Stakeholders Participation in time of Pandemic, Arnstein’s Level of Participation, and Realities on the Ground

Stakeholders participation is one of my favorite topics for several reasons. First is because I served as an elected Barangay Kagawad (Community/grassroot level government) when I was 18 years of age and served for almost 13 years. I relate and I was part of the lowest level of government representing my community. Second is Masters Degree is Public Management major in Local Government and Regional Administration wherein we were taught incessantly the importance of partnerships with stakeholders. Third is I learned about Arnstein’s Level of Participation when I took my Post-Graduate degree in Urban and Regional Planning. I understood why it is an integral part of the planning process. Fourth and last is I am somewhat guilty of setting aside stakeholders’ consultations now that I am a City Planner. This was also pointed out by one of my fellow planners in my one of my blog entries.

In my blog entry – Ten Tips on how to formulate your Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) without hiring a Planning Consultant, I narrated how our team formulated our CDP without the help of a planning consultant. My objective in that article was to inspire other LGUs who have limited staff and resources that they too can start and finish their CDP without hiring costly consultants. I’m not against consultants – we hire consultants to help us in formulating very technical plans. But in this situation, we need to finish the plan fast for compliance. We tried to follow the guidelines steps using outputs from other plans as inputs. However, in our zeal to finish the plan on time, aside from doing away with outside consultants, we also limited the participation of stakeholders. I plan that this will not happen again in the future.

As planners we tend to sometimes take for granted the importance of public consultation – Soliciting inputs from our constituents. We focused on the technical and theoretical aspects we learned from schools. We want to apply all of them. We feel we know more than our clients. We are licensed urban planners. But to whom are we making all these plans? Who will be greatly affected by our plans? I think, it is fair and also practical to listen and take note of what they want and need and incorporate them in the plan or project.

Who are these stakeholders? This is a very tricky and controversial question. And we are all entitled to our opinions (so let us not argue). It all depends in your context. I’ll just enumerate some of the possible list of stakeholders based on my experience as follows: national and local elected officials, other government agencies, non-government organizations, professional and private organizations and institutions, religious and community groups, influential people in your neighborhood, indigents (poor communities), disadvantaged groups like persons with disabilities, senior citizens, women, youth, children, and the future generation (our future grandchildren) – they are also stakeholders, among others. The mix of your stakeholders depends on the plan or project. I cannot give you a guide on how to choose them because it is context based. Usually, I look for organized groups and ask their President or secretary to participate in a meeting / consultation. How about the children and future generation – who will represent them? As planner, I suggest you yourself should think of them and become their advocate when formulating plans and implementing projects.

Arnstein’s Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Participation 

What it is public participation? There are many templates but I’ll just discuss the basic level of participation of Arnstein. According to Arnstein, participation of the governed in their government is, in theory, the cornerstone of democracy. It is a revered idea that is vigorously applauded by virtually everyone. Citizen participation for her is citizen power. Citizen power is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the socio-political process, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the strategy by which the powerless join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, budgets are allocated, programs are operated, and benefits like contracts and patronage are parceled out. In summary, it is the means by which the powerless can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society.

Arnstein identified, enumerated and described the Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Participation from her observation from 1,000 Community Action programs involved in the 150 Model Cities programs in late 1960s.

The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy and aptly described as non-participation. The objective of Manipulation and Therapy is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to “educate” or “cure” the participants.

(1) Manipulation are when in the guised of participation, people are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the sole purpose of “educating” them or engineering their support. It shows the distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by powerholders. It is used to “prove” that “grassroots” people are involved in the program.

(2) Therapy is when the government administrators which are mental health experts (from social workers to psychiatrists) assume that powerless is synonymous with mental illness. Under a masquerade of involving citizens in planning, the experts subject the citizens to clinical group therapy. It is both dishonest and arrogant. The participants are brought together to help them “adjust their values and attitudes to those of the larger society.”

Rungs (3) Informing, (4) Consultation, and (5) Placation are in the level of “Tokenism”. In this level, the have-nots are allowed to be heard and have a voice. However, they still lack the power to insure their views will be heeded by the powerful. There is no followthrough, no “muscle”, hence no assurance of changing the status quo. It allowed have-nots to advise, but retain for the powerholders the continued right to decide.

(3) Informing emphasizes on a one-way flow of information (from officials to citizen) with no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation. The most frequent tools use for such one-way communication are the news media, pamphlets, posters, and responses to inquiries.

(4) Consultation is when the government invite citizens to air their opinions. However, if consulting them is not combined with other modes of participation, it is still a sham because it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas will be considered. The most common methods are attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings.

(5) Placation allows citizens to advise but the powerholders retain the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice. An example of a placation strategy is to place a few hand-picked “worthy” poor on committees or public bodies. The degree to which citizens are actually placated depends on two factors: (a) the quality of technical assistance they have in articulating their priorities; and (b) the extent to which the community has been organized to press for those priorities. In placation, people are being planned for and the major planning decision s are being made by the powerholders.

In the higher rung of the ladder is the Degrees of Citizen Power. (6) Partnership enables the have-nots to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional powerholders. (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control are situations wherein have-nots obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power.

(6) Partnership happens when the power is redistributed through negotiations between the citizens and powerholders. They agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, planning committees and mechanisms for resolving impasses. Partnership can work most effectively when there is an organized power-base in the community to which the citizen leaders are accountable; when the citizens group has the financial resources to pay its leaders reasonable honoraria for the time-consuming efforts; and when the group has the resources to hire (and fire) its own technicians, lawyers, and community organizers.

(7) Delegated power is characterized when the citizens achieve the dominant decision-making authority over a particular plan or program. The citizens assure accountability of the program. To resolve differences, powerholders need to start the bargaining process rather than respond to pressure from the other end. Citizen may hire its own planning staff and consultants. Some uses citizen veto if difference of opinion cannot be resolved through negotiation. Examples of powers delegated are policy-making, hiring and firing, and issuing subcontracts for building, buying or leasing.

(8) Citizen Control is when the citizen governs a program or an institution, be in full charge of policy and managerial aspects, and be able to negotiate the conditions. One example is a neighborhood corporation with no intermediaries between it and the source of funds. There is no one in the nation who has absolute control.

Application of the Eight Rungs of Participation in Local Government Units

Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 mandates Local Government Units to include civil society organizations (CSOs) in local special bodies (LSB) or committees. The Code states that the presence of CHOs should not be lower than 25% of the total membership of an LSB. This ensures that CSOs are represented in LSBs.

The Local Development Council is the planning council of an LGU. 25% of its members should come from the CSOs. But how do we choose which CSOs would become a member of the council?

Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) released Memorandum Circular No. 2019-72 on May 22, 2019 entitled Guidelines on Accreditation of Civils Society Organizations and Selection of Representatives to the Local Special Bodies. In the guidelines, all CSOs will be called to a meeting and would elect among themselves their representatives in various LSBs including the Local Development Council.

DILG MC No. 2019-72

In our city, our office assisted the DILG in inviting the CSOs and the conduct of the program. The CSO themselves voted and identified their representatives. The process is very transparent.

Based on the Eight Rungs of Participation, the membership of the CSOs on the LSBs fall in the Placation level. They have the power to advise but the majority and later the local sanggunian(council) retain the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice.

There is an attempt and a past program of the national government that resembles the Delegated Power rung in the Eight Rungs of Participation. I believe the years were 2013-2016 when the national government implemented the Bottom-up Budgeting (BUB) program. In the program, the LGU organized the CSOs and the CSO elected their officers. A specific fund from the national government was downloaded to the LGU for the program. The CSOs chooses from a set of project menu the projects they want implemented given that the fund is already promised and available. A series of capacity building activities were conducted to the CSOs. The CSO chose their preferred projects.

The CSOs thought that the budget for the projects would be directly sent to their bank accounts, in effect most of them opened a bank account. They also thought that they themselves would conduct their own bidding process and chose the supplier or company that will supply/construct their projects. In the initial stages, I felt that the national government is also trying to figure out how it will be implemented. I also feel uncomfortable because of the accountability issue. Are CSOs accountable for the money that will be downloaded directly to them? What is the accountability of the LGU?  

A series of memoranda (DBM-DILG-DSWD-NAPC JMCs) from the national government finally cleared things out. The LGU is still accountable. The projects shall undergo government policies and accounting procedures. The BUB projects shall be implemented by the concerned department of the LGU. The role of the CSOs were reduced to choosing the projects, beneficiaries, and monitoring. However, the BUB program resembled Delegated Power rung wherein the citizens achieve the dominant decision-making authority over a particular plan or program.

People’s Participation during the Pandemic

Government programs and projects did not stop during this pandemic. Priorities changed but the implementation of the projects continued. Planning activities continued. The question is “how do we ensure people’s participation during the pandemic when most people are not allowed to go out due to lockdowns or quarantines?”

What we did is made use of technology. We conducted online meetings via Zoom or Google meet platforms. We conducted the annual investment planning (AIP) workshops via the same platform. However, it is my personal opinion that such online meetings are limited. It cannot replace the small talks related to work, and the ease of discussing related or other matters observed during physical meetings.

Following the thinking of Arnstein wherein the have-nots are at a disadvantage in citizen’s participation, it is obvious that the pandemic and the use of technology further alienated them from participating.

Not all people have mobile phones and laptops nor resources to pay for internet services. Some are not adept in the zoom or google meet app. Others do not even have email addresses.

Government should conduct activities capacitating CSOs in the use of this technology. But how can government capacitate them when the mode of training is done via the platform that we want them to learn. This is quite tricky. I also do not have the answer on this issue. I just hope that the pandemic would end soon and we’ll all go back to normal or new normal wherein we can conduct meetings in person.

When I present in meetings, I always end my slides with the quote from Abraham Lincoln:

“government of the people, by the people, for the people”

I then partnered it with this quote:

“planning of the people, by the people, for the people”

If you have any comments, inputs, reactions or suggestions, feel free to comment in the comment section. I wish you and your family good health during this pandemic.

Reference: Arnstein, Sherry R.(1969) ‘A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35: 4, 216 — 224

Mandanas-Garcia Ruling; Unconstitutionality of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA); and the National Government and Fiscal Autonomy of Local Government Units

LGUs should not celebrate too early by embarking on expensive projects that they cannot sustain. LGUs should always review Art. 17 of RA 7160 to both guide them in choosing projects to implement and manage the expectations of their stakeholders.

One of the key features of the Philippine 1987 Constitution is its push towards decentralization of government and local autonomy. Local autonomy has two facets, the administrative and the fiscal. Fiscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the National Government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. Such autonomy is as indispensable to the viability of the policy of decentralization as the other.

Implementing the constitutional mandate for decentralization and local autonomy, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160), otherwise known as the Local Government Code (LGC), in order to guarantee the fiscal autonomy of the LGUs by specifically have a share in the national internal revenue taxes. The internal revenue allotment (IRA) is determined on the basis of the actual collections of the National Internal Revenue Taxes (NIRTs) as certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Mandanas and his group as well as Garcia challenged the national government by filing a case in the Supreme Court to address whether or not the exclusion of certain national taxes from the base amount for the computation of the just share of the LGUs in the national taxes is constitutional. Mandanas’ group and Garcia filed a petitioned to release the additional and unpaid IRA, respectively to LGUs.

Mandanas et. al Petition – Following the Petitioned Base Amount of LGU Shares in FY 2012
Release of the additional amount of to the LGUs as their IRA for FY 2012P60,750,000,000.00
Release of the  total unpaid IRA for FY 1992 to FY 2011P438,103,906,675.73

To know more about the Mandanas-Garcia Ruling check out https://cityplanningcoordinator.blog/2021/07/09/mandanas-garcia-vs-executive-secretary-case-digest/

Let us simplify the story.

Imagine you are the head of your family. A person promised to pay you yearly a certain amount that you will use to provide for the needs of your family. Eventually, you realized that the amount being paid to you for almost two decades is not the agreed amount that should have been given to you and your family. You filed a case in court and it took several years before the court decided that the amount being paid to you is not the right amount.

You started to look back and imagined how your family should have benefitted from the withheld payment. You thought that with the said amount, you could have provided your children very good education and health care as well as widened possible opportunities (opportunity cost). But, all is well, you’ve won, you are right in asserting what is just.

However, the court ruled that this person would not pay anymore the two decades withheld amount and will just give the correct (just share) amount the following year. You cannot argue with the court because that is their final decision and must respect it. You are excited that you’ve won your case, proved you are right, and will have more resources for your family the following year.

But there’s more, the person realized that since you will be getting more, there is a need to give you more responsibilities that will entail additional expenditures on your part. This person is thinking of ways on how to give you more/additional tasks or responsibilities so that your just share (not additional) is spent according to what they want you to spend on your family.

In fairness, in the last two decades, the said person, aside from giving you your yearly agreed support, helps your family by providing casual assistance in different forms.

This is the current situation of the Local Government Units (LGUs) in the Philippines. The family is the LGU, the person is the national government, the children are the LGU constituents, and the support is the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) which is now called the National Tax Allocation (NTA).

Executive Order 138

The National Government enacted Executive Order No. 138 entitled “Full Devolution of Certain Functions of the Executive Branch to Local Governments, Creation of a Committee on Devolution, and for other purposes” on June 1, 2021 in response to the Mandanas-Garcia ruling.

To know more about EO 138 check out https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2021/06/01/executive-order-no-138-s-2021/

The recitals of EO No. 138 state that in the Constitution, LGUs shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them and that the President shall exercise general supervision over local governments; that RA 7160 devolved the delivery of certain basic services from national to LGUS (Section 17, RA 7160) in accordance with established national policies, guidelines and standards; and that the total shares of the LGUs from the national taxes is expected to significantly increase starting FY 2022 in line with the implementation of the Mandanas ruling; among others.

The general policy of EO 138 is that the National Government (NG) is fully committed to the policy of decentralization enshrined in the Constitution and relevant laws which are aimed at the following:

  1. Developing capabilities of local governments to deliver basic social services and critical facilities to their constituents, increase productivity and employment, and promote local economic growth.
  2. Ensuring accountability, competence, professionalism and transparency of local leaders through the development of institutional systems that uphold good governance and strengthen their capacities for managing public resources.

According to the EO the role of the NG is to set the national policy, development strategy, and service delivery standards, and to assist, oversee and supervise the LGUs, complementary to the stronger implementing role that the LGUs shall assume by reason of devolution; to determine functional assignments between and among different levels of government; to formulate and pursue an institutional development program in collaboration and to support the LGUs in order to strengthen their capacities and capabilities to fully assume the devolved functions based on RA 7160 and other relevant laws; and to resolve any ambiguity as to the interpretation of the power granted to an LGU in favor of devolution.

According to EO 138, the role of LGUs include the preparation of their Devolution Transition Plans (DTPs) in Close Coordination with the NGAs concerned, formulation of their Capacity Development Agenda based on the assessment framework and guidelines issued by the Department of Interior and Local Government – Local Government Academy (DILG-LGA), and the formulation of their respective Communications Plans and Strategies which are aligned and complementary to the communications plan formulated and approved by the Committee on Devolution.

The Mandanas-Garcia ruling prompted the national Government to enact EO 138 to ensure full devolution of certain functions. However, specific functions were already devolved to LGUS in 1992 via RA 7160. Did RA7160 only mandate partial devolution? Why is it called full devolution? Is there something new to devolve?

For me, EO 138 showed obvious realities at the LGU levels.

First is that the NG is aware that there are LGUs that cannot provide all the required devolved services to them as enumerated in Sec. 17 RA7160 due to inadequate financial resources. This is the reason NG provides Assistance to LGU programs and projects.

Second is that the Mandanas-Garcia ruling will help promote LGUs further pursue their desired development. Align with the concept of local autonomy and with the just share of the national taxes, LGUs can now fund their needed projects.

Third is that with the transfer of the remaining “just share” of the LGUs from the NG, wherein the NGs enjoyed the said share for almost two decades, the NG is worried that some of their programs will be affected by the decrease in their available fund, thus, the NG is clearly delineating projects that will be funded by them and by the LGUs and in part ensure that the LGUs perform their devolved services or add to those already devolved services.

Department of Budget and Management Local Budget Memorandum No. 82-2021

The DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021 entitled “Indicative FY 2022 National Tax Allotment (NTA) Shares of LGUs and Guidelines on the Preparation of the FY 2022 Annual Budgets of LGUs” was released on June 14, 2021.

To know more about DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021 check out https://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php/279-latest-issuances/local-budget-memorandum/local-budget-memorandum-2021/1887-local-budget-memorandum-no-82

According to DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021, the NTA shares of LGUs significantly increased in FY 2022 as a result of the implementation of the SC decision on the Mandanas-Garcia Case. Consequently, starting FY 2022, there shall be scaling down of the financial subsidy of National Government Agencies (NGAs) for local programs and projects of LGU.

However the memorandum reminds LGUs to consider the expected down trend of NTA in the succeeding years, specifically in FYs 2023-2024. This is because of the lower revenue collections of the Government in FY 2020 and possibly in FY 2021 as a result of the continuous imposition of community quarantines and restrictions on the mobility of the general public due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DBM LBM No. 82 – 2021 showed the NTA allotment of LGUs for fiscal year 2022. LGUs will have more resources to fund their preferred projects (if not negatively affected by the impact of EO 138). However, LGUs should be very careful in choosing projects that will require the same resources to maintain or sustain. The memorandum warned LGUs that their just share in 2023-2024 will be lower than in 2022.

What are its implications?

First is if the LGU embarks on big projects like building hospitals, hiring more personnel, etc., it may afford to implement it on 2022 but will have difficulty sustaining it in 2023-2024.

Second is that the LGUs are still recovering from their unplanned expenses brought about by the illegal drug war and the pandemic. 2022 is the time wherein hopefully they can resume their programs related to their desired local development with the help of its “just share” from the NG.

The Pandemic displayed how LGUs stepped-up to the global problem by taking care of its constituents. The NG and LGUs partnered in delivering support (food and health) to ensure the survival of the people. It may be enough or ideal but I believe they are doing their best specially the LGUs.

Just Share and Beyond

The “just share” is not an additional fund. It is the right fund that should have been given to LGUs to ensure to reach their self-determination via their political and fiscal autonomy. It is not correct to treat it as an additional fund. It is also not proper to add responsibilities to the LGUs because they will now get what they should have gotten yearly in the past two decades.

LGUs should not celebrate too early by embarking on expensive projects that they cannot sustain. LGUs should always review Art. 17 of RA 7160 to both guide them in choosing projects to implement and manage the expectations of their stakeholders.

Devolved Services (RA 7160 Sec. 17)
BarangayMunicipalityProvince
(i) Agricultural support services which include planting materials distribution system and operation of farm produce collection and buying stations;   (ii) Health and social welfare services which include maintenance of barangay health center and day-care center;   (iii) Services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid waste collection;   (iv) Maintenance of katarungang pambarangay;   (v) Maintenance of barangay roads and bridges and water supply systems;   (vi) Infrastructure facilities such as multi-purpose hall, multi-purpose pavement, plaza, sports center, and other similar facilities;   (vii) Information and reading center; and   (viii) Satellite or public market, where viable;    

     
Devolved Services to Municipalities + Provinces
= Devolved Services to Cities
(i) Extension and on-site research services and facilities related to agriculture and fishery activities which include dispersal of livestock and poultry, fingerlings, and other seeding materials for aquaculture; palay, corn, and vegetable seed farms; medicinal plant gardens; fruit tree, coconut, and other kinds of seedling nurseries; demonstration farms; quality control of copra and improvement and development of local distribution channels, preferably through cooperatives; interbarangay irrigation systems; water and soil resource utilization and conservation projects; and enforcement of fishery laws in municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves;   (ii) Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR, implementation of community-based forestry projects which include integrated social forestry programs and similar projects; management and control of communal forests with an area not exceeding fifty (50) square kilometers; establishment of tree parks, greenbelts, and similar forest development projects;   (iii) Subject to the provisions of Title Five, Book I of this Code, health services which include the implementation of programs and projects on primary health care, maternal and child care, and communicable and non-communicable disease control services; access to secondary and tertiary health services; purchase of medicines, medical supplies, and equipment needed to carry out the services herein enumerated;   (iv) Social welfare services which include programs and projects on child and youth welfare, family and community welfare, women’s welfare, welfare of the elderly and disabled persons;  community-based rehabilitation programs for vagrants, beggars, street children, scavengers, juvenile delinquents, and victims of drug abuse; livelihood and other pro-poor projects; nutrition services; and family planning services;   (v) Information services which include investments and job placement information systems, tax and marketing information systems, and maintenance of a public library;   (vi) Solid waste disposal system or environmental management system and services or facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation;   (vii) Municipal buildings, cultural centers, public parks including freedom parks, playgrounds, and other sports facilities and equipment, and other similar facilities;   (viii) Infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of the residents of the municipality and which are funded out of municipal funds including, but not limited to, municipal roads and bridges; school buildings and other facilities for public elementary and secondary schools; clinics, health centers and other health facilities necessary to carry out health services; communal irrigation, small water impounding projects and other similar projects; fish ports; artesian wells, spring development, rainwater collectors and water supply systems; seawalls, dikes, drainage and sewerage, and flood control; traffic signals and road signs; and similar facilities;   (ix) Public markets, slaughterhouses and other municipal enterprises;   (x) Public cemetery;   (xi) Tourism facilities and other tourist attractions, including the acquisition of equipment, regulation and supervision of business concessions, and security services for such facilities; and   (xii) Sites for police and fire stations and substations and municipal jail;(i) Agricultural extension and on-site research services and facilities which include the prevention and control of plant and animal pests and diseases; dairy farms, livestock markets, animal breeding stations, and artificial insemination centers; and assistance in the organization of farmers’ and fishermen’s cooperatives and other collective organizations, as well as the transfer of appropriate technology;   (ii) Industrial research and development services, as well as the transfer of appropriate technology;   (iii) Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR, enforcement of forestry laws limited to community-based forestry projects, pollution control law, small-scale mining law, and other laws on the protection of the environment; and mini-hydroelectric projects for local purposes;   (iv) Subject to the provisions of Title Five, Book I of this Code, health services which include hospitals and other tertiary health services;   (v) Social welfare services which include programs and projects on rebel returnees and evacuees; relief operations; and population development services;   (vi) Provincial buildings, provincial jails, freedom parks and other public assembly areas, and similar facilities;   (vii) Infrastructure facilities intended to service the needs of the residents of the province and which are funded out of provincial funds including, but not limited to, provincial roads and bridges; inter-municipal waterworks, drainage and sewerage, flood control, and irrigation systems; reclamation projects; and similar facilities;   (viii) Programs and projects for low-cost housing and other mass dwellings, except those funded by the Social Security System (SSS), Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), and the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF); Provided, That national funds for these programs and projects shall be equitably allocated among the regions in proportion to the ratio of the homeless to the population;   (ix) Investment support services, including access to credit financing;   (x) Upgrading and modernization of tax information and collection services through the use of computer hardware and software and other means;   (xi) Inter-municipal telecommunications services, subject to national policy guidelines; and   (xii) Tourism development and promotion programs;
Devolved Services to LGUs (RA 7160)