central actors in shaping fiscal priorities. Budgets should be disaggregated into specific line items for vulnerable sectors, preventing concealment of funds under bundled categories(Juco et al., 2024). This reform allows resources intended for women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities and LGBTQIA+ people to be clearly tracked for impact. Moreover, budgeting processes must be flexible and responsive to evolving vulnerabilities—such as those created by climate disasters, economic shocks or public health crises—ensuring that communities are not left behind when needs shift(Juco et al., 2024). Beyond the level of the LGU, Congress’s methods of budget allocation need to be in sync with LGU priorities and spending patterns. Currently, the National Expenditure Program is proposed by the Department of Budget and Management and shaped by the requests of national agencies. Further inquiry into devolved budgeting at the national level is beyond the scope of this paper but is nonetheless important to consider in creating policy reforms for genuine community-shaped outcomes. 7.5. Co-Creative, Vulnerable Sector-Led Identification, Design, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation for Lateral Accountability To anchor accountability in practice, transparency must be redesigned through vulnerable sector-led IDIME systems. Inter-accessibility of data through transparency of the complete project cycle empowers CSOs and grassroots movements to scrutinize government expenditure and creates a conducive environment for plural and independent watchdogs. This method empowers citizens with the needed tools and leverage to hold institutions accountable to the completion and outcomes of the projects. Communities should act not merely as consulted participants but as co-managers of the project cycle. This requires the following: → Project and success indicators rooted in community­defined priorities such as reduced care burdens, enhanced safety, improved accessibility and strengthened resilience. Project milestones and timelines likewise should be laterally agreed upon with the community. → Impact-oriented evaluation that privileges qualitative improvements in lived conditions over narrow quantitative metrics(Lambert et al., 2023). This encourages tangible project outcomes beyond compliance. → Collaborative reporting between LGUs and CSOs, producing findings that are accessible to citizens and encouraging public feedback. An assessment of current barriers to communication should be made. Reporting language should be easy to understand for non­technical audiences, along with multiple and localized forms of dissemination for maximum reach. 7.6. Participatory Auditing and Reporting Reforms Accountability must move beyond technical audits circulated among elites. LGU expenditure reporting should be unbundled and standardized across sectoral expenditure accounts, with mandatory crediting of expenditures to ensure traceability(Juco et al., 2024, p. 70). Citizen participation should be institutionalized through participatory auditing, positioning community and CSO representatives as key partners in performance monitoring. When linked with COA oversight, these reforms would bridge the gap between legality and equity, ensuring that budgets are both compliant and responsive to marginalized needs(Doceo, 2022; Juco et al., 2024). 7.7. Localized Hiring and Shared Ownership Inclusive governance also requires redistributing opportunities through localized hiring. Development projects should prioritize recruiting from within communities, drawing on local expertise and fostering shared ownership of outcomes. Clear equity targets should guarantee the participation of women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities and LGBTQIA+ people. This approach transforms representation into redistribution, acknowledging diverse knowledge and lived experience as crucial to effective and impactful governance(Maalat and Liwag, 2008). 7.8. Capacity Building and Recognition of Civic Labor While this paper advocates for shared responsibility in governance, gender justice requires ensuring that those who participate are compensated and receive financial resources in exchange for their time and work. Meaningful participation demands sustained investment in the capacity development of CSOs and sectoral representatives. This requires going beyond episodic workshops to providing structured, continuous support that strengthens both technical and political skills. Such investment should include technical training, honoraria, childcare support and mobility allowances, recognizing that civic participation requires time, effort and resources. Capacity building must also be co-created with communities, ensuring that training complements rather 22 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.