The Curious Cases of Philippine Civil Society and Decentralization 139 CHAPTER FOUR The Curious Cases of Philippine Civil Society and Decentralization Ronald D. Holmes Introduction This chapter takes off from the belief that democracy is a political system distinguished by its outcome—the progressive and sustained redistribution of resources (political and economic). O'Donnell (2007), in talking about the perpetual crisis of democracy, emphasized: “Democracy is more than a valuable kind of political arrangement. It is also the often notorious sign of a lack. It is the perpetual absence of something more, of an always pending agenda that calls for the redress of social ills and further advances in the manifold matters which, at a certain time and for a certain people, most concern human welfare and dignity (highlighting ours).” O'Donnell's statement demarcates the “procedural” from “substantive” democracy. Following the view that democracy extends beyond “procedural” trappings, it is easy to understand why there are recurring crises in Philippine “democracy.” Following the definition given by Miranda (2011) in an earlier chapter in this volume, that a democracy, as a system of governance, demonstrably promotes—however slowly or gradually—a progressively human quality of life for its citizens within twenty five years of a regime's formal, democratic initiation, we note that a prolonged social ill, poverty, suffices as an indicator of the “want” that prevails 25 years after the political transition in 1986. The 2009 report from the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB) reveals a slight increase in poverty incidence among the