Community Engagement in the Right to Care Ordinance: Extending Nabatchi’s Public Participation Framework Toward Transformative Communication

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Legal recognition of same-sex marriage is prohibited in most Southeast Asian countries. This has led a Philippine local government to pass the Right to Care ordinance, allowing LGBTQIA+ individuals to make medical decisions for their partners. In the development of local policy, community engagement is essential (Dada et al., 2023); however, there is limited understanding of how communication enables such engagement. Therefore, this study aims to answer how the Quezon City Local Government and MullenLowe TREYNA engaged the community in developing the Right to Care Card (RTCC) and how LGBTQIA+ couples and implementers describe their experiences and challenges in accessing and implementing the RTCC.

Methodology: This paper utilizes a qualitative research design, specifically a case study. Considering that this study focuses on community engagement, it is also anchored in the sociocultural tradition of communication, thus, emphasizing the importance of understanding community dynamics in a social and cultural context (Craig, 1999). The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of the RTCC, selected through purposive sampling. For the first coding cycle, the researchers used Descriptive and Process Coding, while Pattern Coding was employed to determine the themes.

Results: It can be inferred that MullenLowe TREYNA and the QC LGU substantially engaged the LGBTQIA+ community, including other sectors, in developing the RTCC, with the forms of Modified Spectrum of Public Participation as the basis. Through the validation provided by the implementers and end-users of the RTCC, stakeholders can understand the expectations and limitations of the policy, specifically regarding the protection of their respective interests. In effect, as evidenced by the LGBTQIA+ representative's eagerness to push the passage of the ordinance to protect the lives of their partners, this eagerness demonstrates their empowerment. It reflects their ability to express their gender identity and their same-sex relationship, which aligns with the final form of public participation.

Discussions: The researchers propose that the first form of public participation, Inform, has become in the case of RTCC, less applicable in the current context of public participation, given how governments engage the public for policy development. They suggest that Inform may be replaced with Identify. The researchers also suggest the placement of Participatory Communication and Transformative Communication in the proposed framework, as it was also found that the proponents and adopters' responses focused on grassroots mobilization and RTCC adoption in other cities.

Conclusions: The QC LGU and MullenLowe TREYNA have strengthened their image as an inclusive local government and agency, respectively, because they were able to consult various sectors and make it possible to implement the RTCC within the city. The implementation of the RTCC also showed that the LGBTQIA+ couples are empowered in securing the RTCC and protecting the lives of their partners. Empowerment should not be understood only in terms of access but should also be evaluated based on whether local government processes enable beneficiaries to realize the intended benefits of the policy. These findings recommend further studies on other cities that recently implemented the RTCC, as well as a quantitative study for further validation.