council
and the court members are not permanent; the unstated assumption is that all
citizens must serve in office at least once in his lifetime. He gets to do this
through election and drawing of lots.
20
• This city-state of affairs is dependent upon exclusions: women, slaves, metics

(resident foreigners, even if their residence extends over several generations)
and children. The democratic insistence of equality among citizens does not
preclude and in fact is compatible with exclusion, the history of democracy bears
this out (e.g., slaves, women, colonized people, colored people – especially
blacks, in the history of US democracy).
• To construct an ideal type from this historical experience, one must abstract
from the actual practice of Athenian citizenship and governing. To an extent, the
exclusion from which Athenian democracy is parasitic upon must be set aside
(but not forgotten). The focus then is on actual citizen experience: membership
in the Assembly – the Athenian deliberative and law-making body; the workings
of the Council of Five Hundred and its subordinate offices – the executive and
steering committee for the Assembly; and serving in the Athenian court as jury.
What do these direct participation in actual governance tell us about citizenship?
• The students’ analysis/experience/reading of Philippine governance and

citizenship at this point is raw. There should be substantial effort from the
teacher to synthesize, restate or refocus it.
Meeting 1
1. Activating activity: The students will then divide into groups and produce a table-
worksheet (two columns) of the principles, processes and features of Athenian
self-governance and citizenship (as headings). They should compare what they
wrote under these two headings, identify and explain overlaps. Is there support
for the claim that in Athenian democracy governance and citizenship are the
same? If the claim is valid, what are the conditions that a political community
must satisfy for this to happen? Does the fact that this state of affairs in Athens
is dependent upon the exclusion of the majority of its population erode the
validity of the claim?
21
Activity 2. Individual Worksheet

Athenian Governance Athenian Citizenship
2. Processing activity and Integrating lecture: The class will make a common
worksheet on the board. The teacher will lead a lecture discussion about
Athenian democracy and will use the common worksheet to highlight points and
at the same time give feedback to students’ works. For this part to be more
discussion than lecture, students must have read Chapter 1 of George Sabine’s
A History of Political Theory, which discusses citizenship and the particular
democratic practices of ancient Athens. The students can also read Christopher
Blackwell's “An Introduction to the Athenian Democracy,” available online at
http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home?greekEncoding=UnicodeC.
3. Further processing activity: Using the common worksheet, identify unifying

conceptual themes from the principles, processes and features of Athenian
democracy; e.g., separation of powers? direct participation? elections? free
speech?, etc. What kind of democracy is Athenian democracy? The facilitator
can also go the other way and prepare democratic conceptual themes in
advance (write them on the board) and ask the students if the themes apply to
Athenian democracy. With the final list of themes, what kind of democracy is
Athenian democracy? In this ideal type, how is citizenship expressed? How is
governance practiced? These last two questions can be represented on the
board as matrix or as concept maps. Are there overlaps in the practices of
governance and citizenship? What does this say about governance and
citizenship as abstracted from their practice in Athenian democracy? After
these, the teacher can reintroduce the underside of Athenian democracy and
illustrate that abstraction can be violent to history through its omissions.
4. Students are given the homework of making a list of the principles, processes
and features that seem to underlie Philippine governance. They can focus on
three levels of government: national, city/municipality, and barangay. They are
also instructed to list down any involvement or activities they had in the last
month that passes as involvement in governance or practices of citizenship.
How is governance practiced at these levels of government in the Philippines?
How is citizenship practiced? They should make a matrix or a conceptual
diagram based on these questions. Are there overlaps in the practices of
22
governance and citizenship in the country? What does this say about
governance and citizenship in the Philippines?
Meeting 2
1. The previous meeting’s aggregation and synthesis of group worksheets plus the
student homework (explained above) are the raw materials for this part of the
module. Basically the aim of this meeting is to compare Philippine governance
and citizenship with the Athenian ideal type.
2. Further processing and integrating activities: There will be a class discussion

and sharing of the individual homework (see item 4 above). The discussion and
sharing will segue into a comparative analyses Philippine governance and
citizenship with the Athenian ideal type. Analyses guides are continuities and
disparities from the ideal type. If citizenship and governance can no longer be
equated in the experience of Philippine democracy, what accounts for this major
disparity? Is the ideal of self-governance only possible in direct democracy? Is
there anything in the Philippine experience that is better than the ideal type?
What about the point that Randy David “Spirit of Citizenship” aims to make? In
an imperfect system of governance, is not the struggle to achieve it the best
expression of citizenship?
3. Concluding activity and evaluation: Ask the student to write their first major
individual essay, around 2-3 pages, to answer this part's activating question: Will
I make a difference? (or Can I make a difference?) They should reflect on and
evaluate Philippine governance and citizenship. They should try to relate these
with the articles they read in Randy David’s book. This essay is their first journal
entry. Explain that they are going to keep a journal that will be submitted
regularly for evaluation. The journal, if creatively presented, can substitute for
the final exam.
Meeting 3
1. Ask the class to divide into groups of 5-6 members each. These groups will be
permanent. Explain that they groups will work on a citizenship project that they
will describe, plan and implement in the course of the term. The groups will then
23
have to identify three (3) governance issues/problems each and try to initially
describe them. They can also think of activities they can do to address these
problems as a group. They should write their work and submit it at the end of the
class. (This can also be homework instead of a regular class.) See also activities
in Meeting 1.1 of Module 3 for possible additional homework.
Output
Group worksheets
Individual homework
Evaluation
Group Worksheets
1st Individual Essay/Journal Entry
Rubric
Individual Essays/Journals

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)
Ideas in the essay are presented in a Needs work Fair Good Superior
coherent and meaningful manner.
There was an effort to construct the
essay to avoid repetitiveness, or
‘going around in circles’ and explains
how the conclusions were drawn.
Concepts and ideas discussed in the Needs Fair Good Superior

classroom were incorporated and Work
accurately interpreted in the
reflection.
Arguments or points of discussion Needs Fair Good Superior

support the student’s understanding Work
of the country’s situation. Arguments
are not mere reiterations of
integrative lectures in the classroom,
but are applications and expansions
24
thereof.
Conclusions are reflective of Needs Fair Good Superior

evaluation and judgments of the Work
country’s situation to the student’s
personal experiences as a citizen
and his/her plans on how to fulfill
his/her role within and outside the
country.
• The average of the scores in each objective will be the grade of the student in his/her reflection
paper.
• A grade of 0.0 will be given to students who: 1) did not submit any output; 2) did not meet any of the objectives
within the passing score and; 3) committed plagiarism.
25
Part II
Where will I make a difference?
Sites of Governance
In this part of the course, students will learn the historically changing role and functions
of government and of civil society in governance; the current thinking and practices of
governance; as well as, the principles and requirements of good and effective
democratic governance. These will be contextualized by specific governance practices
in the Philippines and illustrated by the governance issues identified earlier by the
students as possible group projects.
There are three modules in this part of the course under the overarching theme
of governance. This part’s first (3rd for the whole course) module deals with the
differences, overlaps and limits of government vis-à-vis governance. It traces the
development of governance from the changing (expanding and contracting) roles of
government in societal life. It looks at the structures or institutions of governance (and
their interplay) and surveys the current theories of governance. The second (4th) module
looks at the role of civil society in effective governance. It expounds on the different
manifestations of civil society (non-governmental organizations, grassroots political
organizations, the church, charitable associations, etc.) and evaluate their impact on
governance. It investigates the claim that expanding civil society role in governance is a
result of the continuing retreat of government (through deregulation, devolution etc.)
and the connection of this seeming retreat to current global trends. The second module
also looks at corporate governance and asks the question: Does free market principles
apply to the governance of companies? The third (5th) module focuses on the features
of effective democratic governance. Specifically: political efficacy (that state institutions
and government work), social capital (the software counterpart of political institutions
and management consisting in societal commitment to cooperate and promote the
common/public good above individual interests) and economic capacity (the available
resources to government, civil society and individuals in the pursuit of governance).
The first and third modules are designed for one to two 1.5-hour meetings. The
second module can be implemented in 3 to 4 meetings. The last module in this part of
26
the course will be an integrative lecture that will fit in one meeting.
During the course of these modules, students will continue to work on their
group projects. The objectives, at this point, are to describe their governance problems
and to identify government and civil society involvements in these problems. These are
achieved through in-class exercises, group independent research and consultations
with the teacher.
27
Module 3
Governance and government
Preface
The references for this module may be heavy reading for the students and as such are
primarily suggested for the teacher. It is the teacher’s task then to translate these
readings into relevant lectures, discussions and activities for the students. The students
can read the UNESCAP introductory text for governance. (Or they can read all the
readings...)
Objectives

1. realize the difference between government and governance
2. explain the historically changing role of government in governance as well as
the relevance of the concept in contemporary study of politics (i.e. why
governance?)
3. identify and clarify the required institutions of governance as well as account for
their processes
4. recognize the characteristics of good governance and explain which of these are
the direct responsibility of government
5. research the theory and practice of national and local governance in the
Philippines.

Internet accessing materials (computers, internet connection, etc.)
A resource person from the University Library
Part I (Chapter 1-3) of Jon Pierre and Guy Peter’s Governance, Politics and the
State, London: MacMillan, 2000.
28
Worldwide Governance Indicators, online: www.govindicators.org (this will be

accessed online as part of an in-class activity:
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/mc_countries.asp
“An Introduction to Good Governance” by the United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, online:
http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

• Government is governance
• The role of government in governance has remained stable over time and varies
only in relation to the form of government
• Since what the government does is governance, the institutions of governance
are primarily state institutions
• Only the government is accountable and responsible for good governance
• Etymologically (from the Latin cybern), governance suggests (as with

cybernetics) steering or guidance. This may be contrasted with outright top-
down approach of organizational command.
• Yet governance is seen to manifest in different ways including hierarchy (which

recalls the approach of government), market (seen as antidote to big
government, and as the most efficient way of allocating resources, it being
supposedly uncolored by politics), network (comprising of wide array of actors –
state institutions, organized interests, stakeholders, etc. – in a given policy
sector) and community (the idea that communities should resolve common
problems with the minimum of government intervention).
29
• Governance itself is supposed to be a neutral term; it is institutions and

processes that exclude the normative determination of a good end. Theoretically
it can serve good or bad purposes. Another dimension of governance rarely
discussed is its relation to politics. The claim is that it defuses the inherent
contentiousness of politics in favor of administrative and process-oriented
elements of governing. How much of governance is the relocation (into the
private?) or limiting of plurality or diversity? Governance as communities, for
example, assumes a certain amount of homogeneity required in the attainment
of consensus. This is true as well for networks. Perhaps, Foucault’s concept of
governmentality or state rationality is relevant here.
• The concept of governance evolved with the evolution of the role of the
government expressed through wide-ranging political developments in the
twentieth century. In Pierre and Peters, these are (a) the consolidation of
democratic government throughout the western world; (b) the embarkation of
governments on political projects of regulation, economic redistribution, and the
expansion of the political sphere within society (and as such declaring more and
more of society as subject to governing); (c) the privatization, deregulation,
austerity measures, introduction of market-based principles to public service,
etc. - ably demonstrated by the Thatcher and Reagan governments, as well as,
more recently, developing countries implementing IMF-WB conditionalities.
Coupled with the exigencies of globalization and the emergence of new sources
of governance (e.g. civil society organizations), government has increasingly
separated with governance conceptually and in practice.
• Good governance is generally understood as a set of 6-8 major indicators:

participation, promotion and protection of basic human rights, orientation
towards consensus, equity and inclusiveness, transparency and
responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, and rule of law. (for
the World Bank: voice and accountability, political stability/no violence,
government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of
corruption)
30
Meeting 1
1. Activating activity: The class will need materials to access

www.govindicators.org online. They will be divided into groups. They will explore
and learn about the six dimensions of good governance while exploring the site.
They can be assigned to check the performance ratings of specific countries
and compare them. These can be determined through categories such as level
of development, geographical location, cultural affiliation (e.g. Huntington’s
division of the world into contending civilizations), etc. They will also look at the
performance rating of the Philippines. They will then try to evaluate whether
such rating is reasonable, and whether the indicator or dimensions of
governance used in the ratings are acceptable. They can contextualize the
country’s performance based on the six indicators by giving concrete examples.
(This can be homework. The results of the above exercise will be documented
and submitted at the beginning of next class.)
2. Processing and Integrating lecture: The teacher will give a brief lecture on the
history of government role in governance. The Athenian ideal type can be
recalled as a take-off point segueing into the expansion of modern government
role as expressed through greater fiscal capacity and responsibility (an outcome
of Keynesian economic planning) and its eventual decline and contraction (a
direct result of IMF-WB imposed conditionalities of privatization, deregulation
and other economic structural adjustments).
3. Further Processing activity: One way for the class to understand the difference
between government and governance is through an in class activity utilizing the
main points of the above lecture. What the students will do is to make a list of
the functions of a government in a centralized welfare state and the functions of
government in a deregulated and privatized state. The questions that they are
answering, in effect, are: What are the functions of governments in their
expanded and contracted forms? Who currently performs the functions
abandoned by the minimal government? Additional questions that can be
discussed are: Is the authority of government weakening vis-a-vis the decline of
31
its role? How does the weakening of government authority manifest in practice?
How is it reasserted?
4. Concluding activity: Divide the students into the appropriate number of groups.
Instruct them to research governance practices at the national, city/municipal,
and barangay levels. The point of the activity is to introduce students to actual
issues and activities of governance at different levels of government. Some of
the questions that can guide them are: What societal issues or problems do
these levels of government are concerned with? How come? What measures
are undertaken to address these issues? How are these measures decided?
How are they implemented? What resources are available to these government
levels when they address societal problems? Are the processes involved in
governance, like decision-making and implementation, participatory? The
students should try to evaluate the governances at these levels of government
according to the good governance indicators of the World Bank. They can do
library work and interviews in order to answer these questions. The teacher will
introduce the methods of archival research and interview to the students. They
should identify interviewees and prepare their questions in advance. The
students should review and check whether their interview questions are
sufficient to elicit what they want to discover. Meanwhile, a resource person
from the library can be invited to talk about archival/library research.
Meeting 2
1. This meeting is devoted entirely to improving and refining the group projects.
The students will be divided into their project groups. Looking at their lists of
possible governance/citizenship topics, they are to define and describe the
government's role. Guide questions are: Is government a solution or a problem?
What state institutions are required to resolve the condition identified by their
topics? What is the government doing? Is what the government doing sufficient
to address their governance issues? What resources are available to the
government institutions that are concerned with their issues? Do the processes
or procedures of government in addressing the issues comply with the WB's or
UNESCAP's criteria for good governance?
2. The citizenship project groups will present the results of their discussions to the
32
class. Encourage other students to ask questions, make comments, and

evaluate the presentation of each group based on the guide questions above.
Outcome and Evaluation

Printed materials from the governance website
Progress in the group project
Group project output
33
Module 4
Governance and society
Preface
This module focuses on the role of civil society in effective governance. It looks at the
different manifestations of civil society (non-governmental organizations, grassroots
political initiatives, the church, charitable associations, etc.) and evaluates their impact
on governance. It investigates the claim that expanding civil society role in governance
is a result of the continuing retreat of government (through deregulation, devolution
etc.). Students will explore such through role-playing stakeholders in a specific
governance issue to be identified by the facilitator/teacher. The second module also
looks at other governances, including corporate governance, international governance,
economic (development) governance and the new public management system.
Objectives

• understand the concept of civil society and comprehend its processes in
practice
• give an account of the expanding role of civil society in governance, as well as
explain the traditional role of civil society in state-building
• identify and explain the theory and practices of other governances
• apply the principles of good governance to other governances that may include
or exclude government

Materials/facilities for PowerPoint presentations, Internet connection
Karina Constantino David’s “Intra-Civil Society Relations” in Civil Society Making
Civil Society, Miriam Coronel Ferrer (ed.), Quezon City: Third World Studies Center,
34
1997.
Miriam Coronel Ferrer’s “Civil Society Making Civil Society” in Civil Society
Making Civil Society, Miriam Coronel Ferrer (ed.), Quezon City: Third World Studies
Center, 1997.
Marlon Wui and Glenda Lopez’ “State-Civil Society Relations in Policy-Making”
in State-Civil Society Relations in Policy-Making, Marlon Wui and Glenda Lopez (eds.),
Quezon City: Third World Studies Center, 1997.
Paul Hirst’s “Democracy and Governance” in Debating Governance, Jon Pierre
(ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Three to four 1.5-hour meetings and one 1.5-hour research break
• Civil society’s role in (state) governance is limited; e.g. lobbying or through

rallies
• There is no governance within civil society because of its diversity and diffusion
in society
• We should not let civil society into governance or leave it entirely in their hands
because they have no accountability
• An ordinary individual has no stake in other governances, especially corporate
and economic governance
• Civil society in democratic societies is a double-edged sword vis-à-vis the state:

civil society, on the one hand, legitimizes the state through its participation as
well as consent in state governance; civil society, on the other hand, can
challenge the legitimacy of the state and offer a nascent and alternative political
community (see Gramsci’s theory on state-civil society relations).
• As legitimizing, civil society is a source of state strength as parts of civil society
35
organizations and processes can become institutionalized into the political

community. Depending on the form and practice of the state, this can be a good
or a bad thing. A genuinely democratic state that is responsive to and
representative of its people deserves civil society support (whether abetting or
critical) because, theoretically, this gets translated into everyone’s advantage. In
other kinds of state, one can view civil society consent as cooptation and
support for an unjust status quo.
• Civil society is diverse. The dynamics of the different manifestations of civil

society in relation to each other and the state are also diverse. One can look at
specific examples of civil society to understand this and make it more concrete.
Peoples’ organization, for example, will have differences with professional
associations. NGO’s and unions will also exhibit differing dynamics. This point is
an empirical assertion and can be verified as such.
• Participation of individuals in governance becomes more effective through the

many forms of civil society because civil society is devolved and accessible
social power.
• Other sites of governance (economic governance, corporate governance,

network/organizational/societal governance, governance in new public
management, and international governance) have unique dynamics as well.
Interventions by civil society into these other governances will require different
approaches and will have different outcomes. There is already an abundant
literature on global civil society and their influence in international governance.
Such direct participation, however, does not apply in corporate governance.
• Governance itself is supposed to be a neutral term; it is institutions and

processes that exclude the normative determination of a good end. Theoretically
it can serve good or bad purposes. Another dimension of governance rarely
discussed is its relation to politics. The claim is that it defuses the inherent
contentiousness of politics in favor of administrative and process-oriented
elements of governing. How much of governance is the relocation (into the
private?) or limiting of plurality or diversity? Governance within civil society (as
well as corporate bodies), for example, assumes a certain amount of
homogeneity required in the attainment of consensus. This is true as well for
36
other governances. I guess the relevant dichotomy here is Robert Cox’s

distinction between critical and problem solving (theoretical/political) positions.
Governance is problem solving and as such can hardly change existing societal
relations of hierarchy and privilege.
Meeting 1
1. Activating activity: With a computer attached to a multimedia projector and

Internet connection, use www.google.com to search for the following: “Apo
Island marine sanctuary.” Apo Island, just off Dumaguete City, is one of the first
marine sanctuaries in the country. The facilitator can do an image search first to
capture the student’s attention. Image results are usually the islands white
beaches or underwater photos of its corals and diverse marine life. Ask the
students to enumerate possible reasons why such a sanctuary is established
and is successful. (The facilitator can use other examples depending on her/his
interest: a model farm, a nature park, a barangay, etc.) Why are these reasons
necessary for the sanctuary’s success? How do these reasons contribute to the
success?
2. Processing activity: Imagine an island similar to Apo Island but with major
problems that threatens not only its natural beauty but also the livelihood and
health of the community living in it: pollution (waste from businesses, tourists
and residents), overcrowding (due to influx of tourists during summer and the
success of small businesses that cater to the needs of visitors), unsustainable
fishing practices (use of dynamite and cyanide that destroys corals and kills
marine life), coral bleaching, and poaching of endangered species from the
island’s marine diversity. Divide the students into five groups representing (1)
the government, (2) an environmental NGO, (3) academics and scientists
studying the island’s ecosystem (its corals and biodiversity) and its relation to
the island’s community, (4) resort and business owners in the island, and (5) the
island’s community. Ask the groups to role-play these societal sectors or
stakeholders. They should make a aback story that explains their interest in the
island. Then they should device a strategy and make plans to resolve some or
37
all of the island’s problems. They should specify what problems they seek to
resolve. They should also describe these problems. They should show in their
plans the capacities and limitations of the stakeholder that they are role-playing.
They should make their plans as realistic as possible. Their plans will be
presented during the next meeting. Presentations will a slideshow created
through any of the available softwares for presentations. Encourage the
students to be creative. Also, encourage the other students to prod, question,
and evaluate each of the presentations. They should prepare questions that
they will ask the other groups based on their own group planning experience.
3. Before the class ends, instruct the groups to research civil society organizations.
They will choose specific NGOs/POs or professional associations and get
interviews from these organizations: what are their involvements, where do they
get their resources, and what roles do they play in governance. They can also
use participant observation and participate in the activities of their chosen
organizations. They will identify the interventions that their civil society
organizations do vis-à-vis the sites of governances and evaluate their
effectiveness or influence. The organizations that they work with can also
become their partners in their group citizenship project. The results of the
research will be documented and submitted on the 4th meeting of this module.
Meeting 2
1. Processing activity continued: Group reports.
2. At the end of the presentations, divide the students into five groups. This time
each group will have representatives from the previous groupings. Thus each
group will have members who will role-play (a) government, (b) environmental
NGO, (c) academics and scientists studying the island’s ecosystem (its corals
and biodiversity) and its relation to the island’s community, (d) resort and
business owners in the island, and (e) the island’s community. Ask the groups to
plan a comprehensive strategy to resolve all of the island’s problems. They
should make their plans as realistic as possible. They should also reflect on the
processes of their planning, first separately as stakeholders and second as
cooperating stakeholders. Their plans will be presented in meeting 4 of this
module. Presentations will a slideshow created through any of the available
38
softwares for presentations. Encourage the students to be creative. Also,

encourage the other students to prod, question, and evaluate each of the
presentations. They should prepare questions that they will ask the other groups
based on their own group planning experience.
Meeting 3
• Research break for meeting 1.3 and 2.2 activities.
Meeting 4
1. Processing activity continued: Group reports. Ask each group to ask their
prepared questions and evaluate one of the group presentations other than their
own. The groups will also submit the results of their research in meeting 1.3
above.
Meeting 5
1. Processing activity continued: Choose groups to imagine and role-play other

sites of governances in front of the class. They can, for example, role-play
corporate governance within a corporation or at inter-corporate level (e.g.,
business groups, chambers of commerce, etc.). They have to identify a
business problem, describe it and strategize for it. The class can make it
interactive by interjecting or intervening during the role-playing to suggest
strategies, clarify points, ask questions, etc. Who are the actors/stake holders in
corporate governance? Can the government intervene? When and how? Are
there other sectors of society that can intervene? When and how? How does
corporate governance work? (Prior knowledge will be helpful especially from
students from families who own businesses.) How does it compare to the
previous role-playing? Is corporate governance reflective of that economic ideal:
free market? Why is corporate governance different from the previous example
of governance?
2. Integrating lecture: This depends on the teacher. In practice though, sometimes

a lecture is unnecessary at this point. A discussion that tries to evaluate the
plans presented above in meetings 2 and 4 using the criteria for good
39
governance learned from the previous module might be helpful though.
3. Concluding activity: Before the class ends, ask the citizenship project groups to
submit a description of the three possible projects they have identified. They
should include descriptions of the governance issues or problems they seek to
resolve, the stakeholders, current efforts to resolve the problem, and tentative
plans that their group seeks to implement.

Role-playing activity plans and presentations
Group research work
Progress in the group project
Rubric
Sites for governance Role-playing

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)
The group came up with a creative Needs Fair Good Superior

approach in their presentation of a Work
site of governance. The members
used various resources to come up
with a presentation that was
reflective of the processes of their
planning in two ways: as separate
stakeholders and as cooperating
stakeholders.
The group was able to divide its Needs Fair Good Superior
members into several stakeholders. Work
Members of assigned to each
stakeholder were able to identify
their respective problems and their
strategy to help improve the
situation of the provided scenario.
40
The group was able to formulate a Needs Fair Good Superior

comprehensive strategy which is Work
both realistic and workable on the
context. There is a conscious effort
to involve all actors as significant
parts of the deliberation through
taking consideration of the
concerns of each actor.
The group was able to elicit Needs Fair Good Superior

questions and reasoned opinions Work
from their audience. Members were
able to elaborate governance as a
process of problem-solving and as
a process possible outside the
realm of the government.
• The average of the scores in each objective will be the grade of the student for the activity.
• A grade of 0.0 will be given to students who: 1) did not submit any output and; 2) did not meet the
any of the objective within the passing score.
41
Module 5
Democratic governance: political efficacy, social capital, economic

capacity
The meeting/s for this module will be entirely lecture/s that integrates the points made in
this part of the course.
The lecture/s will include the features of effective democratic governance, specifically:
political efficacy (that state institutions and government work), social capital (the
software counterpart of political institutions and management consisting in societal
commitment to cooperate and promote the common or public good vis-a-vis individual
interests) and economic capacity (the available resources to government, civil society
and individuals in the pursuit of governance).
Figure 1. Triangulating democratic governance
At the end of the integrating lecture, ask the students to write their second major
42
individual essay, maybe 3-4 pages, and answer the question that starts this part of the
course: Where will I make a difference? The students should choose a societal issue
that they are interested in. They should explain how come they are interested in this
issue. They should identify the site of governance where their issue is addressed. What
can they do to help resolve their chosen issue in this site of governance?

One 1.5-hour meeting
Evaluation

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)
2rd Individual Essay or Journal Entry
Rubric

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)

reflection.

43

thereof.

country.
• The average of the scores in each objective will be the grade of the student in his/her reflection paper.
44
Part III
How will I make a difference?
Paths to Citizenship
In this part of the course, students understand themselves as individuals and citizens.
They examine how they constitute themselves as citizens and how they are constituted
as such. Students also appreciate that individuality and citizenship imply affinities and
belongingness (foremost of which is the nation), as well as authorities (state, church,
market, etc.). They become more aware of the requirements, entitlements as well as
limits of citizenship. They realize that the structures and processes of governance is
ultimately dependent upon the willingness of individuals to see themselves as parts of a
social whole; that is, that the pursuit of individual happiness runs parallel with the
attainment of the common good. These are contextualized by the group projects: here,
students insert themselves into the governance issues they have identified and
described earlier: consider these governance issues as their own, devise strategies and
solutions, and situate themselves as citizens in these specific governance contexts.
There are three modules in this part of the course under the overarching theme
of citizenship. The first module looks at how we constitute ourselves and how we are
constituted by the state as citizens. This involves looking at the Philippine Constitution
as the foundation of our citizenship as Filipinos. It also involves looking at the varied
ways in which we are citizens and the possible ways in which we can practice our
citizenship. In the second module, students understand themselves as individuals, as
citizens and as members of a community. Students will appreciate that individuality and
citizenship imply affinities and belongingness. The module deals with the construction
or constitution of our selves, the manifestation of our sociality through our affinities, and
the expression of their fusion as social responsibility. The third module focuses on the
features of democratic citizenship; specifically: participation (to ensure the political
efficacy of citizenship), sociality (the term is Immanuel Kant’s, what Marx designates as
our species-being: the realization that individuality is only possible among others and
that those others are our community) and economic wellbeing (a condition to our being
citizens – at the least, freedom from the constant demands of subsistence living).
45
These three modules are expected to run the course of six to eight 1.5-hour
meetings, including research breaks for library work and fieldwork.
During the course of these modules, students will continue to work on their
group projects. Their goal, at this point, is to finalize their project topic (completed at the
end of the modules on governance), formulate their project plan (completed midway the
first module) and finally implement their project (students will have three weeks). These
will be achieved through in-class exercises, fieldwork and consultations with the
teacher.
46
Module 6
The Philippine constitution and Filipino citizenship
Preface
In this module, students learn how we constitute ourselves and how we are constituted,
by the state, as citizens. This is done by reading and interpreting the relevant articles of
the Philippine Constitution as to the foundations of our citizenship as Filipinos. It also
involves looking at state and societal institutions that socialize and discipline us to be
good citizens. The module also investigates the varied ways in which we are citizens
and the possible ways in which we can practice our citizenship.
The primary resource for this module is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The
Supreme Court decision and the dissenting opinions on the case filed against the
presidential candidacy of Fernando Poe Jr. based on the contention that he is not a
Filipino citizen are good demonstrations of the citizenship provisions in the Constitution,
aside from providing theoretical and historical rational for the said provisions.
Objectives
By the end of the module, the students will be able to:
1. conceptually understand democratic citizenship as both obedience and freedom

2. identify who are Filipino citizens, and enumerate the rights that every Filipino
citizen possess based on Articles III and IV of the Philippine Constitution
3. enumerate their responsibilities as citizens by critically interpreting the Preamble
and Articles I, II and V of the Philippine Constitution
4. critically differentiate the requirements of good citizenship and being a good
person, as well as learn that good citizenship is different in different polities
5. identify knowledge, skills, and attitudes or values that they need acquire to be
good citizens or productive members of their community.
47

Photos, multimedia projector, laptop, worksheets
The Preamble, and Articles I to V of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
The Supreme Court decision (majority and dissenting) on the citizenship of
Fernando Poe Jr.: Tecson vs Comelec : 161434 available at
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/161434.HTM;
and Tecson vs Desiderio : 161434 available at
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/161434_carpio.htm

1. Only those above 18 years old are citizens and should be concerned about
citizenship
2. To be a Filipino citizen is simply to be born in the Philippines
3. Only natural born citizens are Filipino citizens
4. Citizenship is primarily paying taxes and going out to vote during elections
5. We are citizens and that’s it. There is really no need to think about it or to
problematize it
• The term citizen came from the Middle English word citizein, from the Anglo-
French citezein (alteration of Old French citeien, from cité city). It refers to: (1) an
inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to the rights and privileges of a
freeman; or, (2) a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a
government and is entitled to protection within it. In other words, citizens are
“people united in a city or community.” It may thus be argued that the idea is as
old as settled human communities. In our country, the 1987 Philippine
Constitution formally defines who are Filipino citizens and enumerates the basic
rights of these citizens.
48
• The citizen, as a member of a political community, enjoys rights or is accorded

protection inside the territory of that community or State. These rights may
formally be classified into the following:
Natural Rights – rights possessed by every citizen without being granted by
the State. These fundamental rights are inherent to human beings. These
are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Examples of
these rights are right to life and right to love.
Statutory Rights – rights provided by laws, which are promulgated by a law
making body and, consequently, may be abolished by the same body.
Examples are the right to receive a minimum wage.
Constitutional Rights – are the rights conferred and protected by the
Constitution (the fundamental body of formal laws in a community). These
are key elements of the fundamental laws in the Philippines:
Political Rights – rights of the citizens that give them the power to
participate, directly or directly, in the establishments or administration of the
government. Among these are the rights of citizenship (Art IV), suffrage (Art
V), and the right to information on matters of public concern (Art V, Sec 7).
Civil Rights – rights, which the law will enforce at the instance of private
individuals for the purpose of securing to them the enjoyment of their means
of happiness. Included are rights against involuntary servitude (Sec 18) and
imprisonment for non-payment of debts or poll tax (Sec 20), rights of the
accused (Sec 11-22), liberty of abode (Sec 6); freedom of speech,
expression and press, and the right of assembly and petition and the right to
form association (Secs 4, 8).
Social and Economic Rights –rights intended to insure the well-being and
economic security of the individual. There is for example the right to property
(Sec 1) and the right to just compensation for private property taken for
public use (Sec 9), conservation of natural resources (Art VII, Sec 2) and the
promotion of education (Art XIV, Secs 1,2, and 5) science and technology
(Art VII, Secs 1-13, and arts and culture (Art XIV, Secs 17-18).
• In our national community, the 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly identifies

those who are considered citizens (Article IV, section 1), namely:
Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution;
49
Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and,
Those who are naturalized in accordance with the law.
• In democracies, citizens, theoretically, have the power to make and enforce

decisions for their communities directly or indirectly through representation in
government. Citizenship has its roots in the idea of an individual’s active political
participation in a political community’s decision-making processes. It is about
being a part of a particular political arrangement, which implies the duty of
allegiance and participation on the part of the member and the duty of protection
on the part of the State, i.e., the political community.
• A fuller definition of the concept citizen, thus, suggests a person who is furnished
with knowledge of public affairs, instilled with attitudes of civic virtue, and
equipped with skills to participate in the processes of democratic politics.
• Formally, a good citizen may simply be described as one who obeys the laws of
her community. Beyond, the formal framework of law however, good citizens are
people who consistently do the right thing according to a formal or informal list of
values. Democratic citizenship is learned through: civic learning (acquiring
knowledge and skills in order to be a potentially functional community member)
and social education (acquiring values and attitudes that orient the application of
knowledge and skills toward contributing to the betterment of the political
community).
• Citizenship in a free society is paradoxical. On one hand, it entails obedience.

On the other hand, it requires a kind of qualified disobedience (that is, it is within
the bounds of civility) or civic engagement and watchfulness. Contradictorily,
good citizens in a democratic society need to be compliant and independent at
the same time. This is connected to the paradoxical nature of democracy itself as
will be discussed in a later module. Democracy is about sameness (equality) and
difference (freedom) at the same time. This contradiction contribute the
dynamism of democratic practice.
50
Meeting 1
1. Pre-classroom meeting activity: Ask the class to read and understand the
Preamble and Articles I to V of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines prior to the class meeting. The students are expected to have
generally understood the meaning of the provisions in said sections of the
Philippine Constitution before coming to class. Also, ask students to read the
Supreme Court decisions on the matter of FPJ’s citizenship as basis for his
disqualification in the 2004 elections.
2. Activating activity: Write the word CITIZEN on the board. Ask students to
provide concepts, practices and other things that they think relates to the word
citizen.
3. Processing activity: Start a discussion on the resulting class

conceptual/cognitive map, focusing on each connected idea/concept/practice
etc. and asking students why and how these are connected to the word
CITIZEN. What are the particularities of being Filipino citizens? How did the
concept of citizenship change in the course of Philippine history? How is birth
(natio) connected to citizenship? How is nation (etymologically rooted in natio or
birth), state, and peoplehood connected to citizenship? Are there other
alternatives (of political identity) to citizenship? What about cosmopolitan
citizenship? What about the complicated citizenship of indigenous peoples in the
Philippines? The teacher/facilitator can discuss the Supreme Court decision on
FPJ's citizenship at this point. Ask the students to formulate questions about
citizenship based on the SC decision. Further discussion: The facilitator can
also lead a discussion on the connection between state and rights. Students can
imagine and compare the practice of Filipino rights (the Filipino's right to free
speech, for example) in New York, Riyadh, Manila, in the forests of Mt.
Banahaw, in Maguindanao, etc. The point is that the practice of individual rights
is only as strong as the political community (the state), that even supposedly
natural human rights need the guarantee of the state. The students can also
compare notional citizen rights in China, Iran , the United States, and the
Philippines by looking at the Constitutions of these countries. How do rights
51
differ in different political systems?
4. Integrating lecture: The facilitator lectures using the above discussion as starting
point and the first half of key points of understanding above as resource.
Homework: ask students to research citizenship in other countries, especially
those that have other forms of government, such as authoritarianism (Myanmar)
or totalitarianism (China? or North Korea? or Iran) comparative purposes.
Meeting 2
1. Further Processing activity: Collect photographs of prominent faces in the

Philippines as well as from other countries (showbiz personalities, newspaper
columnists, television pundits, politicians, leaders from civil society, government
officials, international organization personalities). Ask the students to arrange
the faces based on the following criteria: good person/citizen, good person/bad
citizen, bad person/good citizen, and bad person/citizen. What considerations
did the students deem important in classifying the photographs? When do the
requirements of being a good person and a good citizen conflict? When do they
agree? What criteria did they use to judge whether a person is good or bad? Did
they use the same criteria to judge the good/bad citizen? Do these criteria apply
to types of government other than democracy? Do they apply in Myanmar? In
Saudi Arabia? In North Korea? In the U.S.? What makes good citizenship the
same or different in these countries?
2. Integrating lecture: The facilitator lectures using the above discussion as starting
point and the last half of key points of understanding above as resource.
3. Concluding activity: Give the student a quiz that will test their memorization and
understanding of the provisions of the Philippine Constitution, as well as an
essay question that will demonstrate their critical understanding of citizenship.

Homework
Quiz and short essay results
52
Module 7
Self, citizenship and social responsibility
Preface
In this module, students understand themselves as individuals, as citizens and as

members of community. Students will appreciate that individuality and citizenship imply
affinities and belongingness. The module deals with the construction or constitution of
our selves, the manifestation of our sociality through our affinities, and the expression of
their fusion as social responsibility. Students will become more aware of the
requirements, entitlements as well as limits of their citizenship. They will realize that the
structures and processes of the nation is ultimately dependent upon the willingness of
individuals to see themselves as parts of a social whole; that is, that the pursuit of
individual happiness runs parallel with the attainment of the common good. More than
entitlements and duties, citizenship is a conscious and conscientious practice of
involvement in society.
Individuals live two realities: the solitude of individuality and the sociality of being
among others. In Philippine society, we have found a dubious middle way through our
commitment to our families and peers. Yet, this sociality is limited as it fails to underpin
the structures and institutions of our public life. The many others of society are seen as
strangers, as outsiders to the boundaries of our restricted loyalties. Thus, the public
good is rarely our own good. And individual interest, mitigated by considerations of
family, is paramount.
A more appropriate attitude toward the realities of self and society is neither a
choice of one over the other nor a dubious middle way but fully living them, navigating
their demands, and realizing that a strong individuality is ultimately advantageous to the
community, and that the free self is only meaningful in a life among others.
Citizenship produces space for the dynamics of self and the collective.
53
Objectives
By the end of the module, the students will be able to:
1. understand themselves as citizens and realize that this means more that
entitlements and duties
2. appreciate that citizenship is an expression of individuality and
belongingness at the same time
3. understand that social responsibility is not a choice between self or
community but a fusion of individual happiness and the common good.
The attainment of these goals among students will be measured through a reflection
paper or a journal entry.

Photos, multimedia projector, laptop, internet connection, worksheets.
For students:
Chapter 1, “The Promise” in C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination
(online)
For the Facilitator
Section 1 of Part 1 (Nationhood), Section 1 of Part 2 (Selfhood) and Section 1 of
Part 3 (Social Responsibility and personal Autonomy) in Randolf David’s Nation, Self
and Citizenship, Pasig City: Anvil, 2004
Any introductory political science textbook.
See also:
Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom, Anchor Books, 1994.
Dana Villa’s Socratic Citizenship, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University
Press, 2001.
John Rawls’ Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Chapters on: “Disciplines and Sciences of the Individual” and “Practices and
Sciences of the Self” in The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow, Pantheon, 1984.
Leslie Paul Thiele's Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of the Soul, Princeton
University Press, 1990.
54

Four to five 1.5-hour meetings (one to two of these meetings are library research
and fieldwork)
• On the self:
a. Self and identity are the same.
b. Our identities are unitary, permanent and are of our own making.
c. There is conflict in the requirements of individuality and community.
• On citizenship:
a. Citizenship is individual rights and obligations by virtue of being a
member of a state.
b. Citizen participation in society is limited to citizen obligations;
specifically obeying the laws, voting and paying taxes.
• On community and social responsibility:
a. Membership in any community is a choice. Social responsibility as
such is also optional.
b. The value of “nationalism” needs to be inculcated among the citizens
of the country. One needs to be nationalistic to be socially responsible.
c. Political activists are a nuisance to society. They give social
responsibility a bad name.
• The self is a continuing construction. We usually like to think of the self as the
whole of us yet in its construction we bulldoze parts of ourselves and add new
changes or we painstakingly reconstruct pieces of ourselves we have
discarded. We are nostalgic of ourselves that has become irretrievable as our
past. We imagine ourselves into our dreamfutures. Yet, the self is nothing
fixed but changes with the social context. Thus our self-construction can be
determined by our milieu, immediate or distant – our family or the job market.
• Identity is a snapshot of the self, a stopping of time to take stock of who we
55
are at the moment. Identity then is always situated: son/daughter, student,

friend, poet, citizen. Identities are indicators of belongingness, of community:
family, school, barkada, the community of artists, nation. Identities are the raw
materials for self-construction.
• The individual and community are not the two sides of a primordial conflict, as
some ideologies would make us believe. Liberalism and libertarianism, for
example insist that the individual is always threatened by the community's
incursion into privacy and autonomy. Communitarians and the advocates of
the Asian way, meanwhile, want us to sacrifice autonomy for the good of
community. Social responsibility need not imply self-sacrifice but rather self-
fulfillment.
• Being a citizen is one among our many identities. In relation to social

responsibility, it is our primary and most relevant identity. Being Filipino colors
our citizenship with a powerful affinity: the Filipino nation.
• Nation, like selfhood is a project. It is a collective project of many selves

belonging. According to Reynaldo Ileto and Vicente Rafael, it is a project that
should never finish. According to Benedict Anderson, it is imagined
community that needs a constant imagining.
• Nation can contextualize social responsibility but it is not the sole context.
Other sites of social responsibility are family, school, our community in belief,
the barangay, organizations and associations that we are members, etc.
Social responsibility involves the realization that the self has many belongings
and that these belongings entail undertakings: achieving individual happiness
for the sake of the common good, contributing to the common good to realize
individual happiness.
• The requirements of democratic citizenship and governance, for example,

exhibit this always dual undertaking: political efficacy encourages participation
and participation enables political effectiveness, social capital rewards
sociological imagination and sociological imagination creates social capital,
economic well-being is translated into economic capacity and vice versa.
56
• At the very least, individual action has social consequences as it is always

socially situated. Social responsibility then is simply living one’s individual life
responsibly.
Meeting 1
1. Activating activity: Students should read Section 1 of Part II: Selfhood in David’s
Nation, Self and Citizenship for this meeting. The class can start with a general
discussion of how selfhood and identity are constructed in David’s articles. What
does the author mean with “the self as a project?” How does Rorty’s concept of
redescription (adopted by the author) work? How do we navigate the constant
changes in our environment and maintain our selfhood (How is the self
reflexive)? How does the self remain coherent and autonomous despite the
immediate authorities of our lives (parents, elders, peers, teachers, our beloved,
etc.)?
Or…
2. Activating activity: The seeming divide between individual and community is

best exemplified in the huge gap between biography and history. We don’t
usually recognize our individual lives in the spectacular unfolding of the world’s
story. And we don’t see any effect history has on our personal lives. The point of
this activating activity then is to put into question assumptions and practices of
separating the personal and the societal. The activity uses cognitive dissonance
to unsettle such student assumptions. C. Wright Mills, in The Sociological
Imagination, explains personal trouble as occurring “within the character of the
individual and within the range of his or her immediate relations with others…
the resolution of troubles properly lie within the individual as a biographical entity
and within the scope of one's immediate milieu.” Public issues, meanwhile,
“have to do with the organization of many extra-personal milieu into the
institutions of an historical society as a whole, with the ways in which various
milieu overlap and interpenetrate to form the larger structure of social and
57
historical life.”
The activity involves the identification of a number of photographs
as either personal trouble or public issue: a picket line or unemployment
scene, married couple fighting, young people using drugs, election
cheating, pregnant teen, political rally, imported goods overwhelming
local products in a shop display, etc. Actually, the facilitator has leeway in
choosing the photos as long as they are diverse and portray familiar scenes of
the human condition. The photos should be titled for easy reference. There are
extreme ways as to how these photos will be evaluated. One can generally
describe the US, for example, as a place where personal responsibility is denied
– the fault lies elsewhere. And yet it is also a place where structural problems
and general anxiety get resolved through the popping of pills (e.g., the movie
Prozac Nation). Authoritarian countries like Singapore, on the other hand, blame
the individual for any infraction of established order yet resolves such through
more rigid laws. The point is that the inability to tell the difference between
personal troubles from public issues has profound consequences on the quality
of our shared lives.
There is no need to discuss the results at this point. The facilitator can
save this for later.
3. Processing activities: The aim of the module is to make students realize the
connection between the individual and community. This connection is indicated
by our identities: being Filipino tells us something about ourselves but also tells
us of something we share with others that make us all belong to the Filipino
nation. There are two connected activities in this part of the module…
Activity 1. First, students are asked to fill-in a Facebook (or other social
networking internet site like pip.io) profile. If online, the facilitator can type in the
answers of students. If not, the facilitator can write answers on the board in a
format that simulates a Facebook account. Second, the class writes a resume or
curriculum vitae. Again, the facilitator writes suggestions/answers from students
on the board in a way that simulates an actual resume. Third, students are
asked to imagine a party where they find someone whom they want to get to
know better. How are they going to approach the person? What questions will
they ask? What about themselves will they reveal to the person? The facilitator
will write the students’ answers on the board.
The lesson that this activity imparts is that we actively construct
58
ourselves. This self-construction is motivated by something we want from a

social situation: What is the purpose of the self that we want to project in our
Facebook profile, our resume, our party image? We are, of course, more
complex than these situated selves as we navigate multiple social situations in
the course of a day, sometimes several at the same time. Why do we omit part
of ourselves in our self-constructions? (We say in Facebook, for example, that
we read Haruki Murakami or Orhan Pamuk but we don’t say that we avidly
follow the travails of Carlo J. Caparas’ protagonists in his revived comics.) This
self-construction is also determined by the structures or authorities of a social
situation: How much of our Facebook profile do we really control? Don’t we
simply fill-in answers to questions we did not decide ourselves? (Name?
Hobbies? School? About yourself?) Why do we put our professional
experiences first before educational achievement in our resume? (It is the other
way around if it is for an academic job.) Why do we dance (also metaphorically
speaking) so tentatively with this person that we like in the party? To probe for
shared interest, a common ground to bud a new relationship?
Activity 2. From the Facebook profile, the resume, and the getting-to-
know someone repertoire, students are to make a list of identities that make up
these constructed selves. Students are then are made to identify the
belonging/community entailed by each identity: student-university, son/daughter-
family, hiker-dlsu outdoors club, Filipino-Philippines, etc. Students can do these
individually on a piece of paper or the facilitator can just write students’ answers
on the board.
Why are some identities important in Facebook but not at all relevant in a
resume? Ask the same question for other versions of our constructed selves.
Focus on the identity citizen-Filipino. When do we, as individuals, feel or
think that we are Filipinos? What activities or events trigger this realization in the
normal course of our day? What feelings do we associate with our being
Filipino? Pride? When do we feel proud? Shame? Ambivalence? Anger? How
do we get to these feelings? Why?
Meeting 2
1. Processing activity continued: Students should read selections from Sections1,

2 and 3 of Part I: Nationhood in David’s Nation, Self and Citizenship for this
meeting. During the class, students will produce worksheets enumerating the
59
current affinities they feel and value. They can use David’s categories in the
sections “Affinities and Identities,” and “Institutions in Flux” or the class can draw
up categories through a discussion. They should provide anecdotes or accounts
of their experiences with these affinities.
Also, this part of the meeting will explore the nation as our primary
affinity, through a class discussion. Guide questions are: Does the Filipino
nation have an origin? Let students identify this point of origin in our history.
How do we reconcile these different points? Are these origin points, which are
constituents of an emergence, authentically Filipino? What are the sources of
our nationhood (based on this origin points; e.g., the image of the Philippines as
an archipelago consisting of three main islands and thousands of smaller ones –
the cartographic map, Filipino as our language, the Katipunan and other
uprisings documented in Reynaldo Ileto’s Pasyon and Revolution, the
revolutionary government that fought against Spain and the US, the many
Filipino indigenous communities, etc.)? How do we express our affinity with the
Filipino nation in our everyday lives? When do we feel we are Filipinos? When
do we wish we are not?
2. The last 30 minutes of the meeting will be utilized to explain the purposes of
the library work and the fieldwork, and to introduced the methods of interviewing
and participant observation. See the following meeting procedure for info…
Meetings 3 and 4. Processing activities continued: Research breaks (library work and
fieldwork):
1. There are two tasks for the first break: first, groups should map out a plan for
their citizenship project; second, individual students will research theories of
identity and record these in their research journal (this can be online or
library research work and will be submitted later together with their notes on
their fieldwork). For the second break...
2. Library work: Students are to research information about Quiapo and how
the spaces around it (Plaza Miranda, Quezon Avenue, its streets and
eskinitas) are traditionally utilized by small vendors, passersby, consumers,
businesses, the church and organized groups, and how these uses changed
over time. The focus is on the economic, social and political uses of the
60
spaces of Quiapo.
3. Fieldwork: Quiapo (equivalent to one meeting)

Students will be divided into groups and look at Quiapo as governed or
determined spaces by the authorities of the local government, the church,
and business groups in the area. The aim of the observation is to describe
the activities that occur especially around the Quiapo church during Quiapo
day (Friday) by being participants in these activities. Careful observation is
to be conducted especially on the behavior and actions of passersby,
churchgoers, small vendors, shoppers, public utility vehicles that pass
through, and passengers. Students should note their observations in a
journal. Guide questions at this point are: Do the actions and behaviors of
people in Quiapo exhibit patterns and generalities? Are they defined by overt
or implicit rules? To what authorities can we attribute these rules? Do the
actions and behaviors of people in Quiapo exhibit freedom (unregulated) and
appropriation/ownership of Quiapo spaces?
Students will then conduct interviews of church authorities, business

organizations and the Quiapo police. Guide questions for interview should
include: What policies and rules do you implement in the management and
control of the many people who come to Quiapo? How did you arrive at
these rules or policies? Do you coordinate with the other authorities in the
area? How? What are the reactions to your rules? Can you explain these
reactions? The students will record these interviews and summarize them in
their journals.
Meeting 5
1. Processing activities continued: A resource person maybe invited to speak

to the class (10-15 minutes). The speaker, in my case, is a former student in
SRPOLCU whose research focused on the practices of power by the
primary authorities in Quiapo.
Students will then be asked to present the results of their fieldwork. They
can compare their work with that of the resource person.
2. Integrating Lecture: The Sociological Imagination and Requirements of
61
Democratic Citizenship
This lecture will aim to integrate the lessons in the previous activities
through the lens of C. Wright Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination
(the facilitator can enrich this with examples from Randolf David’s book). It
will also review the entitlements and duties associated with citizenship. It will
then explore the requirements, possibilities and limits of democratic
citizenship.
Outline:
a. Being Filipino and being trapped. Connect the feelings we normally

associate with being Filipino and the events that prompt them with Mills’
discussion on the sense of being trapped. Are the feelings we experience
triggered by personal quirks, our peculiarities? Do we have control over the
events that trigger these feelings? A common answer to when we usually feel
that we are Filipinos is when Manny Pacquiao fights. What does this say about
our being Filipino? Do we feel the same pride when we read our history, for
example? Why? What major events or processes in our society determine how
we think of the Filipino. Do we participate personally in these processes? Do
societal structures and institutions impose on us an identity we have no control
over? Are we ashamed of being Filipino and feel at the same time that we have
no recourse in our shame?
b. Biography, history and the sociological imagination. Among Mills’ many

definitions, the sociological imagination is foremost a tool that “enables us to
grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society.”
Concretely, it enables the realization that “the individual can understand her own
experience and gauge her own fate only by locating herself within her period,
that she can know her own chances in life only by becoming aware of those of
all individuals in her circumstances.” It is “the capacity to shift from one
perspective to another - from the political to the psychological; from examination
of a single family to comparative assessment of the national budgets of the
world; from the theological school to the military establishment; from
considerations of an oil industry to studies of contemporary poetry… the
capacity to range from the most impersonal and remote transformations to the
most intimate features of the human self - and to see the relations between the
62
two.”
The sociological imagination usually asks three questions:

“(1) What is the structure of this particular society as a whole? What are its
essential components, and how are they related to one another? How does it
differ from other varieties of social order? Within it, what is the meaning of any
particular feature for its continuance and for its change?
(2) Where does this society stand in human history? What are the
mechanics by which it is changing? What is its place within and its meaning for
the development of humanity as a whole? How does any particular feature we
are examining affect, and how is it affected by, the historical period in which it
moves? And this period – what are its essential features? How does it differ
from other periods? What are its characteristic ways of history-making?
(3) What varieties of men and women now prevail in this society and in this
period? And what varieties are coming to prevail? In what ways are they
selected and formed, liberated and repressed, made sensitive and blunted?
What kinds of `human nature' are revealed in the conduct and character we
observe in this society in this period? And what is the meaning for 'human
nature' of each and every feature of the society we are examining?”
c. Personal Trouble and Public Issue. Mills says that the most practical
application of the sociological imagination is the distinction of what in our life is
personal trouble and what is a public or societal issue. To reiterate, personal
trouble occurs “within the character of the individual and within the range of his
or her immediate relations with others… the resolution of troubles properly lie
within the individual as a biographical entity and within the scope of one's
immediate milieu.” Public issues, meanwhile, “have to do with the organization
of many extra-personal milieu into the institutions of an historical society as a
whole, with the ways in which various milieu overlap and interpenetrate to form
the larger structure of social and historical life.”
Here, as part of the lecture, the facilitator can use the results of the activating
activity (A) as exemplars of Mills’ point. What accounts for the confusion
between personal trouble and public issue? What are the implications of
63
confusing the two? On personal life? On public or shared life? Is it reasonable to

think of social responsibility as intervention at both personal and societal level in
order to resolve troubles and issues? Knowing the distinction helps with the
effectiveness and efficiency of interventions. It also shows where accountability
lies. In more practical terms, knowing the difference between personal trouble
and public issue helps the forms and expressions of our social responsibility.
d. Citizenship in democracy. A quick review of the entitlements and

duties of a citizen can be achieved here through some exemplars of rights and
duties prescribed in the Philippine constitution. The point, however, is to show
that there is more to democratic citizenship. One way to do this is to conduct a
simple interrogation of what democracy is all about. Its two basic components
(among others but these immediately come to mind), equality and freedom,
show a tension that produces democracy’s unique dynamics. Equality is all
about sameness, at the very least in terms of law and maximally in terms of
opportunity and economic well-being. Freedom, meanwhile, is about difference
and individuality – the goals of our yearning for autonomy, of being able to do
what we want without restraints. The tension creates space for the possibilities
of democracy – affording us rights, ensuring meaningful order, opening
resistance, enjoining participation…
Another way to do it is to contrast institutional/structural and individual

requirements to democratic governance and citizenship. These concepts can be
readily had from introductory political science textbooks. At the structural level:
political efficacy, social capital and economic well-being enable citizenship.
Political efficacy is simply the outcome of institutions and processes that make
citizens believe that their participation has relevance and practical effects. Social
capital, meanwhile, is the trust between individuals that enables reiterated
interaction and cooperation in society. Economic well-being is the fundamental
requirement that frees individuals from the constant demand of material self-
reproduction, making possible other concerns and pursuits. At the individual
level: participation, sociological imagination and economic capacity.
Participation is not only activities that abet the political processes of democracy
but also actions that deter or derail it: It is participation in the achievement of
barangay goals. It is also protesting in the streets. Sociological imagination is
amply discussed above. Economic capacity is individual capability to make a
64
good and comfortable life.
3. Here, students are required to produce worksheets that integrate previous

activities plus the lecture. The facilitator should have titles for the photos in the
first activity. These titles are the first column in the students’ worksheets. The
second column is the students’ answers as to whether the photos are personal
trouble or public issue. The third column is the identities indicated in the photos.
The fourth is the community or belonging implicit in the photos. The last column
is the concrete intervention that one can do to resolve the personal troubles or
public issues. (For Personal/Public, students must clarify their answers.
Problems can be both personal and public. Students can also imagine
backstories for the photos to make proposed interventions more concrete.)
Photo Title Personal/Public Identity Community Intervention

student with personal (failures student school student counseling,
failing grade is an isolated tutorials, etc.
case)
public (if failures student school quality of
are too common to program/school must be
be isolated cases) evaluated and improved

Individual worksheets
Class Facebook profile/account
Implementation of group project
Library and fieldwork journals
65
Module 8
Democratic citizenship: participation, sociality, economic wellbeing
The meeting/s for this module will be entirely lecture/s that integrates the points made in
this part of the course.
The lecture/s will also include the features of democratic citizenship, specifically:
participation (to ensure the political efficacy of citizenship), sociality (the term is
Immanuel Kant’s, what Marx designates as our species-being: the realization that
individuality is only possible among others and that those others are our community)
and economic wellbeing (a condition to our being citizens – at the least, freedom from
the constant demands of subsistence living).
Figure 2. Triangulating democratic citizenship
At the end of the integrating lecture, ask the students to write their third individual essay
and answer the question that starts this third part of the course: How will I make a
difference? The students should reflect on their identity as citizen vis a vis their other
identities or roles that they play in society: son/daughter, students, faithful, etc. How do
66
they manage or resolve the different demands that these identities engender and the
consequent conflicts that result from these differing demands? How do they imagine
themselves as part of the social whole?/How do they see themselves as part of the
larger Filipino society? What social ills affect them personally? What common
experiences about these social ills do they share with the rest of society? What can
they do in order to cooperatively and collectively address these social ills?

One 1.5-hour meeting
Evaluation
3rd Individual Essay or Journal Entry
Rubric

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)

reflection.

thereof.
67

country.
68
Part IV
Nexus: Citizen governance in practice
The group citizenship projects will be finally presented in class. The groups will present
their project, describe and explain it. Then they will present their plan and how they
implemented their plan. They should also discuss the problems and difficulties they
encountered what measures they took in order to resolve these issues. Finally, they
should reflect on the outcome or effects of their project on their identified beneficiaries.
Each group will have 25 to 30 minutes to present. There will be two presentations per
meeting. The class will use the rest of the class hour to ask questions, comment,
discuss and evaluate the citizenship projects of their classmates.
After the presentations, ask the students to write their final individual essay. They
should reflect on the activities and processes that their group have undergone in order
to implement their project. Then they should discuss their individual contributions to
their citizenship project. What difference did they make to the project? What difference
did the project make to them? How did they make a difference to their group, to the
members of their group, the the beneficiaries of their project? How did they make a
difference in the society as a whole? The essay will be submitted together with their
other three essays (and other reflections/essays that they may have done) in a
creatively presented journal during the Final Exams week. The journal can substitute for
the final exam.
Materials
Multimedia projector, laptop, internet connection

Two to three 1.5-hour meetings
69
Evaluation
4th Major Individual Essay or Journal Entry
Group Citizenship Project Presentations
Rubrics

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)

reflection.

thereof.

country.
70
Citizenship Projects

(1.0-1.5) (2.0-2.5) (3.0-3.5) (4.0)
The group selected a site for the Needs Fair Good Superior
project with a clearly defined Work
governance and citizenship issue.
There was a thoughtful justification
why the members selected the area,
with particular elaboration on its
urgency, significance and the group’s
proposed objective in the site e.g.
advocacy, policy recommendation,
community extension services etc.
The group was able to follow through Needs Fair Good Superior
their plan of executing the project Work
consistently, based on their
previously submitted proposals. Any
changes were handled effectively and
the whole process within the project
was documented in an organized
manner. This includes: videos,
photos and interviews.
The group was able to provide a clear Needs Fair Good Superior
narration of the members’ Work
experiences during the conduct of the
project. They were able to present in
their output the key actors involved in
their respective sites and analyze
each actor in terms of their positive
and/or negative contributions to the
issue. Or elicit points of views from
different actors involved in the issue.
The group was able to meet the Needs Fair Good Superior
proposed objective in the site on two Work
levels: their personal evaluation
based on the degree of effectiveness
of the project in addressing the
concern and the reaction and
feedback of the actors in the area
selected.
71
The group meaningfully and Needs Fair Good Superior

elaborately expressed reflections Work
regarding what they have learned in
project, and relates it with the
concept of citizenship and
governance in practical terms.
• The average of the scores in each objective will be the grade of the student for the citizenship
project.
• A grade of 0.0 will be given to students who: 1) did not participate and; 2) did not meet the any of
the objective within the passing score.
72
View publication stats

CITIGOV Course Syllabus and Modules Citizenship and Governance: Making A Difference in Philippine Politics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITIGOV Course Syllabus and Modules Citizenship and Governance: Making A Difference in Philippine Politics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITIGOV Course Syllabus and Modules Citizenship and Governance: Making A Difference in Philippine Politics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

CITIGOV Course Syllabus and Modules Citizenship and Governance: Making a

Book · December 2010

Rizalino Noble Malabed

Philippine politics, culture, and history View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Department of Political Science

To the Teacher/Facilitator Page 3

Part 1: Will I make a difference? 11

Part 2: Where will I make a difference? 26

Part 3: How will I make a difference? 45

Part 4: Nexus: Citizen governance in practice 69

During the course of the term students are expected to:

governance, as well as recognize such (or its corresponding deficits) in actual

Learning Methods and Strategies

The course will use a variety of learning activities, including:

Course Requirements and Grading

Final exam or Journal 20%

Group project schedule and output

Course Outline and Schedule

Materials and References.

Content. 1) The Philippine constitution and Filipino citizenship; 2) Self,

their governance projects. The presentations should include a description of their

Will I make a difference?

Introduction and Overview

Understanding state, government and society / The self (or individual) as

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

2. understand that in modern political communities, these concepts do not equate

Materials and References

Estimated Number of Hours

Expected Initial Ideas/Prior Knowledge

• There is no difference between state and government. To an extent, state is an

Key Points for Understanding

• The state is a political association or community with a distinct set of institutions

• State and government are not governance.

• Society is the assemblage of individuals and their interactions. It is usually seen

ties (Weber’s gemeinschaft) and self-conscious agreement or contract

Procedure, Activities and Discussion Questions

Meeting 1 Syllabus presentation, explanation of requirements, etc.

Activity 1.1 Individual Worksheet

2. Processing activities: The students are encouraged to investigate their

Activity 1.2 Group Worksheet

2. Further processing activity: Tell students to imagine the concepts of state,

3. Further integrating lecture: See points of understanding above. The facilitator

4. Concluding activity: Ask the groups to briefly present their work.

OBJECTIVES 70-79% 80-88% 89-96% 97-100% SCORE

Governance and citizenship: the experience of Athenian democracy as

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

Materials and References

History of Peloponnesian War)

Estimated Number of Hours

Expected Initial Ideas/Prior Knowledge

• Athenian democracy is direct democracy and everybody is a citizen.

Key Points for Understanding

• Aristotle differentiates Greeks (especially Athenians) from barbarians (for

• This city-state of affairs is dependent upon exclusions: women, slaves, metics

• The students’ analysis/experience/reading of Philippine governance and

Procedure, Activities and Discussion Questions

Activity 2. Individual Worksheet