Arts & International Affairs Volume 5, Number 1, Summer 2020 | Page 58

WHOSE GOVERNANCE, WHOSE GOOD?
proach because of the recognition of multiple publics. As pointed out in R.A. 7356, the
national cultural law of the Philippines mandates equitable and pluralistic funding. Cultural
policy, therefore, is designed to serve democratic objectives to guarantee artistic
freedom by subsidizing the arts and to promote equal funding for all by funding centralized
and decentralized cultural institutions.
I would like to point out that the NCCA did not explicitly articulate the fact that its
framework is a hybrid of different public arts funding models. I superimposed different
funding models on what I have observed being used by the NCCA for the purpose of
discussion and in order to illustrate how this affects its policies and strategies for the
funding of arts and culture. In fact, when I asked whether the NCCA had been consulted
or was influenced by models of other countries, I received varying opinions. For
instance, Corpuz (2010) mentioned that the NCCA consulted existing international
conservation laws, such as UNESCO’s and the Bura Charter of Japan. These laws were
then adapted to the local setting of the communities in the Philippines. On the other
hand, Dr. Peralta stressed that the NCCA framework was based on the context of the
Philippines. The NCCA made sure that its approach is broad, flexible, and consultative
because what will work for one community might not work for another. Thus, its system
must be adaptable. Peralta (2010) said, “We know that our approach has to be specific
in accordance with the parameters of society because if it is not, then society will reject
it.” Other staff members also believe that NCCA's model came out as a necessity of the
communities, and that this is what they followed because there was no time or resources
to consult other countries.
Table 1. Approved Budget Allocation for the SCA and SCCTA for 2007.
Subcommission
Amount in
pesos
Amount in US
dollars
Percentage allocation
against overall budget
SCA 40 million 1.03 million 46%
SCCTA 6.7 million 173,000 12%
However, from 2005 to 2007, projects or initiatives under the SCA dwarfs the percentage
share of funding given to the other subcommissions. In 2007 for example, SCA received
a 46 percent share of the funding, which amounted to about 40 million pesos
($1.03 million USD). On the other hand, the percentage share of funding received by
the SCCTA is only 12 percent or about 6.7 million pesos ($173,000 USD). From 2005
to 2007, there was a steady decline in percentage share of funding for SCCTA projects,
from 19 percent in 2005 to 12 percent in 2007, while there was a slight increase in percentage
share of funding for SCA projects, from 45 percent in 2005 to 46 percent in 2007
(NCCA 2010).
55