Sayo, B. E. (2014). Building an edifice: Prioritizing the realization of outcomes of the PDP (BE PRO-PDP) (Unpublished master's thesis). Public Management Development Program, Development Academy of the Philippines.

Public Management Development Program Batch 3 Senior Executives Class Thesis (SEC)--Development Academy of the Philippines.

The 16th Congress of the Philippines is currently on the remaining half of its 3-year life. Surprisingly, at this late stage with very limited time left in the legislaive calendar, the President transmitted to Congress a set of 29 measures constituting the President's Legislative Agenda (PLA) . Among them were 13 enabling measures plucked from the strategic framework of the Philippine Development Plan (2011-2016); assuming all 13 measures will enacted in addition to 16 others that became law previously, a balance of at least 80 PDP measures will be left behind as unfinished business by term-end of the Aquino administration. The situation raised a lot of questions particularly about the PDP order of priority, if any, among its legislative component, the vetting process for a bill's inclusion into the PLA, the mechanisms in drafting administration bills, the need for bill-specific consensus-building across the stakeholders spectrum, the formulation, operability and implementation timeline of bill-specific advocacy strategies in a concerted last-ditch attempt to secure enactment within an environment expected to become politically-charged leading to the election run-off. A review of the PDP legislative component showed that 33 of them were actually adopted from the MTPDP of the past 3 Presidents (PFVR, PJEE, and PGMA) suggesting that the same number of actionable development agenda were not met in the past and have remained policy structural gaps to this day that set back the attainment of the country's vision. However, the fact that the same are contained again in the PDP for 2011-2016 indicates that the government has not abandoned the agenda and is determined to continue its pursuit in a sort of linear progression of the Philippine development programs. This development policy structural gap has to be addressed decisively in order to manage its adverse impact on governance considering that the resulting incongruence between policy as planned and policy as enacted. Towards this end, the President must adopt an aggressive pursuit of his legislative agenda by: 1) Exercising his full Constitutional powers as initiator of public policies, debunking the relevance of politics-administration dichotomy theory in Philippine context and promoting instead an executive-legislative collaborative relationship; 2) Tapping into existing mechanisms and processes for multi-sector, multi-dimensional consultations and consensus-building to define and prioritize PDP enabling measures into the President's Legislative Agenda; 3) Activating the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) which should advise the President on appropriate interventions that augur closer executive-legislative collaboration; 4) Enhancing the role of the Presidential Legislative Liaison Office (PLLO) and its institutional partner across the bureaucracy, the Legislative Liaison System (LLS), for effective consolidation of political support in Congress on behalf of the President, and the promotion of his governance agenda as well as priority legislative measures through strategic advocacy interventions; 5) Promoting professionalism in the bureaucracy to ensure continuing pursuit of development agenda in succeeding generation of leaders; 6) Enacting a Long-Term National Development Plan to set permanent parameters and direction for next PDPs; and 7) Undertaking sector-focused information campaign aimed at the raising level of awareness about PDP throughout society including political blocs of Congress, allied CSOs, POs and other strategic sectors. It is by way of a united pursuit of a well-defined national development agenda that the Philippines may become a solid edifice capable of weathering any externalities.