5. Systems Analysis This section assesses existing mechanisms for agenda setting and accountability in Philippine governance and identifies systemic gaps that hinder gender justice. Subsequently, it highlights cultural attitudes as a crucial dynamic to pushing gender-transformative principles. 5.1. Gaps in Agenda Setting While the Philippines has adopted progressive legal frameworks for gender equality and decentralization, inclusive agenda setting is undermined by systemic weaknesses that maintain a top–down relationship between the state and citizens. Within that dynamic, Local Government Units(LGUs) maintain a position of coercion which limits the capacity of the experiences, observations and insights of vulnerable communities shared in consultations to produce material outcomes. Elite Capture and Centralized Priorities Recognizing decentralization as integral to gender-just governance, this paper pays particular attention to the capacities and responsibilities of LGUs. The LGC was passed as a tool to facilitate democratization by devolving political and administrative authority to localities(Atienza, 2006; Ichimura and Bahl, 2008). In practice, agenda setting remains highly centralized and politicized. The national budget is crafted by Congress independent of the actual expenditure and allocation at the local government level, which results in politicized prioritization rather than decisions based on local and efficiency considerations (Porio, 2015). Subsequently, development priorities at both the national and local levels are largely determined by the current elected administration, inhibiting long-term development benefits through subsequent administrations. This top–down orientation is compounded by the unclear delineation of responsibilities between national agencies and LGUs. The result is fragmented coordination, redundancy in programming and poor-quality implementation, including rampant“ghost projects” that dissipate scarce resources(Langran, 2011). Furthermore, modern, efficiency-oriented administrative practices maintain a monopoly on legitimacy, which means frequent erasure of regional communal practices, thereby excluding local actors whose cultural knowledge and collective decision-making traditions are vital to effective and inclusive governance. Forcing communities to abide by formal processes diminishes the agency of various groups across a diverse country like the Philippines and risks the loss of Indigenous knowledge and experience(Bamba et al., 2021). Weak Participation The participatory mechanisms envisioned in the LGC also fall short of their transformative promise. A recent baseline study on participation in LGUs found that Local Development Councils, while designed as institutional spaces for citizen involvement, have largely become“invited spaces” 1 controlled by local governments(Aceron, 2019; Medina-Guce et al., 2025). Because there is no incentive for the LGUs to be impact-oriented, civil participation is often formalistic and tokenistic and is measured in terms of attendance requirements rather than the quality or impact of citizen contributions(Medina-Guce et al., 2025). Administratively, CSOs face late meeting notices, insufficient funding for participation, scheduling conflicts, high transportation costs and poor communication from LGUs. These constraints weigh most heavily on women, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities, whose caregiving responsibilities and limited mobility already constrain their engagement. Technically, many grassroots CSOs lack the training, exposure or confidence to participate effectively in formal governance spaces. A number of respondents in Medina-Guce et al.’s(2025, p. 346) baseline study even described“shyness” as a practical hindrance to CSOs voicing concerns, highlighting the social and cultural dimensions of exclusion. Policy-related obstacles further undermine inclusion: Accreditation processes for CSOs are often restrictive, guidelines for honoraria remain unclear and CSO roles in planning and budgeting are poorly defined. Finally, political barriers persist. Because participation is frequently contingent on LGU invitations, CSOs are vulnerable to co-optation. Weak trust between LGUs and CSOs, compounded by interference from political elites, undermines the autonomy of citizen groups and limits their ability to shape outcomes. 1 Invited spaces: Defined as forums for interaction between citizens and authorities that are established and governed by those in power where participation occurs under terms defined by the state or institution. In contrast,“claimed” or created spaces emerge when less powerful groups carve out arenas for engagement on their own initiative, either by asserting participation within official structures or by organizing autonomously outside them(Cornwall and Coelho, 2007; Gaventa, 2006). 14 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.