The survey of 86 ecclesiastical territories in the Philippines assessed the state of Catholic mission. Key findings include: - Over half understood mission as disciples sharing faith, while others saw it as pastoral work or developing faith. - Most had mission formation programs focused on laity rather than clergy. Reasons for lack of programs included seeing mission as pastoral work. - Most conducted mission animation activities through parishes and lay groups. - Activities commonly promoted the Pontifical Mission Societies, especially World Mission Sunday. - Few had programs sending local clergy abroad as missionaries or welcoming them back. - About a third had lay missionaries, usually volunteers without formal organization. -

1. 1
CBCP Episcopal Commission
on Mission
2015
THE STATE OF MISSION
IN THE PHILIPPINES
RESULTS FROM A SURVEY OF
ECCLESIASTICAL TERRITORIES
IN THE PHILIPPINES

2. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 3
Methodology ……………………………………………………………… 3
Survey Presentation ………………………………………………………. 3
Meaning of Mission ……………………………………………………… 3
Mission Animation and Formation ………………………………………… 4
Mission Cooperation and Partnership ………………………………..…… 12
Implementing Mechanisms or Agents ……………………………….….... 16
Summary Conclusion …………………………………………………….. 23
Recommendations ………………………… ………………….………….. 21
Annex 1: Survey Participants …………………………………………….. 24
Annex 2: Survey Tabulation ………………………………………………25

3. 3
THE STATE OF MISSION OF THE PHILIPPINE CHURCH
Introduction
Early this year the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Mission approved a survey questionnaire
on the state of mission in the Philippine Catholic Church. It was sent out to the eighty-six (86)
ecclesiastical territorial jurisdictions in the country (archdiocese, diocese, prelature, apostolic
vicariate and military ordinariate), The purpose of this survey was to a) determine the state of
Mission of the Philippine Catholic Church among its dioceses and territorial jurisdictions; and
b) obtain due recommendations to improve the state of Mission.
Methodology
The questionnaire dealt with the topic on four (4) areas, namely, 1) the meaning of mission; 2)
mission animation and formation; 3) mission cooperation and partnership; and 4)
implementing mechanisms or agents. There were a total of fifty-three (53) questions in all
covering these areas. In several multiple choice questions, the respondents could choose more
than one answer, thus requiring a qualitative analysis of the answers.
The presentation of the respondents’ answers was done mainly thru a tabulation and
percentage computation of the various answers, with some qualitative remarks and comments
in between, where needed. The presentation statements are in black type (Times New Roman)
to distinguish them from the survey questions.
Fifty (50) out of the eighty-six (86) ecclesiastical jurisdictions responded to the survey. This is
a comforting 58% participation rate, compared to questionnaire responses concerning Vatican
Synods, whose best percentage response rate from these territorial jurisdictions is only around
20%. From this alone we can aver that there is indeed encouraging mission awareness among
the hierarchy of the Philippine Catholic Church, at least initially.
Survey Presentation
The survey questions, the results and their interpretation are given below.
A. The Meaning of Mission
The survey participants understood “Mission” as follows:

4. 4
Yes 29 63%
No 14 30.4%
Mission is being sent as disciples of Jesus to all peoples 27 58.7
%Mission is doing pastoral work in context 13 28.3
%Mission is God's gift of faith to be shared to all 17 37
%Mission is entering into human frontier situations 7 15.2
%Mission is life-nourishing relationship (solidarity) with the
materially poor
9 19.6
%Other 4 8.7
%
The majority of the survey participants (59%) understood Mission in the context of
Jesus command to make disciples of all nations (Matth. 28:19-20), as a first step. The
other side of Mission which is the nurturing and deepening of faith, which perhaps
presupposes the first step, is distributed in varying degrees among the rest. This is also
illustrated in the responses to the other questions in the survey, which views Mission
as somewhat separate from the mainstream of Church structure and operations.
B. Mission Animation and Formation
1. “The Local Church has a mission formation program”
Almost every Church locality has a mission formation program (63%). However the
program varies among the localities to some degree, as the survey will show further
along.
a. “IF YES, the following major components are integrated into the program:”

5. 5
Mission formation of seminarians through missiology courses
and exposures
16 34.8
%Formation of Lay missionaries as parish evangelizers 24 52.2
%On-going mission formation of priests 13 28.3
%Children and youth formation through Holy Childhood and
Propagation of Faith groups
16 34.8
%Basic Ecclesial Communities as communities of missionary
disciples
27 58.7
%Interreligious Dialogue 5 10.9
%Mission and integral development 13 28.3
%Other 4 8.7
%
The survey questionnaire allows the respondent to choose multiple answers. If we
however treat all answers as a totality, 43% of the answers will be about mission
formation of the laity, and only 25% that of priests and seminarians. This is based on
the perception that the laity needs more formation and training on the missions than
the clergy.
b. “IF NO, the following reasons explain the absence of a formation program:”
Mission is not a priority or not integrated in the diocesan pastoral plan 2 4.3
%Mission is equated with collection of money during World Mission Sunday 3 6.5
%Mission is a task specifically for members of the Institutes of Consecrated Life and
Societies of Apostolic Life
1 2.2
%Mission is about going to mission territories outside the country 1 2.2
%Mission is the same as pastoral work 6 13
%Other 5 10.9
%
The idea that “Mission is the same as pastoral work” is the main reason for the absence
of a mission formation program in the Church locality. This is significant since 30%
of respondents indicated that they do not have a mission formation program in their
localities. This may point in the direction that perhaps the idea of Mission should be
integrated in all Church programs and activities, so that it would not need a separate
program and structure of its own.

6. 6
Yes 34 73.9
%No 11 23.9
%
2. “The Local Church has mission animation activities”
A good 74% of the respondents aver that they have mission animation activities in
their territories, while 24% say they do not have. For the latter, this may conform to
the thinking that Mission is not separate from the mainstream of Church work.
a. “IF YES, the following groups are involved in the mission animation activities:”
Parishes 29 63%
Families 14 30.4%
Laity in different fields of society 20 43.5%
Ecclesial Movements 10 21.7%
Children 10 21.7%
Other 8 17.4%
Mission animation activities center on the Parish (63%), with a significant 44% among
the laity in the different fields of society. This indicates that mission activities are also
being done outside the parish network, and among the different organizations in civil
society, which may not be necessarily religious in nature. This is a welcome
development.
b. “IF NO, the following reasons explain the absence of mission animation
activities:”

7. 7
Yes 30 65.2
%No 14 30.4
%
There is no arch/diocesan mission program in the diocesan pastoral plan 4 8.7%
There is no priest, religious or layperson appointed or assigned as a mission director or
animator
4 8.7%
Mission animation activities are integrated in other programs of the diocese 7 15.2%
Other 0 0%
The 24% of the respondents do not have mission animation activities. Close to
half of this percentage says the reason for this is that they think mission
animation activities are already integrated into the other programs of the
diocese. This is a thread that runs thru the other responses of the survey
questionnaire.
3. “The Local Church conducts activities in order to promote the four works of the
Pontifical Mission Societies, namely, Propagation of Faith, Holy Childhood, Saint
Peter the Apostle, and the Missionary Union.”
Thirty (30) of the respondents or 65% conduct activities promoting the four (4) works
of the Pontifical Mission Society, while fourteen (14) or nearly half the number of the
former conduct no such activity.
a. “If YES, do you have the following activities:”

8. 8
Yes 12 26.1%
No 28 60.9%
Other 2 4.3%
Annual celebration of the World Mission Sunday 27 58.7%
Congress or activity for the Holy Childhood (elementary school children) 19 41.3%
Congress or activity for the Propagation of Faith (high school and college
students)
2 4.3%
Formation activity for the seminarians 13 28.3%
Formation activity for religious men and women 8 17.4%
Other 2 4.3%
A full 68% of the activities above involve the laity, and only 30% involve seminarians
and religious men and women. The priests have no activities by themselves, although
it may be safely averred that they are the ones conducting or heading these activities
among the laity. But again, this strengthens the perception that laymen need more
mission formation than the clergy and religious.
b. “If NO, what are some reasons for their absence”
There is no person in-charge 3 6.5%
The four societies are not known in the arch/diocese 3 6.5%
Four societies are known under the annual World Mission
Sunday
6 13%
Other 3 6.5%
Around half or 50% of those who do not participate in the activities of the Philippine
Mission Society think that these are already subsumed under the annual World
Mission Sunday, and therefore there is no need for doing more.
4. “The Local Church has a program for its local clergy to be Fidei Donum
missionaries in the Philippines and overseas as part of its clergy on-going
formation program.”
The local Church does not put great emphasis on mission training for its priests at
home and abroad. Twenty-eight or 61% of the respondents have no such program.

9. 9
Yes 11 23.9%
No 5 10.9%
Other 0 0%
Yes 9 19.6%
No 24 52.2%
Other 0 0%
Yes 25 54.3%
No 15 32.6%
Other 2 4.3%
Again this corresponds to the answers on B.1.a., above, that the thinking is that it is the
laity that needs more training in mission formation than the clergy.
a. “If YES, do you prepare them before they are sent?”
The majority of Church localities who send priests as missionaries have a program to
prepare them for this activity. Nearly half of them have no such program, and leave
their priests to learn on the job.
Another aspect of this picture is that the priority of the local Church authorities is to
adequately staff their parishes and religious institutions with their priests, rather than
send them abroad for the missions. This is a reflection of the lack of priests in the
Philippines relative to its population.
b. “Do you have a program to welcome and integrate returning missionary
priests?”
More than half (52%) of Church localities who have a missionary priest program do
not have a welcome and integration program for their returning missionaries. These
priests are left to fend for themselves, as it were, when they return to their respective
home dioceses.
5. “The Local Church has lay missionaries”

10. 10
Yes 15 32.6%
No 13 28.3%
Other 3 6.5%
Full Time 3 6.5%
Volunteers 14 30.4%
Both 10 21.7%
Other 2 4.3%
Only twenty-five (25) of the 86 Church territories indicated that they have lay
missionaries. This is only 29% of the total number, but it is an encouraging statistic. It
is bound to increase as more emphasis is laid upon the role of the laity in the Church.
a. “If YES, Are they organized and mandated as a missionary group?”
The number of organized/mandated lay missionary groups (15) is not significantly
different from that on not organized/not mandated groups (13). This means an
ecclesiastical mandate is not perceived as very necessary for lay groups to perform the
missionary task. Perhaps these groups want to have less restrictions and structure in
their organization and programs, than mandated groups, which have to follow many of
these.
b. Status of membership of the Missionary group
Volunteerism is the order of the day when it comes to lay missionary groups. Very few
work on a paid fulltime basis. Perhaps it will be interesting to find out the motivation
of these lay volunteers in their missionary work.
c. “The Lay Missionaries' primary missionary task is:

11. 11
Yes 28 60.9%
No 4 8.7%
Other 7 15.2%
part of the core curriculum? 25 54.3%
an elective course? 3 6.5%
Other 6 13%
Evangelization 26 56.5%
BEC Formation and Organization 19 41.3%
Eco-justice and environment 6 13%
Social justice and the poor 9 19.6%
Ecumenism 3 6.5%
Inter-religious Dialogue 4 8.7%
Other 2 4.3%
Of the 69 responses to this question, twenty-six (26) or 56.50% of responses
point to evangelization as the primary missionary task. This supports the
perception indicated in the understanding of the meaning of Mission above in
that it is in the context of the universal mandate of Jesus to make disciples of
all nations (Matth. 28:19-20). the rest are elaborations of this primary
mandate in an established Church community.
6. “The major seminary's curriculum offers missiology courses as indicated by the
revised Philippine program of formation
The major seminary in the Church locality, if there is one, offers missiology courses.
What may be further asked is whether these courses are updated and reflect the latest
thinking and understanding of Mission. In addition, it seems 78% of the respondents
have major seminaries, or thirty-nine (39) out of fifty (50) respondents.
a. “Is Missiology an elective course?”
The majority (54%) of those localities with major seminaries offer Missiology as a
core part of the seminary curriculum. It can be safely averred therefore that the
seminarians and future priests have sufficient grounding on the subject.

12. 12
Yes 26 56.5%
No 7 15.2%
Other 1 2.2%
Yes 4 8.7%
No 16 34.8%
Other 5 10.9%
Yes 35 76.1%
No 3 6.5%
Other 3 6.5%
b. “Is Miissiology taught by professors who have specialized in missiology?”
The majority of seminary professors (57%) teaching Missiology have sufficient
training on it. This backs up the conclusion above on seminary training in missiology.
c. “Is the seminary connected to an institute of mission studies?”
Institute of mission studies is a new phenomenon, and therefore, most major
seminaries have no affiliation with them. Besides they are few in number, and so they
can effectively connect only with seminaries in their vicinity.
d. “The seminarians of the arch/diocese are given mission immersion or
insertion in the communities of the arch/diocese through either through
a regular program or a summer exposure”
Seminary training includes a practicum wherein seminarians are given a
chance to practice the priestly craft in the communities of the Church locality.
So they are given a chance to put in practice what they learned in theory in the
seminary.
C. Mission Cooperation and Partnership
1. ”The Local Church takes up a collection for the Universal Solidarity
Fund of the Pope during the annual World Mission Sunday every third
Sunday of October.”

13. 13
Yes 37 80.4%
No 3 6.5%
Other 4 8.7%
Yes 13 28.3%
No 27 58.7%
Other 3 6.5%
the Universal Solidarity Fund of the Pope during the annual World Mission Sunday every third Sunday of October 41 89.1%
the Holy Childhood during the annual feast of the Santo Nino 38 82.6%
Saint Peter the Apostle for the assistance to seminarians all over the world 39 84.8%
Fil-Mission Sunday to support the missionary work of the Missionary Society of the Philippines 38 82.6%
Other 0 0%
There is a great almost even participation among the localities in collection and
contribution to the Missions on the occasions that these are called for. Since this is
done only about once a year, participation is above par – from 83% to 89%.
2. “Do you involve all parishes and schools?”
Parish and schools are the main gathering points of the faithful. Thus they are the ones
mostly involved in the collection for the Missions.
3. “The Local Church has sister dioceses in other countries (twinning program)”

14. 14
Yes 15 32.6%
No 25 54.3%
Other 4 8.7%
1-5 5 10.9%
6-10 3 6.5%
11-15 1 2.2%
16-20 1 2.2%
More than 20 4 8.7%
The majority of dioceses do not have sister dioceses in other countries. This is
something that should be done, to promote interaction and interchange between sister
dioceses, in terms of best practices, sharing of personnel and material resources.
4. “The Local Church has organized and continues to animate mission
clubs in Catholic schools, non-sectarian schools and parishes?”
The majority of the local Churches does not have many mission clubs in schools and
parishes, nor have concentrated efforts in animating these clubs. This is an area for
improvement among the various ecclesiastical areas.
5. “If YES, how many mission clubs do you have?”
The average number of mission clubs per locality is around three (3). These would be
located in the Catholic schools and/or seminaries in the locality.
6. “The Local Church has mission programs that collaborate and has working
linkages with the following commissions and offices (encircle what is applicable)”

15. 15
The involvement and collaboration of the local Church with the established diocesan
commissions and offices is satisfactory. Social Action, Catechesis and Catholic
Education, and the BEC are the top three apostolates in these involvement and
collaboration.
7. “The Local Church has linkages with mission institutes and academic
institutions for the formation and training of its mission agents.”
Migrants 13 28.30%
Youth & Children 23 50%
Seminaries 21 45.70%
Catechesis and Catholic Education 27 58.70%
Communications and Social Media 14 30.40%
Clergy 21 45.70%
Social Action 29 63%
BEC 25 54.30%
Indigenous Peoples 16 34.80%
Women 6 13%
Families 16 34.80%
Other 4 8.70%

16. 16
Yes 40 87%
No 2 4.3%
Other 0 0%
Yes 33 71.7%
No 9 19.6%
Other 1 2.2%
Institute of Consecrated Life in Asia (ICLA) 3 6.5%
Divine Word Institute of Mission Studies (DWIMS) 8 17.4%
Silsilah 1 2.2%
Euntes 0 0%
None of the above 27 58.7%
Other 6 13%
The majority of the local Churches do not have linkages with mission training
institutes. The reasons for this may be that these institutes are relatively a new
phenomenon, and the local Churches do not feel a great need for them, since
their major seminaries as a whole have professors who have specializations in
missiology.
8. “The local Church participates in congresses and conferences organized by the
Pontifical Mission Societies and the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Mission.”
Participation by the local Church in affairs and events organized by the CBCP
and the Pontifical Mission Society is high. This shows interest in Mission,
although this may not be a true indicator of how this interest is translated into
effective action.
D. Implementing Mechanisms or Agents
1. “The Local Church supports financially its mission program and animation
activities.”
Support by the local Church for its mission programs and activities are high (71%),
although it is not stated whether or not this support is adequate for these.
2. “The Local Church has formation materials (modules, manuals of formation, syllabi,
etc) intended for mission formation and animation.”

17. 17
Yes 20 43.5%
No 18 39.1%
Other 1 2.2%
Yes 21 45.7%
No 20 43.5%
Other 3 6.5%
The number of local Churches with formation materials to mission animation and
formation is almost the same as those without. There is a need to make these materials
available to the latter Churches. This is an interesting statistic, since it seems there are
enough interest programs, activities and personnel for missions, but it turns out that
almost half of local Churches do not have enough formation materials.
3. “The Ordinary has appointed a fulltime arch/diocesan mission director.”
a full-time arch/diocesan mission director 17 37%
a part-time mission director 21 45.7%
Other 2 4.3%
The majority of arch/dioceses have a mission director, whether fulltime or part-time.
This shows the importance this position is given in the local Churches.
4. “The Local Church has a staff that works for the implementation of mission
programs and animation activities”
It seems fully half of the local Churches do not have staff working for the
implementation of mission programs and animation activities. This is a strange statistic

18. 18
Yes 20 43.5%
No 20 43.5%
Other 2 4.3%
1-5 10 21.7%
6 -10 5 10.9%
11 - 15 1 2.2%
16 - 20 2 4.3%
More than 20 3 6.5%
Other 1 2.2%
Yes 17 37%
No 22 47.8%
Other 3 6.5%
since almost 90% have arch/diocesan mission directors. This indicates that these
directors may be working by themselves without adequate staff support.
5. “The Local Church has mission educators (sisters, lay men and women)
involved in mission education and formation in mission of schools and
parishes.”
The positive answers equal the negative answers to this question. This is consistent
with No. D.5., above. Half of the local Churches have support staff for the missions,
and half do not have.
6. “If YES, indicate the number of mission educators.”
Among the half of the local Churches with mission staff, the most number of staff falls
to between 1 – 5 members. It is gratifying to know that there are three (3) localities
with more than twenty (20) staff members involved in mission work.
7. “The Local Church has parish mission teams dedicated to reaching out to
families especially families of migrants and the un-Churched”

19. 19
Yes 22 47.8%
No 16 34.8%
Other 5 10.9%
Yes 29 63%
No 14 30.4%
Other 1 2.2%
Yes 28 60.9%
No 2 4.3%
Other 1 2.2%
The majority of local Churches do not have mission teams reaching out to families in
need (48%), especially those of migrants and the un-churched, although those with
such teams come a close second (37%). These are good areas to expand into, if the
Church is to live up to its name as the Church for the Poor.
8. “The Local Church has initiated the mission formation of parish pastoral council
into becoming missionary disciples.”
Close to half of the local Churches have initiated mission formation of their parish
councils. This is a welcome development to make parish pastoral councils more
mission-minded. Formation should be a regular and ongoing program, so that this
consciousness will be reflected in parish programs and activities.
9. “The Local Church has foreign missionaries (priests, religious, and laity) working in
the arch/diocese.”
A good 63% of respondents have foreign missionaries working in their localities. Most
of these would be in schools and institutes for special apostolates. Nonetheless, a good
number (30%) do not have these missionaries among them.
a. If YES, they are integrated into the Local Church

20. 20
Yes 10 21.7%
No 28 60.9%
Other 5 10.9%
Yes 20 43.5%
No 15 32.6%
Other 8 17.4%
Yes 17 37%
No 21 45.7%
Other 5 10.9%
Foreign missionaries as a whole are integrated into the local Church where they work.
They usually work in schools and far-flung parishes on the frontiers. Bishops and
Ordinaries welcome and are grateful for the mission work they are doing.
10. “The Local Church has an existing mission office with a permanent physical
location and address.”
The majority of local Churches (61%) do not have a permanent mission office. This
means that mission directors have other assignments more “basic” to the
parish/diocese, and conduct their mission work from these offices. This also indicates
the importance, or lack of it, that the local Church assigns to mission work.
11. "The mission director is officially appointed by the Bishop, and is usually a member of
the presbyteral council".
Most of the Mission Directors, appointed by the Bishop, are also members of the
Presbyteral council.
12. “The Local Church has priests in the vicariates or deaneries who coordinate with
the parishes in the implementation of the mission programs.”
The negative answers to this survey question outnumber the positive answers, although
the difference is not very significant. Still it shows that there is not enough

21. 21
coordination between the office and the field, as far as mission programs are
concerned.
Recommendations
The recommendations from survey participants were integrated with those from the
survey analysts, because these were found to be very similar. Hence, they were treated
as one, each complementing the other’s observations and recommendations.
1. Recommendation 1: The meaning of Missions should be correctly understood by
all players in the local Church.
The Church is missionary by nature because she draws her origin from the mission
of the Son and the mission of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the decree of the
Father (Ad Gentes 2). Thus MISSION is constitutive of the Church’s very being.
In other words, to be a Christian is to be caught up in the very life of God, which is
a life of reaching out, a going forth and establishing God’s saving presence in the
world. There is Church because there is mission, which is its raison d’être.
As applied to Church life, two aspects of Mission may be considered: a) Ad extra -
which is the propagation of the Faith, evangelization, and the idea of preaching the
Gospel to all nations; b) Ad intra - pastoral work and strengthening the faith
among believers. This means that even those doing pastoral work should have the
missionary spirit of reaching out and going forth, as much as does doing
evangelization and propagation of the Faith.
2. Recommendation 2: The Mission structure on the national, diocesan and parish
levels should be strengthened, integrated to have a coherent and coordinated
mission program and activities on all levels.
3. Recommendation 3: For our mission directors to organize more training and
effective programs for our seminarian, priests, religious and lay leaders to promote
missionary spirit in our local churches for the ad intra and ad extra aspects of
Mission.
4. Recommendation 4: The local Church should have more coordination and
participation in the programs and activities of mission institutes, and preferably to send
priests and laymen to study there, in order to have a more thorough grounding on the
concept and practice of Mission. These could be future mission directors on the
national, diocesan and parish levels.
5. Recommendation 5: The local Church should provide enough resources, logistics
and fulltime personnel – both mission director and staff - to enable them to
adequately promote both the ad intra and ad extra aspect of Mission in their
localities.

22. 22
6. Recommendation 6: Formation materials are inadequate in quantity and
quality. There should be a concerted effort to provide these to aid mission staff
to perform their function properly.
7. Recommendation 7: As commonly observed, there is no permanent staff
working for the commission on mission and evangelization. Throughout the years,
mission directors find themselves always initiating programs and activities with no
continuity (starting and starting all over again and again). Therefore, it is
recommended that:
a. Bishops appoint full time mission directors;
b. Bishops should also establish an office/centre for mission animation and
formation training;
c. Bishops should also allocate a yearly budget for the purpose of the mission
office operations;
d. Bishops should also hire regular staff to help the commission for mission and
evangelization; and
e. Mission Directors should have a clear annual PPOA corresponding to the ECM
and the National Office of the PMS-Philippines.
8. Recommendation8:The CBCP Commission on Mission and or its chairman:
a. Shouldvisit all Dioceses and talk to the clergy with the PMS Director; and
b. Initiate a regional Inter-Dioceses Dialogue on Mission.
9. Recommendation 9: The role of the laity in Mission should be developed,
emphasized and practiced in all church lay organizations, schools, and parishes.
They should be as missionary as the priests and religious. These can be
accomplished thru the following:
a. A strong and effective mission program in lay organizations, schools and
parishes;
b. Strengthening and developing the Basic Ecclesial Communities as a tool of
mission work;
c. Sending out of lay missionaries to mission territories both locally and abroad;
and
d. Establishing Mission Clubs in schools and parishes.
10. Recommendation 10: The establishment of twinning programs on the parish and
diocesan level, to learn from each other, establish best practices and programs,
share both personnel and material resources, and send missionaries to each other’s
localities.

23. 23
11. Recommendation 11: A comprehensive and integrated Mission Program must be
created from the CBCP level down to the parish level, and integrated with the
overall Pastoral Program.
12. Recommendation 12: Bishops and Diocesan priests, particularly parish priests,
shall undergo an on-going mission formation on integrating pastoral work and
mission, to be initiated by the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Mission,
particularly on new evangelization;
13. Recommendation 13: Mission congresses for parishes - dioceses and national -
will be conducted as part of the formation itinerary in preparation for the National
Mission Congress in 2021. The CBCP Episcopal Commission on Mission shall
conduct formations seminars for diocesan and parish animators based on mission
modules to be prepared after the National Ad Gentes Conference.
SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND EXHORTATION
The results and recommendations of this survey exercise emphasizes and points out that
true concept and practice of Mission in the Philippine setting has just begun. Its journey
towards missionary discipleship poses a veritable challenge to the whole Philippine
Church to be passionate missionary agents.
Let us passionately embrace and embark on this challenging journey together with the
Laity as One People of God.
As Pope Francis puts it: “Every Christian is a missionary to the extent that he or she has
encountered the love of God in Christ Jesus: we no longer say that we are “disciples”
and “missionaries,” but rather that we are always “missionary disciples.” (Evangelii
Gaudium)

24. 24
ANNEX 1: PARTICIPATING ECCLESIASTICAL TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS
1 Antipolo Most Rev. Gabriel V. Reyes, DD
2 Borongan Most Rev. Crispin B. Varquez,DD
3 Baguio Most Rev. Carlito J. Cenzon, DD
4 Basilan Bishop Martin Sarmiento Jumoad, DD
5 Boac Most Rev. Marcelino Antonio Maralit, DD
6 Bontoc-Lagawe Most Rev. Valentin Dimoc, DD
7 Bukidnon Most Rev. Jose Araneta Cabantan, DD
8 Caceres Rolando Octavus Tria Tirona, OCD, DD
9 Calapan Most Rev. Warlito Cajandig, DD
10 Calbayog Most Rev. Isabelo C. Abarquez, DD
11 Cebu Most Rev. José Serofia Palma, DD
12 Cotabato Cardinal Orlando B. Quevedo, OMI, DD
13 Daet Most Rev. Gilbert Garcera, DD
14 Digos Most Rev. Guilermo Afable, DD
15 Dipolog Most Rev. Severo C. Caermare, DD
16 Dumaguete Most Rev. Julito Buhisan Cortes, DD
17 Iba Most Rev. Florentino G. Lavarias, DD
18 Ilagan Most Rev. Joseph Nacua, DD
19 Iligan Most. Rev. Elenito delos Reyes, Galido, DD
20 Imus Most Rev. Reynaldo Evangelista, DD
21 Jaro Most Rev. Angel Lagdameo, DD
22 Kabankalan Most Rev. Patricio A. Buzon, DD
23 Kalibo Most Rev. Jose Corazon Tala-oc, DD
24 Laoag Most Rev. Renato Mayugba, DD
25 Legazpi Most Rev. Joel Z. Baylon, DD
26 Libmanan Most Rev. Jose Rojas, DD
27 Lingayen-Dagupan Most Rev. Socrates B. Villegas, DD
28 Lipa Most Rev. Ramon C. Arguelles, DD, STL
29 Lucena Most Rev. Emilio Z. Marquez, DD
30 Maasin Most Rev. Precioso D. Cantillas, SDB, DD
31 Manila Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, DD
32 Marbel Most Rev. Dinualdo Gutierrez, DD
33 Masbate Most Rev. Jose S. Bantolo, D.D.
34 Mati Most Rev. Patricio Hacbang Alo, DD
35 Novaliches Most Rev. Antonio R. Tobias, DD
36 Nueva Segovia Most Rev. Marlo Peralta, DD
37 Ozamis Most Rev. Jesus A. Dosado, CM
38 Palo Most Rev. John Forrosuelo Du, DD
39 Paranaque Most Rev. Jesse E. Mercado, DD
40 Pasig Most Rev. Mylo Hubert C. Vergara, DD
41 Puerto Princesa Most Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, DD
42 Romblon Most Rev. Narciso V. Abellana, DD
43 San Carlos Most Rev. Gerardo A. Alminara, DD
44 San Jose Most Rev. Antonio Palang, SVD, DD
45 San Jose de Nueva Ecija Most Rev. Roberto C. Mallari, DD
46 Sorsogon Most Rev. Arturo M. Bastes, SVD, DD, SSL
47 Surigao Most Rev. Antonieto Dumagan Cabajog, DD
48 Tuguegarao Most Rev. Sergio Utleg, DD
49 Urdaneta Most Rev. Jacinto Jose, DD
50 Virac Most Rev. Manolo de los Santos, DD

25. 25

26. 26