Regulatory landscape of microfinance in the Philippines: An overview

Microfinance has emerged as a critical tool for poverty alleviation and financial inclusion in the Philippines. The government has recognized its potential and has enacted several laws and regulations to promote and regulate the sector (Llanto & Fukui, 2015). This paper examines the key regulations governing microfinance in the Philippines and their implications for the sector.

Covered institutions

In the Philippines, microfinance services are provided mainly by banks (mainly rural and thrift), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), cooperatives, financing companies and lending companies. The focus of regulation is on portfolio quality, outreach, efficient and sustainable operations, and transparent information. 

Banks with microfinance operations are under the regulation and supervision of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), cooperatives are under the supervision and the regulation of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) and microfinance NGOs, financing companies and lending companies are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

Regulatory framework


The regulatory framework for microfinance in the Philippines is multi-faceted, involving several laws and regulatory bodies. The Republic Act No. 8425, also known as the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act, is a landmark legislation that recognized microfinance as a key strategy for poverty alleviation (Congress of the Philippines, 1997). It mandated government financial institutions to allocate a portion of their loan portfolio for microfinance.

Republic Act No. 10693, or the Microfinance NGOs Act, provides a regulatory framework for non-governmental organizations engaged in microfinance activities (Congress of the Philippines, 2015). It established the Microfinance NGO Regulatory Council, which oversees the accreditation, regulation, and supervision of microfinance NGOs.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the central bank of the Philippines, has issued several circulars related to microfinance. For instance, Circular No. 272 provides guidelines for the establishment of banks’ microfinance operations, while Circular No. 744 provides the framework for microfinance products and services (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2001; 2013).

In 2010, an amendment to circular 694 was approved which recognizes from PhP150,001 to PhP300,000 to still be categorized as a microfinance loan (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 2010). This was done to accommodate the increasing demand for higher loan amounts from growing microenterprises. This policy increased the scope of those who can be microfinance clients, consequently increasing the potential market.

Sector-specific regulations

In addition to these general regulations, there are also sector-specific laws that mandate banks to allocate a portion of their loanable funds for specific sectors. The Republic Act No. 10000, or the Agri-Agra Reform Credit Act of 2009, requires banks to allocate at least 25% of their total loanable funds for agriculture and agrarian reform credit (Congress of the Philippines, 2009). Similarly, Republic Act No. 8550, or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, mandates banks to set aside a portion of their loanable funds for fisheries development, which includes microfinance services for small fisherfolk (Congress of the Philippines, 1998).

Recent developments

The recent Republic Act No. 11494, or the Bayanihan to Recover as One Act, passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, includes provisions for low-interest loans for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and cooperatives, as well as loan payment grace periods (Congress of the Philippines, 2020). This act underscores the government’s recognition of the role of microfinance in economic recovery and resilience.

References

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. (2001). Circular No. 272. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. (2010). Circular No. 694. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. (2013). Circular No. 744. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Congress of the Philippines. (1997). Republic Act No. 8425. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

Congress of the Philippines. (1998). Republic Act No. 8550. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

Congress of the Philippines. (2009). Republic Act No. 10000. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

Congress of the Philippines. (2015). Republic Act No. 10693. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

Congress of the Philippines. (2020). Republic Act No. 11494. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.

Llanto, G. M., & Fukui, R. (2015). Financial inclusion, education, and regulation in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series.

Forms of insurance

May apat na forms ang insurance – formal, informal, public at hybrid.

Pooling of risks over a large number of similar units such as households, persons or businesses ang insurance. Inispread ang risk para ang financial loss ay hindi pasan lamang ng iisa kundi ng marami.

Formal insurance

Galing sa corporations and cooperatives ang formal insurance. Formal insurance ang tawag sa kanila dahil sila ay regulated ng Insurance Commission.

A cooperative is owned by members. Ang corporation on the other hand is a capitalist at profit-led. Mayroon ding Mutual Benefit Association (MBA) under formal insurance. Ito ay mga non-profit forms ng insurance companies sa Pilipinas.

Para sa akin, ang gusto ko talaga ay MBA o di kaya’y cooperative kasi hindi profit ang nauuna. Iyong kapakanan ng tao ang nangunguna.

Informal Insurance

“Damayan-based” scheme ang informal insurance. In Ilocano, damayan means “saranay”. Sa mga Bisaya, ito ay “dayong”. Sa mga Muslim brothers and sisters natin, ang tawag dito ay “takaful.”

Mahaba na talaga ang kasaysayan ng insurance dito sa Pilipinas. Dahil ingrained sa ating mga Pilipino ang damayan. Ginulo lang ito nga mga Westerners dahil ang ginawa nila itong for profit na siyang mas namamayagpag ngayon. Sa akin, ang insurance ay hindi dapat for profit.

Public Insurance

Idinagdag ko ito dahil ito ang mga social safety nets o social insurance schemes na ibinibigay ng gobyerno para sa atin. Examples nito ay ang mga insurance benefits – health, sickness, disability, unemployment, death etc. mula sa Pag-IBIG, PhilHealth at SSS.

Hybrid Insurance

Combination of both formal and informal forms ang hybrid insurance. Pinaghalo ang dalawa. May mga programa ding bukod sa formal at informal ay idinadagdag ang public insurance tulad ng Social Welfare Protection Program (SWEPP) ng SEDPI.

Almost 4 in 10 nanoenterprises bounce back to pre-pandemic level

Update 10: SEDPI Rapid community assessment on the impact of COVID-19 to nanoenterprises

Two months after the government started easing lockdowns in most parts of the country, 36% of nanoenterprises reported to have bounced back to pre-pandemic level. In May, only 18% expected to bounce back within one month which may be a good sign of recovery if the spread of the virus is contained.

Nanoenterprise (NE) is a SEDPI-coined term that refers to unregistered livelihoods of self-employed individuals. They typically operate informal businesses alone or with the help of unpaid family members targeting their own immediate local communities.

Status of nanoenterprises

Those that bounced back report that they are already able to earn about the same income; and experience normal demand to their products and services. For the month of June, there were twice as many nanoenterprises reporting slowdown in sales compared to those that reported strong demand.

Access to supply on inputs needed to operate their livelihoods remain stable.

Financing options

Nanoenterprises typically access loans from informal sources which make them vulnerable to predatory financing practices. Most of them borrow money from cooperatives, rural banks, microfinance NGOs and pawnshops.

On average, nanoenterprises borrow a small sum of money ranging from PhP3,000 to PhP10,000 to finance their livelihoods such as sari-sari stores, carinderia, farmers, fisherfolks, dressmaking and vending. Microfinance institutions offer collateral-free loans to them payable in three to six months with interest rates ranging from 2% to 5% per month.

With microenterprises cautious on demand, they prefer not to access loans. Only two of three of those who finished their loans opted to renew their for another cycle. This is also a sign that nanoenterprise have the ability to weigh risks and returns.

For the month of June, when normal loan collections resumed, one in three nanoenterprises was able to repay in accordance with amortizations based on the Bayanihan Act’s loan deferment schedule. A majority are requesting for up to two months additional grace period to allow them more time to adjust and cope with the new normal.

Essential financial service to low income group

There are approximately 8 million low income households that access microfinance services in the Philippines. MFIs are frontliners in the delivery of financial services to low income groups who find it difficult to open deposit accounts and access loans from commercial banks.

SEDPI estimates that a PhP40B economic assistance to nanoenterprises channeled through MFIs will address their financing needs to jumpstart their livelihoods. This is based on 8 milion estimated number of microenterprises and PhP5,000 economic assistance package.

The proposed Philippine economic stimulus package contains a total of PhP245 billion budget to assist micro, small and medium enterprises. Only a small fraction of this is expected to reach nanoenterprises.

Prioritizing nanoenterprises

The negative impact of COVID-19 to nanoenterprises is undeniable. The research shows that nanoenterprises are showing positive signs of bouncing back faster.

Preferential option to those at the bottom of the pyramid should be extended first since these groups can bounce back quickly; only need a small amount of stimulus; will reduce need for cash dole outs; and will reach millions of Filipino low income households.

 

Note:

The research is part of a series of rapid community assessments that determines the economic impact of COVID-19 to microenterprises and the informal sector. SEDPI, a microfinance institution (MFI), conducted the survey from June 23-30 with 5,791 respondents located in Agusan del Sur and Surigao del Sur.

It is not a representative sample of the entire Philippines. It is highly localized but should be a good case study that reflects the situation in the countryside. SEDPI believes that the nationwide experience may not be far from our research results.

Previous updates:

The titles are hyperlinked. Click on the titles to full read article online.

• June 12 (Update 9): Microenterprises show signs of bouncing back as lockdown eases
• May 28 (Update 8): 8 out of 10 microenterprises open for business one month after GCQ
• May 22 (Update 7): Demand for microenterprise products remain weak amid COVID pandemic
• May 15 (Update 6): Demand slumps on microenterprise products 2 weeks after GCQ
May 8 (Update 5): Only 5% of microenterprises back to “normal” in first week of GCQ
• April 30 (Update 4): Two in three microenterprises hopeful to bounce back two months after lockdow – UPDATE 4
• April 24 (Update 3): Community assessment and recommendations for support to microenterprises and the informal sector during and after COVID-19 – UPDATE 3
• April 14 (Update 2): Community assessment and recommendations for support to microenterprises and the informal sector during and after COVID-19 – UPDATE 2
• April 6 (Update 1): Community assessment and recommendations for support to microenterprises and the informal sector during and after COVID-19 – UPDATE 1
• March 30: Immediate impact of COVID-19 lockdown to microenterprises

Plight of Microentrepreneurs in the Philippines Part 1 of 3 Sari-sari Stores

Never too Small for Hope- Part I

Doing business is largely a family affair in the Philippines – 80% of enterprises are family-owned or family-controlled. Microenterprises are the most intimate and the most common of these businesses. Nine of out of 10 MSMEs in the Philippines are microenterprises. Their kinship is the most deep-rooted because members of the community build these businesses around local needs.

Strength comes in numbers. Being small and having few employees put microenterprises in the most disadvantageous position. Most microenterprises are cottage industries, typically employing only family members. They are comprised of one to nine members and the very few largest ones have $6,000 in assets.

The Philippines is one of the countries with the highest economic damages as a result of disasters, having an Average Annual Economic Loss (AAL) of $284 million. Financial deficits hit the smallest enterprises the most. Economic losses have a ripple effect that magnifies and multiplies the challenges, especially for microenterprises. The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced lockdowns that prolong the hardships for many of these businesses.

The first part of our series explores the most inherent microenterprise in the Philippines. The sari-sari stores (mom and pop shops) are built into the DNA of every neighborhood and block across the national landscape. There are over 1.3 million sari-sari stores in the Philippines and 94% of consumers depend on them for everyday necessities.

Monalisa Maiquez, 41, Resident of Sta. Maria Kalamasig, Sultan Kudarat

Monalisa is the breadwinner in her family. It is a role that keeps her committed to maintaining her sari-sari store during the lockdown period. She lives with her brother, sister-in-law, and their two kids.

The family of five depends on local government assistance since the community quarantine that started on March 16, 2020, “We have received relief goods four times since the lockdown started. The local government unit of Kalamansig provided five kilograms of rice, two cans of sardines, three packs of instant noodles, 250 grams of sugar, and one pack of instant coffee.”

These rations are essential as Monalia’s revenue has been cut in half since the lockdown, “We would invest P8,000 to P10,000 every week for a profit of P1,000 to P1,500. We are only able to buy up to P5,000 of supplies for the store and our profits do not reach more than P500 weekly.” Her profits barely cover the P2,500 to P3,000 for household expenses.

Mobility restrictions introduce new obstacles for businesses as they lack supplies from the shortage of stocks. Monalisa is currently limited in procuring supplies, “I would travel to the market depending on what I needed. Now I am only allowed to make these trips once a week. We are also constrained to the number of purchasable items. For example, each business owner can only buy six-packs of instant noodles and six cans of sardine.”

Any form of financial assistance would promote the sustainability of Monalisa’s shop, “I have never experienced such a blow to my daily operations. I would need about P15,000 to recover. The business income is siphoned into funding our daily needs making savings nearly impossible.”

Mary Jane Selecia, 41, Resident of Tinungkaan, Maguindanao

The subsidy in income only reminds Mary Jane that her household needs to cut corners – “My shop is bringing in one-third of the profit. I would earn around P4,000 and now I am fortunate if I make P1,000 a week. We invest P3,000 a week to keep the store running.” She lives with her husband and five children. Their daily expenses come to P9,000 per month and were previously covered from the sari-sari store’s profits.

Borrowing money is becoming a vicious cycle for Mary Jane, “We have no savings and the income we make for our businesses go towards repaying our loans from relatives and friends. It seems like we are borrowing to pay over and over again.” Relief information is even more scarce when in the remote mountainous areas like Tinungkaan. The interventions in Mary Jane’s town were constrained to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) conducting a survey to determine the poorest population in the village.

Mary Jane’s husband works as a Barangay Secretary and his work became an unexpected lifeline, “We did not need to apply for the Social Amelioration Program (SAP) because of my husband’s job. We are also beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps).” The SAP has given qualified families P5,000 to P8,000 per month for two months. “We bought one sack of rice. The remaining money is additional capital for our store.”

Her family’s coping mechanism is in her backyard, “Our alternative sources of income are planting vegetables and raising farm animals. The small farm supports us while providing us with food. We are often forced to consume supplies from the sari-sari store.” Stock in her store is already limited because of dwindling supply in Noro, where she buys her supplies. Transportation cost for each of the trips to Noro is now P100, which is an exacerbated cost during the lockdown.

Everyday expenses have become a challenge for her community, “There is a decline in sales because many of our neighbors and customers do not have work. I fear that we may have to shut down if this continues. I would feel more hopeful if I had P10,000 to replace the needed inventory.”

Marcia Mangubat, 53 years old, Resident of Tinagacan, General Santos City

The Mangubats are a persevering matriarch. Marcia Mangubat lives with her mother and two daughters. She runs her sari-sari store and the household with the mantra, “Maningkamot nalang gyud ta na mabuhi (we will work hard to survive).” The pandemic is no exception to this mind frame. Marcia’s store is the only source of income as her daughters look for jobs.

General Santos City is still under a curfew to prevent the spread of infections. Marcia makes sure that her family obeys the rules while trying to carry on with daily life, “The new regulations include wearing a mask whenever one steps out of the house. The first offense is a P3,000 penalty. The following offenses can lead to one-month imprisonment.”

She understands that safety measures are necessary and adapting to the challenges is the only way forward: “I go to the market myself to buy all of my supplies from the market at the center of the city. I would go at least once or twice a week. The lockdown conditions have led me to make this trip every two weeks.” The supply shortage has decreased Marcia’s revenue from P4,000 per day to P1,500. Her current profits do not cover the P7,000 she needs for the monthly household expenses.

The small bench and table for tea at the corner of Marcia’s shop is vacant these days. She has not experienced such a sales decline in 11 years, “I have been a member of Tinagacan Agrarian Reform Beneficiary Cooperative (TARBC) for six years so I was able to withdraw a savings amount of P5,000. I am afraid that I may reach a point where I will have to withdraw more of my savings.” TARBC teaches small business owners like Marica about how they can apply and access loans as well as create a savings scheme.

The local government has distributed rice, noodles, and canned goods to families like Marcia’s. It is one of the many sources of hope Marcia holds, “The supplies from the store sometimes meet our daily needs. I start the day grateful that all of us are in good health.”

Alejandra Cinco, 56, Resident of Lanao del Sur

Cassava was imported from Latin America through the Manilla Galleons over 400 years ago. It has become a staple across the Philippines since then. For Alejandra Cinco, the vegetable is a saving grace during the lockdown, “We grow cassava on our farm and I make homemade cakes to sell. Our harvest is not selling as much. I purchase sugar and the other ingredients for P100 and sell the cakes for P200. The cakes are the only profit I make some days.”

The virus outbreak may not affect everyone’s health but it deprives many of their basic needs. “I was able to stretch P20,000 towards household needs during the first month of the lockdown. The expenses included the P3,000 I need for asthma medication every two months. We have reduced our investment in the sari-sari store from P1,500 to P1,000 or P500. Buying food for our family is the top priority.”

Alejandra and her husband are housing her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter, and two of their grandchildren during the lockdown period. The additions have raised her household expenses from P6,000 to P11,000 – “We have cut costs wherever we can. My husband delivers cassava to the Malabang area. He earns P700 per trip. I have started to accompany him during these trips to buy some of my supplies at competitive prices.”

Alejandra’s husband was the only one issued a quarantine pass when security measures were taken in April. She became unable to buy supplies from her local vendor: “I was referred to another grocery store but the prices were much higher. Our store sells basic goods such as sugar, coffee, soap, canned foods, and snacks. Some of these items have gone up to P10 more than before. It forces us to retail them at a higher price and lose the already dwindling number of customers.”

The higher prices and limited supplies have taken a toll on everyday operations. “I would have P500 to P1,000 in sales every day. Now I am fortunate if I make P300 on certain days,” states Alejandra.

She currently relies on her savings and one of her children for support, “My son lives in Cebu City and has sent financial support through the remittance center in the Malabang area. We are fortunate that he is able to provide a portion of his salary.”

This article was developed in partnership with the Asian Preparedness Partnership (APP). More information about APP may be found using this link: Asia Preparedness Partnership (APP).

Position Paper on Section 3.01 of the IRR of RA 11469 Section 4 (aa)

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose serious threats to health and has already disrupted the economy. This prompted the government to enact Republic Act No. 11469 otherwise known as the “Bayanihan to Heal As One Act,” declaring a state of national emergency in order respond to the urgent needs of the people.
It is in response to this urgent need and call that the Ateneo-SEDPI Microfinance Capacity Building Program (Ateneo-SEDPI MCBP) recognizes our role in aiding government to promote and protect the interests of the Filipino people, especially low income groups, in these challenging times. For the past 14 years, Ateneo-SEDPI MCBP provided training, research and consulting services to more than 2,000 microfinance institutions in the Philippines with a combined outreach of 10 million low income households.
SEDPI invests in 15 cooperatives and microfinance NGOs nationwide. It also directly provides financial services to more than 8,000 low income households in Mindanao. SEDPI works in partnership with Pag-IBIG, Social Security System, Land Bank of the Philippines and Development Bank of the Philippines to bring social protection and welfare services closer to low income groups.
Remaining true to our vision and mission, we commit to do our moral and lawful duty to provide a “grace period” for the loans of our microfinance clients.
In Section 4 (aa) of RA 11469, the law directs:
“ . . . all banks, quasi-banks, financing companies, lending companies, and other financial institutions, public and private, including the Government Service Insurance System, Social Security System and Pag-IBIG Fund, to implement a minimum of a thirty (30)-day grace period for the payment of all loans, including but not limited to salary, personal, housing, and motor vehicle loans, as well as credit card payments, falling due within the period of the enhanced Community Quarantine without incurring interests, penalties, fees, or other charges. Persons with multiple loans shall likewise be given the minimum thirty (30)-day grace period for every loan . . . ”
However, we noticed an inconsistency with the implementing rules and regulation (IRR) of RA 11469. In Section 3.01 of the IRR of RA 11469 where “Mandatory Grace Period” was discussed, it states that:
“ . . All Covered Institutions shall implement a 30-day grace period for all loans with principal and/or interest falling due within the ECQ Period without incurring interest on interest, penalties, fees and other charges. The initial 30-day grace period shall automatically be extended if the ECQ period is extended by the President of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to his emergency powers under the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act . . . [emphasis added]”
The text of RA 11469 clearly provides in Section 4 (aa) that all loans falling due within the period of the enhanced community quarantine shall not incur interests, penalties, fees, or other charges. This provision of the law was not adhered to by the IRR when it said that “ . . . All Covered Institutions shall implement a 30-day grace period for all loans with principal and/or interest falling due within the ECQ Period without incurring interest on interest, penalties, fees and other charges . . .” [emphasis added]
Prohibiting financial institutions to impose “interest on interest” is far different from prohibiting them to impose “interest” on loans. The IRR provides that financial institutions are only mandated to cancel the additional interest that may be imposed due to late payment of the loan. This is different from what the law really provides which mandates financial institutions to totally cancel the interest of the loan for the duration of the quarantine period.
Many of our clients who have loans (microcredit) with us used this to finance their livelihood. In a community assessment we conducted on March 31, 2020, 40% of our members completely stopped their lovelihoods and another 40% reported weakened livelihoods. We were not able to reach the remaining 20% because they live in places where cellphone signal could not reach them.
This is why we, in the microfinance industry, applaud RA 11469 for canceling the interest of loans during the duration of the quarantine. In fact, as early as March 15, 2020 we already declared a moratorium on loan repayments to our clients. This means that interest on these loans for the quarantine period will not be charged.
However, if the IRR will be implemented, only “interest on interest” will be canceled and not the whole “interest” of loans during the quarantine period. This will create a huge problem for MFIs since most access loans through commercial banks. If the IRR will be implemented, MFIs will still have to pay the interest on loans from commercial banks even if MFIs already canceled the interest on the loans of our clients.
With the current IRR, MFIs will bear the brunt of the cost of interest which may endanger their financial sustainability. There is also a good chance that this interest will be passed on eventually to microfinance clients who are already bearing the biggest impact of the pandemic.
With this, we strongly urge the concerned agencies of our government – Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Department of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission – to review the IRR of RA 11469. We would like to the IRR to follow the spirit of RA 11469. Hence, we call for the revision of Section 3.01 of the IRR of RA 11469 for it to remain true to the provision of Section 4 (aa) of RA 11469.
We hope that this matter will be resolved soon. The spirit and purpose of the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act must be genuinely upheld. We call for the government to completely prohibit interest charging on loans during the enhanced community quarantine.
It is our fervent hope that this crisis will be put to an end soon. MFIs will remain a partner of the Filipino people in securing their livelihood, health, and safety all throughout this challenging times until we are able stand up again as a strong and progressive nation.
Thank you very much and may God bless our country.
In the spirit of Bayanihan and in service of the Filipino people.