Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery

Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery
Agency name	Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery
Jurisdiction	Philippines
Headquarters	Malacañang Palace Complex
Chief1 position	Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery
Parent agency	Office of the President of the Philippines

Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery The Office of the Presidential Assistant for Rehabilitation and Recovery was an executive office created to coordinate post-disaster reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in the Philippines following major calamities. Established in the aftermath of a catastrophic event, the office acted as a central policy and implementation node linking national executive authorities, local government units, international partners, and development banks. It operated at the intersection of presidential directives, legislative appropriations, and multilateral assistance programs.

Background and Establishment

The office was formed after the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) crisis that affected provinces such as Leyte, Samar, and Eastern Samar, prompting responses from entities including the Office of the President of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council. International actors involved in the aftermath included the United Nations, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and bilateral donors such as the United States Agency for International Development and the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Legislative attention from the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines influenced the office’s mandate, while civil society organizations like Philippine Red Cross and Oxfam advocated for survivor-centered policies.

Mandate and Functions

Mandated by presidential proclamation and executive issuances, the office’s functions included formulating recovery roadmaps, coordinating reconstruction financing, and monitoring implementation across affected provinces including Leyte (province), Eastern Samar, and Capiz. It liaised with quasi-judicial bodies such as the Commission on Audit and development partners such as United Nations Development Programme and European Commission for program oversight. The office also interfaced with academic institutions like the University of the Philippines and Ateneo de Manila University for technical assessments and with think tanks such as the Asian Institute of Management for policy design.

Organizational Structure and Leadership

The office reported directly to the President of the Philippines and was led by a Presidential Assistant appointed by the chief executive. Leadership figures often coordinated with cabinet-level secretaries from the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Health, Department of Education (Philippines), and Department of Trade and Industry. Regional operations worked with provincial governors and city mayors, including offices in Tacloban, Ormoc, and Guiuan. Advisory councils comprised representatives from international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, philanthropic organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and professional associations including the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers.

Major Programs and Initiatives

Major initiatives included development of a comprehensive recovery plan for housing, infrastructure, and livelihoods in collaboration with the World Bank recovery loan programs, ADB technical assistance, and bilateral reconstruction grants. Programs targeted reconstruction of public schools under coordination with the Department of Education (Philippines), rehabilitation of hospitals in partnership with the Department of Health, and livelihood recovery with support from agencies like the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority and Department of Labor and Employment. The office also implemented cash-for-work schemes modeled on programs by the International Labour Organization and disaster-resilient building standards influenced by the Japan International Cooperation Agency and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction guidelines.

Funding and Budgeting

Funding streams combined national appropriations from the Department of Budget and Management, international loans from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, and grants from bilateral partners including USAID and JICA. Budget oversight involved coordination with the Commission on Audit and reporting to legislative committees such as the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance. Public-private partnership arrangements engaged conglomerates and corporations operating in the Philippines, including major firms listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange, as well as foundations and remittance flows from the Overseas Filipino Workers diaspora through institutions like the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Coordination with National and International Agencies

The office functioned as a nexus among national agencies—National Economic and Development Authority, Department of the Interior and Local Government, Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration—and international actors such as United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, World Food Programme, and donor consortia. Partnerships extended to multilateral development banks, non-governmental organizations like CARE Philippines and World Vision Philippines, and academic research centers including the Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Coordination mechanisms included joint monitoring missions, pooled funding arrangements with the International Organization for Migration, and technical working groups aligned with global frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Criticisms, Controversies, and Evaluations

The office faced scrutiny over program transparency, pace of disbursement, and beneficiary selection, attracting attention from media outlets such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star, investigative bodies like the Commission on Human Rights (Philippines), and watchdog groups including Transparency International. Evaluations by international partners, academic case studies at Ateneo de Manila University and University of the Philippines, and audit findings from the Commission on Audit highlighted issues in procurement, land tenure complexities, and coordination bottlenecks with local governments and barangays. Debates in the Senate of the Philippines and the House of Representatives of the Philippines led to proposals for institutional reform and recommendations from the World Bank and United Nations Development Programme for stronger safeguards and community participation.

Category:Philippine government agencies