"Budget Partnership Agreement" with a national government agency (NGA) or government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC); that agreement defines the roles, duties, relationships, schedules, expectations and limitations to participation in budget preparation, execution, monitoring and evaluation of specific ongoing programs, activities or projects (PAPs). The term "citizen participation" is perhaps misleading, for the process is only open to CSOs who are duly registered with government and who must have monitored, assessed and evaluated specific ongoing PAPs or intend to monitor ongoing PAPs relevant to their advocacies. Applications for partnership are subject to "proper screening" by the NGA or GOCC implementing the specific ongoing PAP, subject of monitoring. CSOs who participate in the national budget process are expected to abide by the "Principles of Engagement" adopted by DBM and some CSOs; these principles include: transparency, accountability, integrity, partnership, consultation and mutual empowerment, respect for internal processes, sustainability and national interest. CSOs holding a Budget Partnership Agreement are to be provided with all relevant information by the implementing NGA or GOCC, and are entitled to attend a consultation meeting called by the implementing NGA or GOCC. Comments, feedback, findings and recommendations of partner CSOs shall be "taken into consideration" and/or used as "inputs" by the implementing NGA or GOCC. While welcome, government's initiative of inviting citizen participation in the national budget process is problematic in several respects, and may not be true to the spirit and letter of human rights. lntegrating the right and principle of participation in the budget process (or participatory budgeting) creates an avenue for direct people's participation in policy-making, (Helmans, 2002) and represents shared controlby people and government of budget decisions and the people's resources. Yet, government's citizen participation initiative does not provide for shared control over budget decisions and resources. Rather, participation appears to be equated with consultation. Because consultation lacks any assurance that views presented will be heeded, used as intended, or used at all, consultation has been likened "participating in participation." (UNDP/CSOPP, 1 997) to "tokenism" (Arnstein, 1969) or Equally disconcerting, government's view of citizen participation runs the risk of excluding individuals who do not belong to organized groups, or even organized groups (such as movements or campaigns, for example) who may not be formally registered with government or who government may not approve of. So the risk of exclusion is heightened by the risk of control over the envisioned participatory process by certain groups close to, or allied with, government. of pafticipation one looks at,7 it is apparent that the citizen participation envisioned-and implemented-by the government falls short of the right and principle of Whichever scale participation. 7 See, for example, Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation, UNDP/CSOPP's Nine Degrees of Participation, lA2P's Public Participation Spectrum, Theis' Levels of Children's Participation, described in National Economic and 43