MARCH 2020

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2020-03

Baseline Study on Policy and Governance

Gaps for the Local Government Support Fund
Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program

Charlotte Justine Diokno-Sicat, Catharine E. Adaro,

Ricxie B. Maddawin, Angel Faye G. Castillo,
and Maria Alma P. Mariano

The PIDS Discussion Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for
purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions expressed are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Institute.

CONTACT US:
RESEARCH INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
Philippine Institute for Development Studies

18th Floor, Three Cyberpod Centris - North Tower [email protected]

https://www.pids.gov.ph
EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines (+632) 8877-4000
Baseline Study on Policy and Governance Gaps for the Local
Government Support Fund Assistance to Municipalities
(LGSF-AM) Program

Integrated Report

Charlotte Justine Diokno-Sicat

Catharine E. Adaro
Ricxie B. Maddawin
Angel Faye G. Castillo
Maria Alma P. Mariano

PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

March 2020
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
2. Scope, Methodology and Discussion Flow .............................................................. 3
2.1 Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................... 3
2.2 Discussion Flow .................................................................................................... 6
3. Local Development Instruments and Fiscal gaps..................................................... 7
3.1 The Local Development Council, Local Development Investment Program and
Horizontal and Vertical Alignments........................................................................ 7
3.2 Fiscal Gaps ......................................................................................................... 15
4. Local Government Performance Monitoring and Governance Gaps ...................... 26
4.1 Local Government Performance Monitoring ........................................................ 26
4.2. Governance Gaps: Results of the Baseline Study nationwide survey of
municipalities on LGU Development Planning ..................................................... 36
4.3. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: The Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinators (MPDC) .................................................................... 50
4.4. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: The Municipal Budget
Officer/Accountant............................................................................................... 53
4.5. Perceptions on the LGU planning process: The municipal engineer .................... 56
4.6. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: Civil Society Organizations .............. 60
5. Summary and General Findings ............................................................................ 65
5.1. Summary of Components 1, 2, and 3.1 ............................................................... 65
5.2. Component 3.2 results ........................................................................................ 67
6. Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................................... 76
7. References ............................................................................................................ 84
8. Annexes ................................................................................................................ 88

List of Tables
Table 1. Types and number of survey respondents for the LGSF-AM primary data collectio . 6
Table 2. Share of LGUs with passing scores for LDC functionality and plans, by region (in
percent) .................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 3. Number of municipalities whose LDIPs are aligned with at least one framework
(PDP, SDG, or Sendai Disaster Framework), grouped by quartiles of projects
aligned per municipality ..................................................................................................... 12
Table 4. Number and value (in PhP) of projects classified as local roads, DRRM, health, and
water, as a share of the total number and value of proposed LDIP projects for FY
2019 ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 5. LGU submission rates for PIDS LGSF-AM infrastructure data inventory (as of June
2019), by region .................................................................................................................. 16
Table 6. Municipal submission rates for the infrastructure data inventory ................................ 16

i
Table 7. Estimated length and costing of unpaved municipal roads, 2017, by region (in PhP
Million) .................................................................................................................... 17
Table 8. Level of water systems in the Philippines ....................................................................... 19
Table 9. Number of barangays that still have access exclusively to Level 1 water system only
by municipality, province and region: 2017..................................................................... 19
Table 10. Costing and budget considerations of design recommendations for the
construction or repair/rehabilitation/upgrading of evacuation centers ........................ 21
Table 11. Inventory and costing of evacuation centers by region, 2017 ................................... 22
Table 12. Estimation of RHU infrastructure gap using 2015 CPH data and LGSF-AM data
submissions, 2017 .............................................................................................................. 23
Table 13. Difference between DOH NFHR data and LGSF AM data submissions, 2017 ...... 24
Table 14. Asset management: Income generating enterprise, 2017 ......................................... 25
Table 15. Asset management: Real property assets, 2017......................................................... 25
Table 16. Asset management: Purpose of loans availed, 2017 ................................................. 26
Table 17. The SGLG 2017 core and essential areas ................................................................... 27
Table 18. Criteria definition of the SGLG 2018.............................................................................. 28
Table 19. Eligible projects under the Performance Challenge Fund.......................................... 29
Table 20. Scale definition in assessing regular and locally sourced income ............................ 30
Table 21. Scale definition for IRA dependence ............................................................................. 30
Table 22. Rating system for total expenditure per capita across LGU type .............................. 31
Table 23. Number of LGUs with correct/valid CLUP, CDP and LDIP (in terms of coverage or
period of validity), as of 2017 ............................................................................................ 37
Table 24. NGAs that are members of the municipal planning team for the CDP ..................... 39
Table 25. Dataset development tool/s utilized by LGUs as the primary source for the
preparation/updating of your ecological profile .............................................................. 43
Table 26. Tools/mechanisms utilized by municipalities in screening PPAs for prioritization .. 46
Table 27. Project types included in the ranked list of PPAs of LGUs ........................................ 47
Table 28. Ranking of proposed indicators for PPA prioritization for inclusion in the AIP........ 47
Table 29. Source of financing sought by LGUs ............................................................................. 48
Table 30. Top five areas of concern faced by the LGUs as viewed by the MPDC .................. 52
Table 31. Perception of MPDC on how CSOs can best engage in the LGU development
plans ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 32. Perception of Municipal Budget Officer/Accountant on how CSOs can best
engage in the LGU development plans ........................................................................... 56
Table 33. Top five areas of concern faced by the LGUs as viewed by the Municipal Engineer
............................................................................................................................................... 59
Table 34. Perception of Municipal Engineer on how CSOs can best engage in the LGU
development plans.............................................................................................................. 59

ii
Table 35. Sectors of CSO members of the MPT ........................................................................... 60
Table 36. Awareness of CSO in selection criteria for MPT CSO membership ......................... 61
Table 37. Ranking of DILG proposed project readiness indicators ............................................ 65

List of Figures
Figure 1. Local Planning Illustrative Guide .......................................................................... 10
Figure 2. LDF Utilization rate of Philippine municipalities by region, 2016 ........................... 32
Figure 3. LDF Utilization rate of Philippine municipalities by LGU income class, 2016 ........ 33
Figure 4. Local revenue and local tax effort of municipalities by region, 2016 ..................... 35
Figure 5. Local revenue and local tax effort of municipalities by LGU income class, 2016 .. 35
Figure 6. Total assets of municipalities for FY 2016 by region, in million PhP ..................... 36
Figure 7. Members of the municipal planning team for the CDP .......................................... 38
Figure 8. Sectors represented by the CSOs that are members of the municipal planning
team ...................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 9. Official/s who initiated the updating of the LGU's latest CLUP and CDP/LDIP/AIP 41
Figure 10. Official/entities that identify the vision of the municipality .................................... 41
Figure 11. Data items utilized by LGUs in preparing/updating their ecological profile and in
decision-making or policy-making process (N= 1,265) ........................................... 44
Figure 12. Funding sources of LGUs for their 2017 AIP PPAs ............................................ 49
Figure 14. Perspective of the MPDC to the extent of coordination between LGU and DILG in
PPAs. .................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 15. Implications of DILG requirements attached to grant-type of funding.................. 52
Figure 16. Perception of MPDC of the CSO participation of CSO in the preparation of the
CDP ...................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 17. Specific roles/assignment of the Municipal Engineer as a member of the MPT in
the preparation/updating of CDP ........................................................................... 57
Figure 18. Perspective of the Municipal Engineer to the extent of coordination between LGU
and DILG in PPAs ................................................................................................. 58
Figure 19. Implications of DILG requirements attached to grant-type of funding.................. 58
Figure 20. Perception of Municipal Engineer of the CSO participation of CSO in the
preparation of the CDP .......................................................................................... 59
Figure 21. Level of CSO participation in the steps of CDP preparation/updating ................. 62
Figure 22. Assessing the CSO's level of influence on the outcomes in the preparation/
updating of the LGU's CDP ................................................................................... 63
Figure 23. Mechanisms on how can CSOs best engage in the preparation/updating of LGU
development plans ................................................................................................ 64

iii
 List of Acronyms Used

AIP Annual Investment Program

ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
BHS Barangay Health Stations
BLGD Bureau of Local Government Development
BLGF Bureau of Local Government Finance
BLGS Bureau of Local Government Supervision
BUB Bottom-up Budgeting
BUR Budget Utilization Rates
CapDev Capacity Development
CBMS Community-Based Monitoring System
CDP Comprehensive Development Plan
CIDDRA Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CMCI Cities and Municipalities Competitiveness Index
CO Capital Outlays
COA Commission on Audit
CODIX Central Office Disaster Information Coordinating Center
COE Current Operation Expenses
CSO Civil Service Organization
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government
DOF Department of Finance
DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction Management
DRRMO Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development
ELA Executive and Legislative Agenda
EP Ecological Profile
FDP Full Disclosure Policy
FDPP Full Disclosure Policy Portal
FGD Focused Group Discussion
FSS Fiscal Sustainability Scorecard
GAA General Appropriations Act
GAM Goal Achievement Matrix
GIDA Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas
HFEP Health Facility Enhancement Program
HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
IRA Internal Revenue Allotment
Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery
KALAHI-CIDSS of Social Services
KII Key Informant Interview
KMITS Knowledge Management Information and Technology Service
LCE Local Chief Executive
LDC Local Development Council
LDF Local Development Fund

iv
LDIP Local Development Investment Program
LDIS Local Development Indicator System
LDRRMO Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office
LFC Local Finance Committee
LGC Local Government Code
LGPMS Local Governance Performance Management System
LGSF-AM Local Government Support Fund - Assistance to Municipalities
LGU Local Government Unit
LRMP Local Resource Mobilization Program
MC Memo Circular
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MEO Municipal Engineer Office
MLGOO Municipal Local Government Officer
MOOE Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
MPDC Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator
MPDO Municipal Planning and Development Office
MPT Municipal Planning Team
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NAPC National Anti-Poverty Commission
PCF Performance Challenge Fund
PDC Provincial Development Council
PDIP Provincial Development Investment Program
PDP Philippine Development Plan
PFM Public Financial Management
PHFDP Philippine Health Facilities Development Plan
PIDS Philippine Institute for Development Studies
PMO Project Management Office
PO People’s Organization
PPA Programs, Projects and Activities
PPDO Provincial Planning and Development Office
PPP Public-Private Partnerships
PS Personal Services
PWD Persons with Disabilities
RaPIDS Rationalized Planning Indicator and Data Set
RCBMS Rapid Community Based Monitoring System
RDC Regional Development Council
RHU Rural Health Unit
RO Regional Office
SALINTUBIG Sagana at Ligtas na Tubig Para sa Lahat
SB Sangguniang Bayan
SCALOG System on Competency Assessment for Local Governments
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SGFH Seal of good Financing Housekeeping
SGH Seal of Good Housekeeping
SGLG Seal of Good Local Governance
SLGP Support to Local Government Program

v
SUC State Universities and Colleges
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WSS Water Supply and Sanitation

vi
Abstract

Despite almost three decades of Philippine decentralization, local governments continue

experience varied levels of development and face challenges in delivering devolved basic
services. At the same time, the national government has been continuously providing various
forms of support for local governments to carry out devolved functions to build their capacity
towards genuine fiscal autonomy. One major challenge faced in assessing the impact of the
various interventions is the lack of baseline data. This current study aimed to identify policy
and governance gaps in infrastructure and planning to provide baseline data on key areas and
current planning practices of local governments to provide the necessary information for taking
the next steps in decentralization.

This report covers 1,373 municipalities and establishes baseline information on fiscal gaps in
local roads, evacuation centers and rural health units. This study also documents governance
gaps in development planning through a survey of planning practices vis-à-vis the DILG-
prescribed process of these municipalities. These are all done within the context of current
local development instruments and performance monitoring systems reviewed during the initial
stages of the drafting of this report.

The desk review highlighted low revenue effort as well as inadequate utilization of mandated
funds for development across municipalities. These facts contribute to delayed local
development and have been attributed to poor planning such as lack of detail on development
projects, lack of coordination and poor monitoring.

The fiscal gaps estimated in this study were based on the submissions of 91% (or 1,248 of
1,373) of municipalities on infrastructure in the key areas existing in 2017. Computations were
made on the objectives (1) to pave all municipal roads existing in 2017; (2) build one primary
evacuation center for all geographically and isolated (GIDA) areas; and (3) construct one rural
health unit for every 20,000 Filipinos.

Some of the identified governance gaps in development planning included: (1) the need to
enforce compliance with the mandate requiring LGUs to update their multi-sectoral
development plans regularly since it was found that only 40% surveyed municipalities have
recent comprehensive development plans (CDP); (2) revisiting the basis for establishing the
current situation of a locality since the results showed that 57% of municipalities use the
Community Based Monitoring System (CBMS) for ecological profiling but did not do so
regularly and exhaustively; (3) the need for improved project readiness both in terms of
establishing the feasibility of projects as well as the priority since the results showed that about
half of the municipalities always prepared project briefs and did the prescribed second round
of prioritization; and, (4) strengthen the capacity development programs of which 82% of
municipalities claim to have for the implementation of the CDP and particularly for monitoring
and evaluation strategies where only 38.4% of the respondents answered in the affirmative.

Keywords: Governance gaps, comprehensive development plans, monitoring and evaluation,

Philippine municipalities survey, programs projects and activities

vii
 Baseline study on policy and governance gaps for the Local Government
Support Fund Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program
(Integrated Report)

Charlotte Justine Diokno-Sicat, Catharine E. Adaro, Ricxie B. Maddawin,

Angel Faye G. Castillo, and Maria Alma P. Mariano*

1. Introduction

Despite more than two decades of Philippine decentralization, Philippine local governments
(LGUs) continue to face challenges in delivering devolved basic services. Because of this,
national government provides transfers and financial support to LGUs to carry out devolved
functions to build their capacity towards genuine fiscal autonomy. In 2018, the National
Government scaled up efforts to ensure meaningful devolution by providing the Local
Government Support Fund – Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program under R.A.
No. 10964, otherwise known as the FY2018 General Appropriations Act (GAA) (DILG 2018).

This program, which covers 1,373 municipalities, is a source of funding of projects from their
respective Local Development Investment Programs (LDIPs)1 Eligible LDIP programs
include: (i) local access roads; (ii) local bridges; (iii) potable water system projects; (iv)
evacuation center and disaster risk reduction-related equipment; (v) small water impounding
projects; (vi) rain water catchment facilities; (vii) sanitation and health facilities; and, (viii)
municipal drug rehabilitation facility.2 The fund is allocated based on equal share, fiscal
capacity, per capita share, and share for good performance.3

The release of funds to the municipality is subject to compliance with the following: (i) the
requirements of the DILG Seal of Good Financial Housekeeping4; (ii) the requirements of the
DILG Local Development Council functionality assessment5; and, (iii) assessment of Public
Financial Management (PFM) systems6 and adoption of the corresponding PFM improvement
measures.

To be able to monitor and assess the progress in addressing the infrastructure gaps of
municipalities covered by the LGSF-AM Program, the DILG and the Philippine Institute for
Development Studies (PIDS) conducted a baseline study to identify policy and governance
gaps of municipalities. This study scoped, reviewed and systematically analyzed existing LGU

*
Research Fellow; former Supervising Research Specialist; Research Analyst; Research Analyst; and former Senior Research
Specialist, at PIDS, respectively. Diokno-Sicat is also assistant professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman and currently
on secondment at PIDS.
1
The LDIP is a document linking the local development plan, known as the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), to the
annual local budget.
2
(Republic of the Philippines 2017, Vol. II-B, Special Provision No. 2, p. 585)
3
[DILG-DBM Joint Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 2017-03 dated May 23, 2017]
4
The Seal of Good Financial Housekeeping is a measure of LGU accountability and transparency. It is granted by the DILG to
LGUs that obtained an unqualified or qualified Commission on Audit (COA) Opinion for 2015 and complied with the Full Disclosure
Policy of Local Budget and Finances, Bids and Public Offerings (DILG MC 2011-08A). The SGFH is a component of the Seal of
Good Local Governance (DILG MC 2017-53).
5
Please refer to Section 3.1 for a more detailed discussion.
6
Refers to all aspects of resource mobilization and expenditure management in government (DILG Memorandum Circular No.
2018-61).

1
performance indicator systems with focus on the following key infrastructure areas 7: (i) local
roads, (ii) potable water systems, (iii) evacuation centers, and (iv) rural health units (RHUs)8.
Component 1 reviewed current LGU performance measures and systems used in the
implementation of the LGSF-AM, particularly: (1) local development council (LDC)
functionality9; and, (2) vertical and horizontal linkages of LDIPs to national and sectoral plans
and commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the Sendai
Framework on climate change.

While Component 1, established the groundwork by reviewing current LGU performance

based on existing measures and systems, Component 2 examined in more detail existing local
government data and monitoring systems to assess the current state of local service delivery
systems and resource mobilization.

Component 3 was originally designed to have two parts:

(1) Sub-component 3.1: the application of verifiable metrics to evaluate selected LGUs
based on Component 1 results.

(2) Sub-component 3.2: the identification of policy and governance gaps in development
planning and local service delivery for selected key areas of infrastructure through
focus group discussion (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs).

However, challenges in data availability and in estimating infrastructure gaps caused a revision
in the coverage and methodology of Component 3. Infrastructure gaps and data on asset
management which were supposed to be included in Component 2 were deferred to Component
3 which was subsequently divided into: (1) Subcomponent 3.1 that contains the infrastructure
and policy gaps and submitted to the DILG in January 2019; and, (2) Subcomponent 3.2 which
is this current report, that focuses on governance gaps in development planning.

The combined findings of Components 1 and 2 reports warrant further examination of the
planning process and how it manifests in local government expenditures. An important
question that emerged from the component reports of the baseline study is, why, despite the
overall good score for LDC functionality and excellent score for the presence of plans, was
poor planning identified by the Commission on Audit (2016, 2017) reports as reasons for low
utilization rates of the Local Development Fund?

With this, the logical next step was to validate these findings by conducting a survey to identify
governance gaps in the local planning process. The survey covered all LGSF-AM
municipalities with focus on the LGU planning process, specifically the drafting of the
Comprehensive Development Plan as prescribed by the DILG (DILG 2008). The respondents
included the members of the local planning team as well as those from accredited Civil Service
Organizations (CSOs) involved in the local planning process to assess the level of participation
of these groups in the identification and prioritization of projects, asset management and
resource mobilization.

7
The key infrastructure areas included in this study were identified based on the specified national government priorities in DBM
Circular Letter No. 2018-05 as well as in coordination with the DILG SLGP-PMO (DBM 2018).
8
The initial intention was to include Barangay Health Stations but it was decided to focus on RHUs.
9
An LGU performance measure constructed by the DILG Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLGS) in 2017.

2
This report is an integration of the three component reports separately submitted to the DILG
for the completion of the PIDS DILG LGSF AM Baseline Study Project. This report
summarizes the discussions and findings from the three components in order to come up with
policy recommendations for the LGSF-AM Program.

2. Scope, Methodology and Discussion Flow

In order to successfully achieve the objectives of the baseline study, mixed research methods
were used.

2.1 Scope and Methodology

2.1.1. Component 1

A desk review and key informant interviews (KII) were conducted to assess current tools used
to gauge LGU performance in general, and to evaluate the following specifically:

a. The state of functionality of all levels of the LDCs based on the 2017 Local
Development Council Functionality assessment of the DILG – Bureau of Local
Government Supervision (BLGS);
b. The quality of existing Local Development Investment Programs (LDIPs) of the LGSF-
AM municipalities; and
c. The presence of horizontal and vertical linkages of the LDIPs of the LGSF-AM
municipalities to national plans such as the Philippine Development Plan 2017-22
(vertical) and sectoral plans (horizontal).

For Component 1(b), the initial intention was to evaluate the quality of the LDIP using a two-
fold operational definition that was dependent largely on data availability. The first step was
supposed to be an assessment of whether or not the LDIP contains investment programs that
are sufficient to address the infrastructure gap for the key infrastructure areas covered by the
study. The plan was to collect data from national government or public sector master plans for
infrastructure, water resources, and disaster risk reduction and management-related
infrastructure, and examining if the LDIPs completely address the corresponding gaps. The
second assessment was to look at the success of including the relevant LDIP projects in the
Annual Investment Plan (AIP) and the LGU’s Appropriation Ordinance for 2017. However,
data and information limitations caused the redesign of the Component 1 report from evaluating
the quality of the LDIPs to estimating infrastructure and fiscal gaps based on data gathered
from the local governments, with the latter being cost of these gaps, in the key areas of roads,
potable water, evacuation centers and RHUs for municipalities.

For Component 1(c), the vertical and horizontal linkages of projects indicated in the municipal
LDIPs were assessed. Vertical linkages refer to whether or not projects covered by the key
infrastructure areas in the municipal LDIPs are aligned with the Philippine Development Plan
(PDP) for 2017 to 2022. This relied heavily on the assessment conducted by the DILG- Bureau
of Local Government Development (BLGD) based on DILG Memorandum Circular (MC) No.
2017-84 “Guidelines for Strengthening Linkage of National/Regional/Provincial Development
Strategies, Programs, Projects and Activities (PPAs) with the Comprehensive Development
Plan (CDP)”. Sec. 6.3.2.4 of the same directed local bodies to conduct an assessment of the
alignment of the LDIP (for either City or Municipality) to Provincial Development Investment

3
Programs (PDIP), for which the latter was already determined to be aligned with vertical
linkages (i.e., PDP 2017-2022, AmBisyon Natin 2040) and horizontal linkages (i.e., sectoral
linkages for international commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030).

2.1.2. Component 2

Component 2 of the study was also a desk review and analysis of existing administrative data
and monitoring reports submitted by the LGUs to the DILG. Data gathered for this report was
to assess and develop baseline information for the following:

a. The current state of local service delivery systems for the key areas under study (as
indicated by budget utilization rates, BUR) and documented bottlenecks in current
reports and literature;
b. The current state of resource mobilization and asset management; and
c. Infrastructure needs of the LGUs in the key areas of infrastructure

Component 2(a) focused on the budget utilization rates (BUR) of the local (municipal)
development fund which is mandated to be 20% of the annual Internal Revenue Allotment
(IRA) of the LGU. Component 2(b) focused on the financing capacity of the municipality and
looked at two aspects, resource mobilization and asset management. Resource mobilization
highlights the ability of LGUs to raise revenues to finance expenditures and focused on two
definitions of locally-sourced revenues: (1) local tax effort defined as locally-sourced tax
revenues as a share of total income; and, (2) locally-sourced revenues computed as revenue
from local sources, which includes both tax and non-tax revenues as a share of total income.
Data for resource mobilization was readily available at the Bureau of Local Government
Finance (BLGF).

As for asset management in Component 2(b), the primary concern was identifying (1) how
much revenues are raised from LGU-owned assets; and (2) how much is spent for its
maintenance in each municipality. Data on the value of total assets is available at the BLGF,
but the detail needed for this report was gathered directly from the LGUs with the assistance
of the DILG.

Similarly, the data for the estimation of the infrastructure gap for key areas in Sec. 2(c) 10 was
gathered directly from the LGUs with the assistance of the DILG. Because of technical issues,
the completion of infrastructure gap estimates was deferred to Component 3.

2.1.3. Component 3.1: Fiscal gaps

Estimating the infrastructure gap by identifying the ideal and existing levels for each key
infrastructure area proved to be a major challenge for the PIDS Study team. This was
particularly true for two infrastructure areas, local roads and potable water systems. For local
roads, no administrative data on the length of local roads or any network master plan from any
national government agency was available. Similarly, no integrated database of information on
the infrastructure gap for water system at the municipal level was available, despite the

10
The Component 1 report contains a discussion of how infrastructure gaps will be defined for the key areas of: (1) local roads;
(2) potable water systems; (3) evacuation centers; and, (4) rural health units (RHUs) and Barangay health units (BHUs).

4
presence of major government programs to satisfy water supply requirements of the LGUs such
as the Sagana at Ligtas na Tubig sa Lahat (SALINTUBIG) program of the National Anti-
Poverty Commission (NAPC) and funding for water systems through the DILG-WSS-PMO.
On the other hand, the estimation of infrastructure gaps for the two remaining identified
infrastructure areas, the evacuation centers and the RHUs and BHS were relatively easier to
formulate since available data for the estimation criteria were available.

In response to the data challenges and to determine procedures in the estimation of

infrastructure and fiscal gaps, the study team, with the assistance of the DILG SLGP PMO,
conducted data collection activities to gather municipal level data on the four key infrastructure
areas. To facilitate the data collection, an advisory to DILG ROs was sent by the then DILG
Undersecretary for Local Government Austere Panadero requesting LGUs to provide data to
PIDS on their current inventory (as of 2017) of the four key infrastructure areas was farmed
out to all DILG regional offices (See Annex C. Advisory: Data on Infrastructure Needs of the
Municipal LGUs in Key Areas of Infrastructure).

The LGU infrastructure inventory data templates developed by PIDS included the following
forms:

Form 1. Population Distribution

Form 2. Inventory of Existing Municipal and Barangay Roads (as of 2017)
Form 3. Inventory on Major Sources of Water by Water System Level (as of 2017)
Form 4. Inventory of Evacuation Centers (as of 2017)
Form 5. Inventory of Health Facilities (as of 2017)
Form 6. Asset Management (as of 2017)

The respective Municipal Local Government Officer (MLGOO) of each LGU was designated
to ensure information dissemination, provide administrative guidance, and coordinate with
concerned LGU personnel relative to the accomplishment of all the forms provided by PIDS.

2.1.4. Component 3.2: Governance Gaps

The identification of governance gaps in local government planning was facilitated through a
nationwide primary data collection exercise using five semi-structured questionnaires that were
administered to LGUs and CSO representatives. The information obtained from the interviews
were used to assess LGU compliance to the DILG-recommended process of the
drafting/updating of the CDP, and consequently in the preparation of the LDIP and the AIP, as
well as to identify other mechanism/s that is/are utilized for the planning process.

Primary data collection covered all the 1,373 LGSF-AM beneficiary-municipalities identified
in the FY 2018 GAA, R.A. No. 10964 as specified in the DILG Department Order No. 2018-
61 (DILG 2018).

Primary data was collected from the municipal planning team members from two different
perspectives. The first perspective was of the Municipal Planning Team aimed to assess the
LGU’s conformity to the DILG-recommended guidelines in the development/updating of the
CDP. The second perspective drew out the perceptions of the same set of respondents (i.e.,
members of the Municipal Planning Team (MPT)) with the regard to the various aspects of
local development planning of the LGU and CSO participation in local development planning.

5
The participants of the survey were LGU personnel involved in the design and drafting of the
following development plans: (1) the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP); (2) the Local
Development Investment Program (LDIP); and, (3) the Annual Investment Program (AIP).
These respondents included the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, the
Municipal Budget Officers or /Accountant, and the Municipal Engineer. A CSO representative
who was a member of the MPT was also interviewed in order to get their perceptions on various
aspects of local development planning of the LGU.
The survey team successfully interviewed 100% of the 1,373 municipalities. From these, a total
of 4,101 LGU representatives/personnel consisting of 1,371 MPDCs; 1,363 Municipal
Engineers; and 1,367 Municipal Budget Officers/Accountants, and 1,356 CSO representatives
served as respondents (Table 1).

Table 1. Types and number of survey respondents for the LGSF-AM primary data collection
No. of Target No. of Target
Response
Survey Component Interviews Per Interviews for Actual
Rate
LGU All LGUs
A. LGU Survey
LGU Planning Team 1 1,373 1,373 100.0%
3 LGU representatives
• Municipal Planning & 1 1,373 1,371 99.8%
Development Coordinator
• Municipal Engineer 1 1,373 1,363 99.6%
• Municipal Budget 1 1,373 1,367 99.3%
Officer/Accountant
B. CSO Survey
Representative/s of selected 1 1,373 1,356 98.8%
CSO

2.2 Discussion Flow

This report presents the integrated results of the Baseline Study and weaves the component
report results into a narrative that shows how planning impacts the ability to implement projects
that should contribute to development. To develop this narrative, the results of the component
reports are not discussed chronologically as above, but more intuitively aligning current
government performance measures with the resultant fiscal and governance gaps.

Section 3 looks at local development instruments and fiscal gaps. It focuses on the functionality
of all the levels of the LDC, the quality of existing LDIPs and the presence of horizontal and
vertical linkages studied in Component 1. This section also presents Component 3.1 estimated
infrastructure and fiscal gaps for the LGSF-AM municipalities based on 2017 data submitted
to the PIDS Study team.

Because of data and information limitations, part of the Component 1 approach was redesigned
from evaluating the quality of the LDIPs to estimating infrastructure and fiscal gaps based on
submissions of municipal governments for the key areas of roads, potable water, evacuation
centers and RHUs for municipalities. The resultant infrastructure gaps and costs of these gaps
could possibly be used as a point of comparison with existing LDIPs as a minimum amount or
possible criteria to assess the reported investment programs. Similar priorities and/or costing

6
of investment programs contained in the LDIPs and the infrastructure gaps identified in
Component 3.1 could possibly suggest that the LDIPs crafted by the LGUs are somewhat
responsive to their needs. On the other hand, if LDIP investment programs for the specific areas
differ from the identified infrastructure gaps, the municipalities could consider revisiting these.

Section 4 focuses on local government performance and governance gaps. The discussion of
findings for Components 2 and 3.2 follows accordingly and allows focus on governance gaps.
While Component 2 focused on the assessment of the current state of local service delivery
systems, Component 3.2 assessed the compliance of the LGUs to the DILG-recommended
process of drafting/updating of the CDP, and eventually in the preparation of the LDIP and the
AIP. By identifying areas for improvement in the planning process practiced by the LGUs as
reflected in the primary data collection results, recommendations for improvement of local
service delivery systems can be drawn.

3. Local Development Instruments and Fiscal gaps

3.1 The Local Development Council, Local Development Investment Program and
Horizontal and Vertical Alignments

The Local Development Council (LDC) is a local body mandated to produce multi-sectoral
development plans such as the comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) and development plan
(CDP). In drafting the CDP, a resultant output is the local development investment program
(LDIP) that identifies infrastructure investments aimed to bridge the gaps between the vision
of local governments and their current realities. Component 1 looked at elements of local
planning that contribute to the drafting of the LDIP and, consequently, the delivery of devolved
basic infrastructure services. These include the participation of the mandated Local
Development Council (LDC) in steering the drafting of multi-sectoral plans such as the
Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) and the LDIP which are both crucial/paramount to
being able to effectively provide the necessary infrastructure investments.

Though Philippine local governments are given the authority to identify priorities, raise
revenues and are entitled to the intergovernmental fiscal grant called the internal revenue
allotment (IRA) they can also explore other sources of financing for their investment programs.
One such option that local governments look at are grants given by national government
agencies. These national government programs that offer grants to LGUs are typically subject
to conditions of local governments meeting certain criteria (i.e. satisfying existing local
government performance measures) and spending on national government priority areas such
as roads and other infrastructure. As a result, another element of local government planning
examined in this study are current efforts of the national government to ensure the vertical and
horizontal alignment of local governance tools with nationwide priorities (DILG 2017).

3.1.1. The Local Development Council

The Local Development Council is a local body comprised of elected officials and sectoral
representatives tasked to initiate a comprehensive multi-sectoral development plan for its
respective local government unit, assist the corresponding local legislative body in setting the
direction of economic and social development and coordinating development efforts within its
territorial jurisdiction. Every LGU at the provincial, city, municipal, and barangay level shall
have a corresponding LDC. Sections 106 to 114 of Republic Act (R.A.) 7160 or the Local

7
Government Code of 1991 provide for the functions, composition,11 and minimum standards
for assessing the functionality of LDCs.12

In 2017, the DILG-BLGS produced the Profile of Local Development Council Functionality
in the Philippines (DILG-BLGS 2017) as part of the 2017 Seal of Good Local Governance
Assessment.13 The evaluation covered 1,715 LGUs, and the metrics used to assess LDC
functionality were based on a modified scaling system developed by the BLGS beyond the
minimum standards of the Local Government Code (LGC).

Though LDC functionality is evaluated based on several criteria, the baseline study focused on
the scores for ‘Overall LDC Functionality’ and ‘Plans Formulated’ (i.e., whether an LGU had
a CDP, LDIP or AIP). The results of the 2017 DILG-BLGS profile14 showed that the regional
average score for overall LDC functionality was 83 percent, with Region 7 (Central Visayas)
and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) lagging with scores of 71.8 and 35
percent, respectively.

In terms of LGUs’ scores for plans, there were eight regions with at least one LGU that had a
failing score, i.e., the LGU did not have a CDP, LDIP or AIP. However, more than 97 percent
of LGUs received a passing score for plans in nearly all regions, with the exception of ARMM,
in which only about 60 percent of municipalities received a passing score for the criterion
(Table 2).

Table 2. Share of LGUs with passing scores for LDC functionality and plans, by region (in
percent)
Region In terms of LDC Functionality In terms of Plans
Region 1 93.8 100.0
Region 2 86.7 98.0
Region 3 84.7 100.0
Region 4-A 82.3 100.0
Region 4-B 83.3 98.7
Region 5 82.5 96.7
Region 6 85.8 99.1
Region 7 71.8 99.1
Region 8 85.2 99.3
Region 9 84.0 100.0
Region 10 86.7 96.9
Region 11 94.4 100.0
Region 12 83.3 100.0
Region 13 88.5 98.7
National Capital Region (NCR) 82.4 100.0
Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) 92.8 98.8
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) 35.0 59.3
Negros Island Region* 91.5 100.0
Source: Department of Interior and Local Government

11
(Republic Act No. 7160 1991, Sec. 106)
12
(Republic Act No. 7160 1991, Secs. 107 to 113)
13
(DILG 2017)
14
Annex A provides a regional summary of LGUs’ scores in terms of overall LDC functionality and plans.

8
 3.1.2. The Local Development Investment Program

The Local Development Investment Program (LDIP) is a document that links the
Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) to the annual local budget. It contains a prioritized
list of programs, projects and activities (PPA) aligned with the CDP and matched with
financing resources over a period of three (3) years (DILG 2016). The annual components of
the LDIP are referred to as the Annual Investment Program (AIP) which should serve as a basis
for the annual local budget document (DILG 2016).

Meanwhile, the CDP is a multi-sectoral plan formulated at the city or municipal level which
contains the vision, sectoral goals, objectives, development strategies, and policies within the
term of LGU officials in the medium term, i.e. six (6) years. The CDP contains the following:
(i) Ecological Profile; (ii) Development Plan; and (iii) Implementing Tools (Local
Development Investment Program, Legislative Requirements, and Capacity Development
Programs). Recognizing that the six (6) year period of the CDP is longer than the three (3)
year electoral term of local chief executives, the planning process prescribes the development
an Executive and Legislative Agenda (ELA) that is based on the CDP but reflective of the
current administration’s platform of government (DILG 2016, DILG 2019).

Aside from the CDP, LDIP, and AIP, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is another
tool used to guide LGUs in planning the delivery of basic services. The CLUP is the “skeletal-
circulatory framework of the territory’s physical development, it identifies where development
can and cannot be located and directs public and private investments accordingly for a time
frame of nine (9) years (DILG 2016, 1).” Figure 1 shows the relationship between the different
local planning tools and the local budget.

The CLUP, CDP, and LDIPs undergo their respective vetting processes. The CLUP of
component cities and municipalities are reviewed by the Provincial Land Use Committee.
Meanwhile, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) is responsible for the review process
of the CDP of component LGUs, with the Provincial Planning and Development Office
(PPDO) acting as technical secretariat. The review process follows three-steps, namely: (1)
form review, which ensures that the CDP and LDIP are complete; (2) process review, to
determine whether the CDP and LDIP submission reflects the organizational/institutional
processes (including information sharing and consensus building) and content generation
linkages/leadership involvement and consultation and participation; and, (3) content review,
to assess the substance and logic of the CDP and LDIP submission (DILG 2016).

9
Figure 1. Local Planning Illustrative Guide

Source: DILG Local Planning Illustrative Guide: Preparing and Updating the Comprehensive Development Plan

The LDIPs are considered as one output document in the CDP planning cycle. The lead offices
responsible for drafting the same are the municipal planning team and the local finance
committee. The planning team is responsible for: (1) prioritizing activities; (2) ensuring that
the process includes proper sectoral representation; and, (3) drafting the document diligently
and judiciously (DILG 2016). The local finance committee, with particular focus on the local
treasurer and budget officer, is responsible for the Local Resource Mobilization Program
(LRMP), Financing Plan, and the Medium-Term Forecasts of Current Operating Expenses,
respectively.

The LDIP, being a component of the CDP, is reviewed by the PDC. The PDC review of the
LDIP focuses on two general aspects: (1) the quality of policies, such as alignment of PPAs
with CDP-identified priorities as well as the inclusion of revenue, financing, and cost recovery
policies; and, (2) the quality of the LDIP financing plan and investment schedule. The review
of the latter includes analyses of both historical and expected trends in revenue and
expenditures as well as investment financing and debt servicing (DILG 2016).

For this Baseline Study, the intention was to evaluate the quality of the LDIP using a different
perspective from the financing plan perspective of the PDC review. Rather, the quality of the
LDIP was to be defined in terms of its ability to capture the infrastructure gaps and financial
needs of LGUs (which are, in turn, necessary to finance the infrastructure gaps) to satisfy a
minimum requirement for each key infrastructure area. The rationale behind this perspective
is driven by the nature of the LGSF-AM as a lump-sum fund given by the national government
on top of the mandated shares of internal revenue and national wealth. As such, it may be said

10
that the intent to aid LGUs under the program would be prudent to the extent that their
infrastructure needs are met based on a predetermined ideal (i.e., to provide a minimum number
of evacuation centers per area/population, or a certain standard quality for roads or water
systems).

However, through the conduct of the study, it was found that the necessary data requirements
to be able to ascertain the minimum needs for infrastructure proved to be a challenge. Section
3.1.4 discusses the adopted methodology in this study.

3.1.3. Vertical and horizontal alignment of the LDIPs: Are the LDIPs linked to both
national and cross-sector priorities?

Though it is recognized that LGUs have the authority to identify local priorities, there have
been efforts in recent years to align the LDIPs with national priorities such as the Philippine
Development Plan (PDP) 2017 – 2022. One of the reasons for the need for alignment is that
local governments are envisioned as partners of the national government in development
(Republic of the Philippines 1991, Sec. 2). Another possible reason for strengthening linkages
of national/regional/provincial development plans with CDPs is to align national government
assistance to LGUs.15 For example, it is important to ensure that the national government’s
push on infrastructure spending be supplemented and complemented by local infrastructure.

At present, the LDIP is used as the basis for requesting funding for priority projects from three
(3) sources: (1) the LGU’s AIP and the local annual budget; (2) the national budget through
national government agencies (DBM 2018); and, (3) through the LGSF-AM program
(Republic of the Philippines 2017, 585).

There have also been efforts to ensure cross-sectoral alignment of LGUs in the form of
guidance on updating and preparing plans aligned with recent statutes such as: (i) disaster risk
reduction and management and climate change adaptation and mitigation; (ii) the United
Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); and (iii)
other sectoral concerns such as the presence of armed conflict and marginalized sectors in land
use and development planning both at the national and local levels (DILG 2016).

To illustrate, a sample analysis of the LDIP alignment was done for the province of Ilocos Sur,
which has 32 municipalities and consequently, 32 LDIPs. Municipalities reported the
alignment of each proposed project with the PDP, SDGs, and/or Sendai framework. This
entailed determining whether each project is aligned with any of the three frameworks for each
municipality, then counting the number of aligned projects per framework. Table 3 shows that
majority (21 out 32 municipalities or 65.6%) of municipalities in Ilocos Sur have 76 percent to
100 percent of LDIP projects aligned with the PDP, 68.7 percent are aligned with the SDGs,
and only 18.7 percent are aligned with the Sendai Framework in this quartile.

15
DILG MC No. 2017-84

11
Table 3. Number of municipalities whose LDIPs are aligned with at least one framework
(PDP, SDG, or Sendai Disaster Framework), grouped by quartiles of projects aligned per
municipality
Framework [76% - 100%] [51% - 75%] [26% - 50%] [0 - 25%]
PDP 21 6 3 2
SDG 22 5 4 1
SENDAI 6 3 10 13
Total 49 14 17 16
Source of basic data: Department of Interior and Local Government

3.1.4. Evaluating the quality of existing Local Development Investment Plan (LDIPs)

One of the biggest challenges in proceeding with the LGSF-AM baseline study was in setting
the definitions and/or criteria by which to evaluate the quality of local plans, specifically in
estimating the infrastructure gap by identifying the ideal and existing levels for each key
infrastructure area. The key infrastructure areas were identified based on the Department of
Budget and Management’s (DBM) Circular Letter No. 2018-5, which prescribes that the DILG
shall:
“…endorse to the RDC concerned the local government units’ (LGUs’) list of priority
projects, as identified in the Local Development Investment Programs that cannot be
funded from their resources…, for possible funding and implementation under the
following programs:
1.1.1 Health Facilities Enhancement Program of the Department of Health;
1.1.2 Farm-to-Market Roads of the Department of Agriculture;
1.1.3 Sagana at Ligtas na Tubig sa Lahat (SALINTUBIG) Program of the DILG;
1.1.4 Communal Irrigation System of the National Irrigation Administration;
1.1.5 Level III Water Supply System of the Local Water Utilities Administration;
1.1.6 Local Roads and Bridges program of the Department of Public Works and
Highways.”

As an alternative, what was estimated instead were the infrastructure gaps in the key areas,
comparing a defined ideal quantity/number or standard of quality of local infrastructure within
a municipality to the existing number or quality. Even this presented the challenge of defining
the ‘ideal’ and looking for readily available consolidated data on existing key infrastructure
areas. Except for the health facilities where data for both ideal and existing health infrastructure
was accessed through the Health Facilities Enhancement Program (HFEP) and the Department
of Health’s (DOH) Knowledge Management Information and Technology Service (KMITS),
estimating the infrastructure gap for the other key infrastructure areas presented a challenge.
Because of the devolution of the provision of local roads and water systems under the Local
Government Code, countrywide efforts to develop a road map/master plan would require a
collaboration of efforts at both the national and local government level. Although there have
been previous efforts in this area, the development of a local road network database and updated
water supply and sanitation road map were still in progress during the conduct of this study.

For each of the infrastructure areas identified below, the discussion will focus on the following:
(1) why it is a focus area; (2) challenges in identifying the infrastructure/fiscal gap; and, (3)
solutions to estimating the gaps.

12
 3.1.4.1. Local access roads. To highlight municipal prioritization of local roads
projects, a sample analysis of the municipalities in three provinces (Marinduque, Biliran, and
Capiz) showed that 38 percent of total proposed projects were for local roads (See Table 4).
Of the proposed LDIP projects in Marinduque, 25 percent are local roads, while only 4 percent
are water projects. In terms of the value of proposed projects, 63 percent of the total value of
proposed LDIP projects in Capiz are for local roads.

Table 4. Number and value (in PhP) of projects classified as local roads, DRRM, health, and
water, as a share of the total number and value of proposed LDIP projects for FY 2019
Key Marinduque Biliran Capiz
infrastructure Share to Percentage Share to Percentage Share to Percentage
areas total of total total of total total of total
number of value of number of value of number of value of
proposed proposed proposed proposed proposed proposed
projects projects projects projects projects projects
Local roads 25.2 21.6 13.5 28.8 23.2 63.3
DRRM 10.3 13.4 9.8 16.0 15.9 13.2
Health 7.3 2.0 9.0 3.1 7.5 1.9
Water 4.3 0.3 3.3 1.9 2.4 1.9
Source for basic data: Department of Interior and Local Government

However, in the case of local roads, and perhaps because of its being a devolved function, there
is neither a comprehensive or national government-identified Master Plan or Road map
identifying the ideal location and length of local roads per municipality, nor an updated
inventory of existing local roads.

Combined with the lack of readily available administrative data on the length of local roads, as
well as the absence of a road network master plan within national government agencies, another
alternative sought by the PIDS team was to define the infrastructure gap in terms of the surface
type of roads as a proxy indicator for road quality. In this case, the ideal was to ensure that all
municipal roads which are currently unpaved (i.e., gravel or dirt) become paved (i.e., concrete
or asphalt). Given this perspective, the team estimated the infrastructure and corresponding
fiscal gaps based on a target of 100% paved roads. This objective is consistent with the effort
of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to have paved most of the national
roads (DPWH 2016).

Initially, the team considered using the CLUP as a data source to estimate the infrastructure
gap for local road surface type at the municipal level. However, only a number of LGUs have
made their CLUPs publicly available on official websites, and these documents had outdated
information on local roads. In the case of administrative data from the DPWH, information
on the surface type of local roads are only available from 2000 to 200216 (World Bank 2011).
As a recourse, the DILG SLGP-PMO assisted the PIDS team in collecting primary data on the
surface type of local roads from municipalities covered by the LGSF-AM.

16
The data showed that in FY 2002, 85.72% of local roads nationwide were unpaved. On average, only 12% of local roads in
regions except for NCR were paved.

13
 3.1.4.2. Water systems. The UNDP Sustainable Development Goals No. 6 is a
commitment to “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for
all.” Though the national government is primarily responsible for attaining this goal, this
requires combined efforts at all levels of government. At the local level, there are two separate
efforts to satisfy the water supply requirements of LGUs, namely: (i) the SALINTUBIG
program through NAPC, and (ii) funding for water systems through the DILG-OPDS - Water
Supply and Sanitation Project Monitoring Office (WSS PMO) with funding support from the
LGSF (Banluta 2018).

Despite these efforts, however, there is no integrated database of information on the

infrastructure gap for water systems at the municipal level, perhaps also because the provision
of safe water supply is a function devolved to LGUs. Likewise, as mentioned from Section
2.1.4 of this report, the PIDS Study Team, together with the DILG requested the LGUs to
submit data on existing infrastructure, including the inventory of major sources of water by
level of water system. However, this strategy presented challenges as well. These challenges
include: (1) incomplete submissions from the LGUs; (2) inaccurate/erroneous entries as to the
number of households/proportion of the population served by each level of water service; and
(3) the non-exclusivity of the levels of access available in municipalities (i.e. one municipality
may have all three levels of water as sources of water). Hence, estimating the infrastructure
gap in this sector has proved to be a difficult.17.

The same sentiment was also highlighted in a 2016 PIDS study which primarily aimed to
evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the same water programs (Porciuncula, Erfe and
Navarro May 2016). For the SALINTUBIG program, the report stated that information on
project outcomes remain slim since data gathered from progress and process monitoring reports
were usually more on project profiles, physical and financial status and compliance to
requirements. Meanwhile, for the WSS program, the study highlighted that although there is
available WSS access data, including that of the PIDS database on WSS access (1985-2009),
they were disaggregated at regional level only and is not a good basis for targeting and
designing WSS intervention.

As a recourse, the estimation for the infrastructure and fiscal gap for water systems in this
report was downgraded to the determination of the number of municipalities with barangays
that still access water exclusively from Level 1 services based on the submitted data from the
LGUs. Although the fiscal and infrastructure gaps per se may not be estimated using this
methodology, at least the number and location of barangays that still access to exclusively
Level 1 water system are identified and counted.

3.1.4.3. Evacuation centers. In the absence of a national standard for the ideal number
of evacuation centers per LGU, barangays/municipalities classified as Geographically Isolated
and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA) due to physical factors was used as proxy to identify
disaster-prone areas. Meanwhile, municipal-level data from the DILG-Central Office Disaster
Information Coordinating Center (CODIX) was used to determine the existing number of
evacuation centers. The infrastructure gap was then be estimated by tagging LGUs in disaster-
prone areas (i.e., GIDAs) and matching the same with the list of existing evacuation centers.

17
Though there are present efforts to update the Philippine Water Supply Sector Road Map 2 nd Edition (2010), the preliminary
report will be released in the latter part of 2018.

14
 3.1.4.4. Rural Health Units (RHUs) and Barangay Health Stations (BHS). Though there
have been improvements in health outcomes in the Philippines, “(T)the country had not met
Millennium Development Goal targets 4 and 5, related to maternal and child health in 2015
(World Bank 2018).” In addition, “one in three children under age five is stunted” (World
Bank 2018). These facts underscore the importance of access to health care services to address
these issues.

The Philippine Health Facilities Development Plan (PHFDP) 2017-2022 of the DOH serves as
a roadmap for planning and programming government investments in health facilities. The
PHFDP aims to promote rational allocation of government investments and ensure equitable
access to health facilities. In line with these objectives, the Plan identifies national targets for
the ideal number of health facilities as follows: i) one BHS per barangay, and ii) one RHU per
20,000 population.

Further, the DOH maintains the National Health Facility Registry (NHFR), a database of all
health facilities in the country by type of facility (i.e., BHS, RHUs, hospitals) and by
municipality and/or barangay (in the case of BHS). In the case of both BHS and RHUs, the
infrastructure gap was identified by counting the number of barangays/regions that do not have
existing BHS/RHUs using administrative data from the NHFR.

3.2 Fiscal Gaps

3.2.1. Submission Rates

As mentioned above, LGU level data for the four key infrastructure areas for municipalities
under study were gathered from LGU submissions of the PIDS-developed data template. From
August 2018 to June 2019, LGUs submitted data to PIDS by uploading accomplished templates
in the designated Google drive provided by the PIDS study team. The data would: (1) be stored
as an inventory and used as baseline data for the key infrastructure areas of LGSF-AM
municipalities; and, (2) serve as the major basis of the estimation of infrastructure and fiscal
gaps.

The ability to generate accurate estimates of infrastructure and fiscal gaps depends primarily
on the data available and the ideal case would be a correct and complete submission of all
LGSF-AM municipalities. Incomplete data will produce either over- or underestimated
infrastructure and fiscal gaps that would not represent the true needs of these LGUs. In the
case of local roads, the monetary requirements to pave all existing roads would be
underestimated for the total of municipalities with incomplete data.

In consultation with the DILG SLGP PMO, the PIDS study team considered LGU submissions
until June 2019 only in order to come up with the final estimations discussed in this report.18
Table 5 below displays the overall submission rates aggregated by region. 19 The overall
submission rates in most regions are relatively high except for Region V, with only 49.5%
submission rate. As regards to submission rates by forms, Table 6 shows that Form 6 (Asset
Management) has the lowest submission rate (with entries) with only 92.6%, followed by Form
4 (Inventory of Primary Evacuation Centers) with 92.9% submission rate.

18
LGU submissions beyond June 30, 2019 were not included in this Component 3.1 report
19
LGUs that accomplished at least one of the six forms is counted as ‘with submission’

15
Table 5. LGU submission rates for PIDS LGSF-AM infrastructure data inventory (as of June
2019), by region

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

Table 6. Municipal submission rates for the infrastructure data inventory

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

3.2.2. Estimation of Infrastructure and Fiscal Gaps

This section presents the estimates of infrastructure and fiscal gaps for the key areas of
infrastructure. Each of the following sub-sections focus on one area of infrastructure, discusses
the procedure used by the PIDS study team to derive estimates and presents the results. It
should be noted that the estimates are conservative ones, depend on the incomplete submissions
of municipalities (which implies that it does not represent exactly the infrastructure needs of
all municipalities) and are dependent on the correctness of the reporting of the municipalities
(which would have implications as well in asset management practices of municipalities.

16
 3.2.2.1. Local roads. An alternative formulation for the identification of infrastructure
gap for the local roads was in terms of the surface -type of roads as proxy indicator for road
quality. In this case, the ideal would be to ensure that all municipal roads which are currently
unpaved (i.e. gravel or earth fill) be paved (i.e. concrete or asphalt). Given this perspective, the
team estimated the infrastructure and corresponding fiscal gaps based on a target of 100%
paving of municipal roads existent in 201720, an objective consistent with the effort of the
DPWH to have most of the national roads paved (Department of Public Works and Highways
2016).

The infrastructure gap was estimated by computing the total length of unpaved roads (i.e.,
gravel and earth fill) reported while the fiscal gap was computed by multiplying the length of
unpaved roads per municipality to the cost of concreting local roads. According to the DILG
Office of the Project Development Services (OPDS), a rough estimate of the cost of concreting
a kilometer of local roads (6.1m x 0.20m carriageway width) is PhP 16.5 million (DILG-OPDS-
PMO 2018). Table 7 shows the computed estimates of the amount needed (i.e. fiscal gap) for
the concreting of local roads aggregated by region21. The results can be interpreted as the fiscal
gap to pave 100% of existing local roads for 86.7% or 1190 municipalities is PhP 133.3 trillion.
There are, of course, many caveats to this estimation such as assuming the veracity and
completeness of the data reported and the accuracy in processing as well as the methodology.
But despite these, this exercise gives an approximation of the fiscal needs for just the existing
roads and not for all municipalities.

Table 7. Estimated length and costing of unpaved municipal roads, 2017, by region (in PhP
Million)

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

20
One of the caveats for this target of 100% paved municipal roads is that there are factors to consider such as not all roads
should be paved (lead to overestimation of figures), there are paved roads but with poor road quality which may necessitate
repaving (lead to underestimation); and, continuous opening of new roads (underestimation). All of these caveats must be taken
into consideration when coming up with the exact fiscal gaps but this does not mean that such estimates are invalid, these could
be considered as conservative ones.
21
A detailed estimation of the fiscal gap per province can be requested from the PIDS Team.

17
 3.2.2.2. Water supply. The Sustainable Development Goal No. 6 is a commitment to
“Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” This was
promoted to a full-fledged goal from the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Though the
national government is primarily responsible for attaining this goal, this requires combined
efforts at all levels of government. The Philippine Water Sector Supply Roadmap (2010)
highlighted the following issues in water and sanitation: (1) institutional fragmentation because
of fragmented institutional framework and policies; (2) uncoordinated sector planning and
monitoring because of lack of government agency programs to develop capabilities and provide
technical support for LGUs to perform devolved functions (e.g. water utilities); and, (3) lack
of reliable, updated and periodically reviewed sector data and information.22

One of the major efforts of the Philippine government in ensuring safe and sustainable water
supply is the Sagana at Ligtas na Tubig Para sa Lahat (SALINTUBIG) program which started
in 2010. The program is being implemented by the DILG through the OPDS in partnership
with the DILG Regional Offices (ROs) and the target Provinces and Municipalities as
implementing partners (DILG 2018). Under the SALINTUBIG program, waterless
municipalities are defined as those in which less than 50% of households have access to water
based on the 2010 National Household and Targeting System (NHTS). In 2010, 455
municipalities were identified as waterless. In 2015, the number went down to 288 from the
original number of waterless municipalities identified in 2010, however, there were 44
municipalities added to the list (National Anti-Poverty Commission n.d.). However, a 2016
PIDS study on the evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of the program implementation
of the SALINTUBIG Program revealed that as of June 2015, only a total of 62 out of the 455
municipalities have reportedly graduated from being waterless (Porciuncula, Erfe and Navarro
May 2016).

The SALINTUBIG Program is implemented and managed by DILG-OPDS WSS-PMO. The

funding support is through the Local Government Support Fund (LGSF). (LGUs who are
compliant to the requirements of the Seal of Good Financial Housekeeping (SGFH), PFM, and
LDC functionality are eligible to access the funds under the SALINTUBIG Program and
LGSF-AM for their water supply projects. According to the DILG-OPDS WSS-PMO, Level 2
and expanding or upgrading Level 3 water systems are prioritized (Banluta 2018). To improve
the quality of the proposals, the DILG OPDS WSS PMO provides capacity building programs
to LGUs for the preparatory, implementation and monitoring and evaluation phases of the
construction of water systems under their purview (Banluta 2018).

Despite these efforts, however, there is a need to establish an integrated database of access to
all levels of water systems in the country. The levels of water system in the Philippines are
defined in the following table:

22
Though there are present efforts to update the Philippine Water Supply Sector Road Map 2nd Edition (2010), the preliminary
report was scheduled to be released in the latter part of 2018.

18
Table 8. Level of water systems in the Philippines
Level Description
A protected well or a developed spring with an outlet but without a
distribution system as it is generally adaptable for rural areas where
Level 1 (Point Source)
the houses are thinly scattered serving an average of 15 households
with people having to fetch water from up to 250 meters distance
Level 2 (Communal Faucet A piped system with communal or public faucets usually serving 4-6
System or Standpost) households within 25 meters distance
Level 3 (Waterworks A fully reticulated system with individual house connections based
System) on a daily water demand of more than 100 liters per person.
Source: NEDA Board Resolution No. 12, Series of 1995 (as cited in National Economic Development Authority
2010).

Due to these issues mentioned above, estimating the infrastructure gap in this sector has proved
to be a challenge. As stated in Section 3.1.4.2 of this report, the estimation for the infrastructure
and fiscal gap for water systems was translated to the determination of the number of
municipalities with barangays that still access to water exclusively from Level 1 services based
on the submitted data from the LGUs. Table 9 below displays the number of barangays that
were identified to still have exclusive access to only Level 1 water system.

Table 9. Number of barangays that still have access exclusively to Level 1 water system
only by municipality, province and region: 2017
Region/Province/ Municipality Number of Barangays
CAR 23
Abra 7
Apayao 4
Ifugao 12
Region I 104
Ilocos Sur 80
Pangasinan 24
Region II 116
Cagayan 48
Isabela 51
Nueva Vizcaya 17
Region III 12
Pampanga 12
Region IVA 44
Quezon 44
Region IVB 12
Romblon 12
Region V 23
Albay 23
Region VI 34
Aklan 12
Iloilo 22
Region VII 25
Bohol 4
Cebu 21
Region VIII 83

19
 Region/Province/ Municipality Number of Barangays
Biliran 17
Eastern Samar 17
Samar 49
Region IX 28
Zamboanga del Norte 28
Region XI 12
Davao Occidental 12
Total 516
Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team
Overall, there are 516 barangays found in 34 municipalities in 21 provinces that are reported
to still access to water exclusively from Level 1 water system sources. Among the regions,
Region II (Cagayan Valley) has the highest number of barangays with Level 1 access to water,
at 104 barangays. The province of Isabela was found to have the most number of barangays
with Level 1 access to water with 51 barangays. On the other hand, Region III and Region IVB
had the fewest barangays with exclusive level 1 access to water, with both having 12 barangays.

3.2.2.3. Evacuation centers. In the absence of a national standard for the ideal number
of evacuation centers per LGU, barangay/municipalities classified as GIDA due to physical
factors will be used as proxy to identify priority disaster-prone areas. The municipal-level data
from the DILG-CODIX was used to determine the existing number of evacuation centers. The
infrastructure gap was then estimated by tagging LGUs in disaster-prone areas (i.e. GIDAs)
and matching the same with the list of evacuation centers submitted by the LGUs through the
PIDS DILG data inventory request (See Annex D - Form 4 Inventory of Evacuation Centers
(as of 2017)). The infrastructure gap is estimated as the number of evacuation centers needed
to be constructed in all the DOH defined GIDAs.23

Meanwhile for the estimation of the fiscal gap, the PIDS study team considered the costing of
three design recommendations for the construction of evacuation centers suggested by the
DILG-OPDS. These design recommendations are used in the construction or
repair/rehabilitation/upgrading of evacuation centers under the LGSF-AM program and are
selected on a case-to-case basis depending on the need of the LGU.

The following are the minimum design requirements for the construction of evacuation centers
under the LGSF-AM program:

• Estimated cost per square meter for the building is PhP 20,000-25,000
• Toilet and bathing areas (1:20 persons)
• Separate toilet and bath for male and female
• Minimum of one toilet per site for persons with disability (PWD)
• Average accommodation of 1.33 sq.m. per person
• Maximize utilization for natural ventilation system
• Provision of Rainwater Collector
• Can withstand three hundred (300) kph wind speed and moderate seismic
activity of at least 8.0 magnitude on Richter scale

23
The team explored different possible definitions of GIDA areas such as with the DSWD but it apparently uses the same list as
DOH (DSWD 2014).

20
 • Include facilities for the special needs of women, children the elderly, PWD and
such other physical provisions guaranteeing a humane condition for evacuees.

Table 10 enumerates the three design recommendations from the DILG-OPDS as well as its
corresponding estimated costs and other budget considerations:

Table 10. Costing and budget considerations of design recommendations for the
construction or repair/rehabilitation/upgrading of evacuation centers
Budget
Design 1 Design 2 Design 3
Considerations
Estimated Cost PhP 4M PhP 7.6M PhP 25M
Total Floor Area 225.09 sq.m 423.2 sq.m 1,397 sq.m.
Lot Requirements 299 sq.m 672.7sq.m. 1,2459 sq.m.
Total Capacity 15 families @ 5 37 families @ 5 146 families @ 5
persons/family persons/family persons/family
Basic Facilities • Disaster Risk • DRRMO • DRRMO (1 water
Reduction • Breastfeeding Room closet; 1 lavatory)
Management Office • Storage Area • Breastfeeding Room
(DRRMO) • Clinic Room • Storage Area
• Breastfeeding Room • Kitchen/Mess Hall • Infirmary (1 water
• Storage Area • Rainwater Collector closet; 1 lavatory)
• Rainwater Collector • Solar Panel • Child Friendly Room
• Solar Panel • Female Comfort • 2 Communal
• Female Comfort Rooms (4 water Kitchens/Wash
Rooms (3 water closets; 3 lavatories; 3 Areas
closets; 3 lavatories) shower heads) • Rainwater Collector
• Male Comfort Rooms • Male Comfort Room • Solar Panel
(3 water closets; 3 (3 water closets; 2 • Female Comfort
lavatories) urinals; 2 lavatories; 3 Room (6 water
• PWD Comfort Rooms shower heads) closets; 6 lavatories;
(1 water closet; 1 • PWD Comfort Room 3 shower heads)
lavatory) (1 water closet; 1 • Male Comfort Room
lavatory) (6 water closets; 4
lavatories; 4 urinals;
3 shower heads)
• PWD Comfort Room
(1 water closet; 1
lavatory)

Source: DILG-OPDS, November 2018

Table 11 displays the computed cost estimates per region, for all the three design
recommendations, of the amount needed (i.e. fiscal gap) for constructing evacuation centers in
all GIDAs identified by the DOH.24 As in the case of local roads and water systems above, the
estimation of the fiscal gaps in evacuation centers also has many caveats. First, only 84% of
the total number of municipalities accomplished this form. Second, the primary evacuation
center is defined as the ideal since it is constructed primarily for evacuation and not a multi-
purpose structure such as a school-building or municipal hall. Finally, as a result of incomplete
24
A complete estimation of the fiscal gap per municipality is available upon request from the PIDS study team.

21
data and strict ideal of a primary evacuation center for GIDA areas, the total fiscal gap may be
overestimated.

Table 11. Inventory and costing of evacuation centers by region, 2017

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

3.2.2.4. Health facilities. In estimating the infrastructure and fiscal gaps for RHUs,
several sources of data were used, namely: (1) DOH’s NFHR which reports data on health
facilities in the country; (2) Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) PopCen population figures;
and, (3) LGU submissions from the PIDS LGSF AM Form 5 – Inventory of Health Facilities
(See Annex D).

The PHFDP defines the ideal number of RHUs per municipality to be determined by its
population size (i.e., one RHU per 20,000 population). The ideal number of RHUs per
municipality were computed based on two sources of population data, the PSA’s 2015 PopCen
and the PIDS LGSF-AM LGU data submissions. With only an 88% submission rate of the
latter, the resultant figures for needed RHUs came out to be underestimated not just because of
the limited number of submissions but also because of underestimated population figures
submitted by the municipalities compared to the PSA figures. As a result, the ideal number of
RHUs were computed using the 2015 PSA population figures.

Table 12 displays the RHU infrastructure gap and the corresponding cost depending on whether
the area is non-GIDA or GIDA. Using the 2015 Census data, the ideal number of RHUs should
be 2,824 for every 20,000 Filipinos. With a total of 1,186 RHUs reported, the gap based on
the 2015 Census data is 1,638 with corresponding cost ranging from PhP 17.9 billion to 21.4
billion. It is important to note that underestimated figures for RHUs based on LGU
submissions results in the overestimation of the difference.

22
Table 12. Estimation of RHU infrastructure gap using 2015 CPH data and LGSF-AM data
submissions, 2017

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

Apart from estimating the ideal number of RHUs based on population, the gap (difference
between the ideal number of RHUs as per 2015 CPH and the DOH NHFR RHUs) reported in
column (d) of Table 12 estimates that for all regions, 1,638 RHUs still need to be constructed.
Again, this manner of estimation should be approached with caution since there might be other
criteria used to determine the need for RHUs. Take the example of CAR, the 2015 CPH
suggests the region should have 63 RHUs based on 2015 population estimates but the NHFR
reports it has 78 RHUs, furthermore, the 90.7% of CAR municipalities that submitted data to
the PIDS reported 63 RHUs (Table 12). These results could indicate many things such as the
higher need for RHUs in CAR because of the landscape; being more prone to calamities and
the high presence of GIDA areas. However, more data is needed to come up with an accurate
estimate of such needs.

Given the incomplete LGU data submissions as well as the DOH’s NHFR, it would be useful
to validate the submissions by examining the difference between national government
registered RHUs and those reported by LGUs. Table 13 shows that the reported RHUs are
only 70% of RHUs in all regions as reported in the NHFR with a difference of 469 RHUs. This
difference shows that the underreported LGU submissions figures are still within the national
government health facilities registry figures and relying on incomplete data would result in the
overestimation of the fiscal gap.

23
Table 13. Difference between DOH NFHR data and LGSF AM data submissions, 2017
Number of
Number of DOH Number of RHUs in
Number of Municipalities
NHFR RHUs for LGSF-AM Difference
Municipalities under LGSF-AM (d)/(b)
REGION LGSF-AM Municipalities with (b)-(d)
under LGSF-AM with Data
Municipalities Data Submissions
Submissions
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
All Regions (except
1373 1569 940 1100 70.1% 469
ARMM)
NCR 1
CAR 75 78 42 43 55.1% 35
Region I 116 129 98 113 87.6% 16
Region II 89 91 46 49 53.8% 42
Region III 116 204 82 136 66.7% 68
Region IVA 123 160 99 120 75.0% 40
Region IVB 71 78 36 39 50.0% 39
Region V 107 124 35 40 32.3% 84
Region VI 117 120 90 96 80.0% 24
Region VII 116 132 89 114 86.4% 18
Region VIII 136 142 88 98 69.0% 44
Region IX 67 70 40 44 62.9% 26
Region X 84 86 79 83 96.5% 3
Region XI 43 43 37 39 90.7% 4
Region XII 45 45 31 32 71.1% 13
CARAGA 67 67 48 54 80.6% 13
Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team, as of February 2019

3.2.2.5. Asset management. Aside from estimating the infrastructure and fiscal gaps
of the four key areas of infrastructure (local roads, potable water supply, evacuation centers
and health facilities), the study also tried to examine how municipalities manage their assets.
To do so, information about the three aspects of asset management were solicited including
their Income Generating Enterprises (IGEs), Real Property Assets, as well loans they availed
as of 2017 (See Annex D - Form 6 Asset Management (as of 2017).

This form had the lowest accomplishment rate at 92.6% (only 1248 municipalities submitted).
Because of the varied manner of reporting of LGUs’ Income Generating Enterprises (IGEs),
submissions were reclassified using on DBM classifications (DBM 2016). Other classifications
were added since other entries cannot be grouped in the original classification (refer to Annex
F to view items under each classification).

Because not all municipalities classified LGU income from enterprises by kinds of enterprise,
Table 14 shows that the bulk of LGU income from enterprise (41.9% or a total amount of PhP
3.5 billion) cannot be attributed to specific income generating enterprises. The second largest
share of LGU income from enterprises is public markets (23%) followed by water utilities
(10.4%), multiple economic enterprise (4.5%) and cultural/sports/recreational center (3.6%).

24
Table 14. Asset management: Income generating enterprise, 2017

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

LGUs were also asked to report the value of their Real Property Assets of which Land (54.4%),
Buildings (12.4%), and Others (11.1%) were the top three reported Real Property Assets (Table
15).25

Table 15. Asset management: Real property assets, 2017

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

25
The basis for this classification is the Revised Chart of Accounts for LGUs (Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 2015-
009).

25
Lastly, it was found that 80% of municipalities had existing loans in 2017. Some of the reasons
that municipalities borrowed were for: (1) conducting various construction works (30%); the
acquisition/purchase of heavy equipment (19.4%); and, (3) the construction/improvement of
public market (14.6%) (Table 16).

Table 16. Asset management: Purpose of loans availed, 2017

Source of basic data: LGU submissions to the PIDS LGSF-AM Team

4. Local Government Performance Monitoring and Governance Gaps

The first part of this integrated report focused on estimating the fiscal gaps in the key areas in
infrastructure. This next part of the report looks at the components of the Baseline Study that
contributed to the identify governance gaps. Component 2 examined existing local government
data and monitoring systems used to assess LGU service delivery and resource mobilization
while Component 3.2 presented the results of the nationwide survey on development planning
practices of municipalities.

4.1 Local Government Performance Monitoring

4.1.1. Review of sources of administrative data and monitoring reports

Part of Component 2 was devoted to the review of existing administrative data and LGU
monitoring reports and systems to establish current measures/assessments on local governance.
Included among these are the: (1) Full Disclosure Policy (FDP); (2) the Seal of Good Local
Governance; (3) Performance Challenge Fund (PCF); (4) Fiscal Sustainability Scorecard
(FSS); and, (5) the Cities and Municipalities Competitiveness Index (CMCI).

Overall, the existing performance and monitoring systems include the same revenue and
expenditure indicators consistently sourced from the BLGF. For LGU income, local tax and
revenue effort are included as performance indicators for the SGLG, the FSS and the CMCI.

26
For LGU expenditures, the FDP the SGLG and the FSS monitor the utilization of funds for
development purposes.

4.1.1.1. Full Disclosure Policy. The FDP requires local officials of provinces, cities, and
municipalities, particularly provincial governors, city mayors, and municipal mayors, to fully
disclose information on the local budget, finances, bids and public offerings, and other financial
transactions to keep constituents informed of how the LGU budget is managed, disbursed and
used (DILG 2011; DILG 2012; Local Government Code of 1991). The FDP aims to promote
transparency in the management and use of public funds. To complement such an objective,
the Full Disclosure Policy Portal (FDPP), a web-based portal, was introduced where LGU
officials are required to post prescribed FDP reports, and through which the public can
download, view, and print the same. DILG MC No. 2011-08A and DILG MC No. 2012-141
provide the guidelines for prescribed FDP reports, the frequency of posting, and the LGU
department or office responsible for submission, both through the FDPP and in general under
the FDP.

Of the FDP reports, the one relevant to the LGSF-AM baseline study is the report on the ‘20%
Component of the IRA utilization.’ This provides information on whether the mandated amount
intended for development purposes is being spent which, in turn, will have implications on the
LGUs’ growth and development.

4.1.1.2. Seal of Good Local Governance. The Seal of Good Local Governance
(SGLG) symbolizes integrity and good performance through continuing governance reform
and sustained local development (DILG 2017, DILG 2018). It originated from the Seal of
Good Housekeeping (SGH) which started a pilot run in 2010 with the objective of promoting
transparency and accountability in local government operations (DILG 2014). The Department
of the Interior Local Government (DILG) introduced the SGLG in 2014 as a scaled-up version
of the SGH with major objective of posing a further challenge for LGUs to continue good
governance reforms and, at the same time, provide better services. In 2017, to be awarded the
SGLG, an LGU needed to pass four core areas, and at least one essential area or the so-called
“4+1” principle enumerated in Table 17 below (DILG 2017):

Table 17. The SGLG 2017 core and essential areas

Core Areas Essential Areas
1. Financial Administration 1.Business-friendliness and Competitiveness
2. Disaster Preparedness 2.Environmental Protection
3. Social Protection 3.Tourism, Culture and the Arts
4. Peace and Order

From the 2017 assessment criteria of “4+1”, the DILG proposed an “ALL-IN” criteria for the
2018 SGLG assessment (DILG 2018). With this, LGUs must satisfy all areas of (1) Financial
Administration; (2) Disaster preparedness; (3) Social Protection; (4) Peace and Order; (5)
Business – Friendliness and Competitiveness; (6) Environmental Management; and (7)
Tourism, Culture and the Arts defined in Table 8 below:

27
Table 18. Criteria definition of the SGLG 2018
Criteria Definition
Financial Administration (Foster The practice of LGU accountability and transparency by
transparency and Accountability) adherence to accounting and auditing standards and
compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy (Good Financial
Housekeeping); sound management of resources (Financial
Performance); and optimal utilization of available
mechanisms and resources to support local development
(Financing Development).

Disaster Preparedness (Prepare Proactive LGU actions to prepare for disasters through
for challenges posed by disasters) mobilization of local DRRM structures and systems;
development and/or implementation of appropriate
programs and plans and the use of funds provided; building
competencies of concerned personnel; and ensuring
operational readiness with the availability of equipage,
supplies and other resources intended for early warning
and/or response.
Social Protection (Broaden access LGU actions to respond to the needs of disadvantaged sectors
to social services especially the like women, children, senior citizens, indigenous peoples and
marginalized and most vulnerable persons with disability (PWDs), urban poor, among others, by
in the community) managing facilities or services that cater to their needs such
as residential care facilities; providing support to basic
education and accessibility features in local government
buildings; enhancing means of social welfare services;
providing housing; and ensuring participation of the sector(s)
in local special bodies and in the local Sanggunian.

Peace and Order (Protect the LGU efforts in maintaining peace and order with the
community from threats to life implementation of activities and providing support
and security) mechanisms to protect constituents from threats to life and
security; and ensuring drug-free communities.

Business – Friendliness and LGU actions to bring about business and employment
Competitiveness (Attract more opportunities through systems, structures and/or legislation
business for investments and to support local economic development.
employment)

Environmental Management LGU efforts in safeguarding the integrity of the environment

(Uphold the integrity of the with an initial focus on the compliance with the Ecological
environment) Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.

Tourism, Culture and the Arts LGU efforts to promote and develop the local tourism
(Optimize tourism potential, and industry, preserve and enrich cultural heritage, and advance
enrich cultural heritage and creativity through local support.
community)

Source: DILG MC 2018-49

28
For purposes of this baseline study, the area of financial administration is the main item of
interest because it includes information both on budget utilization of the Local Development
Fund (LDF)26 and local revenue effort27. These data are sourced from the Department of
Finance (DOF) BLGF by the DILG for the SGLG assessment. Passers of the SGLG receive
eligibility for the Performance Challenge Fund (PCF) and other opportunities (DILG 2018).

4.1.1.3. Performance Challenge Fund. The PCF, established in 2010 by the DILG, is a
performance-based reform program that seeks to rationalize intergovernmental transfers of the
national government to LGUs. (DILG 2017). The PCF is an incentive, grant or cash award
given to eligible LGUs under the Local Governance Performance Management Program of the
DILG (DILG 2017). It may be used by eligible LGUs that receive the SGLG to support high-
impact local development projects that are included in their AIP and are consistent with
national goals and priorities. Examples of eligible local development projects are those that
support the attainment of the United Nations’ SDGs, stimulate local economic development,
promote ease of doing business, facilitate disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation,
promote environmental protection, and further transparency and accountability (Table 19).

Table 19. Eligible projects under the Performance Challenge Fund

Area of development Eligible projects

Attainment of School buildings, rural health units/health centers, birthing or

MDGs/Sustainable lying-in facilities, water and sanitation, housing and settlements,
Development Goals rehabilitation center, patrol cars, etc.

Stimulation Local Economic Core local roads and bridges, access roads, irrigation systems,
Development post-harvest facilities, cold storage facilities, ports and wharves
and other economic structures and growth enhancement
projects like market, slaughterhouse, etc.

Preparing for Disaster and Flood control, reforestation, storm drainage, dikes, seawall and
Adapting to Climate Change related flood protection measures and slope protection,
evacuation centers, rainwater collection facility, early warning
system/devices and rescue equipment

Promoting Environmental Sanitary landfill, material recovery facilities, sewerage system

Protection

Furthering Transparency and Website development

Accountability
Source: Department of the Interior and the Local Government MC 2017-160 (2017)
Note: *Promoting environmental protection is added in 2011; **Furthering Transparency and Accountability is
added in 2012

4.1.1.4. Fiscal Sustainability Scorecard. The FSS of the BLGF, or the Iskor ng ‘yong
Bayan, is a performance review system that aims to institutionalize the regular publication of
fiscal indicators of LGUs to promote accountability and good local financial housekeeping.
Under the system, LGUs are evaluated in terms of the following key results areas: (1) revenue
generation capacity, (2) local collection growth, (3) expenditure management, and (4)

26
This is estimated as the proportion of actual LDF expenditures to 20 percent of the LGU’s IRA.
27
This is computed as the proportion of the total local revenue to the total current income.

29
reportorial compliance based on reports submitted by local treasurers and assessors to the DOF
and the BLGF from 2009 to 2012.

For the “Iskor ng ‘yong Bayan”, the key result areas of ‘Revenue Generation Capacity’, with
the exception of local revenue growth, have a rating scheme that is based on performance
according to income classification in relation to average performance of LGUs (municipalities)
within the same income classification. Regular and locally sourced income are assessed
according to income class with the following scale as shown in Table 20. Moreover, IRA
dependence is assessed across LGU type by scaling as shown in Table 21.

Table 20. Scale definition in assessing regular and locally sourced income
Scale Definition

Very Good 50% higher than the average value

Good 25% higher than the average value

Fair Average

Needs Improvement (NI) 25% lower than the average value

Poor 50% lower than the average value

Source: Department of Finance – Bureau of Local Government Finance

Table 21. Scale definition for IRA dependence

Scale Definition

Very Low Less than 70%

Low Greater than 70% but less than 80%

Fair Average dependence for municipalities: 80% - 85%

High Greater than 85% but less than 90%

Very High Greater than 90%

Source: Department of Finance – Bureau of Local Government Finance

Examining the key results are ‘Expenditure Management,’ Table 22 shows the rating system
for the assessment of total expenditure per capita across LGU type. Another indicator for this
area is the ‘use of IRA for local development projects’ that has a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ rating system.
An LGU will garner a rate of ‘passed’ if the ratio is greater than or equal to 20%, otherwise,
‘failed.’ Similarly, the rating system for limitation on personal services also has a ‘pass’ or
‘fail’ mechanism. An LGU is given a rating of ‘passed’ if the expenditures for personal
services is less than or equal to 45% for 1st – 3rd class LGUs and less than or equal to 55% for
the 4th to lower income class LGUs. Lastly, for the debt service ratio, an LGU is rated as
‘passed’ if the expenditures for debt servicing is less than or equal to 20% of regular income
otherwise, the LGU gets the rating ‘failed’.

30
Table 22. Rating system for total expenditure per capita across LGU type
Scale Definition

Very High 50% higher than the average value

High 25% higher than the average value

Fair Average

Low 25% lower than the average value

Very Low 50% lower than the average value

Source: Department of Finance – Bureau of Local Government Finance

FSS indicators relevant to the LGSF-AM baseline study are the ‘dependence on locally sourced
income’ and ‘use of IRA for local development projects. It is good to note that other monitoring
systems, such as the SGLG and the PCF, use data provided by the BLGF on both efficiency
and consistency terms.

4.1.1.5. Cities and Municipalities Competitiveness Index. The CMCI is an annual

ranking of Philippine cities and municipalities developed by the National Competitiveness
Council (NCC). According to the Facts and Figures of Congressional Policy and Budget
Research Department House of Representatives dated August 2017, the coverage of CMCI
expanded from the initial 17 percent of LGUs in 2013 to 91 percent in 2017. The CMCI is an
index composed of 38 indicators with sub-indicators, measuring four pillars, namely: (1)
Economic Dynamism, (2) Government Efficiency, (3) Infrastructure, and (4) Resiliency across
five ranking categories, namely: (1) provinces, (2) highly-urbanized cities, (3) component
cities, (4) municipalities, (5) 1st to 2nd class municipalities, and (6) 3rd to 6th class municipalities.

The rankings of cities and municipalities are based on the sum of their scores in the four pillars.
Meanwhile, the provincial rankings are based on the population and weighted income average
of the overall scores of cities and municipalities within a province. The CMCI is the sum of
the weighted scores received by an LGU per pillar, with a maximum score of 25 per pillar and
an overall CMCI score of 100.

4.1.2. Current state of local service delivery systems: Budget Utilization Rate of the
Local Development Fund (LDF)

The budget utilization rate (BUR) is a public financial management indicator of the efficiency
of spending of government agencies. By examining the proportion of appropriated
expenditures that are obligated or disbursed it can be seen if public funds that are appropriated
are used in a timely manner. This is important because of the implications on the
implementation of programs, projects and activities (PPAs) and, consequently, on keeping
track with development plans and target outcomes. In the Philippines, DBM defines the
obligations BUR as “obligations against all allotments still effective for the year (FY 2017),
both continuing and current year from all appropriation sources, including those released under
the “GAA (General Appropriations Act) as the allotment order” policy for maintenance and

31
other operating expenses (MOOE) and capital outlays (CO) in the current year (FY 2017)
(DBM 2017).”28 This has implications on the receipt of performance-based bonus of national
government agencies as well as future budget levels (DBM 2017) (DBM 2018).

For Philippine local government units, what is monitored by the BLGF is the BUR of the
mandated LDF, which, for every calendar year, should be at least twenty percent (20%) of the
LGU’s IRA (Republic of the Philippines 1991, Sec. 287). However, the BLGF defines the
LDF utilization rate differently as the proportion of the actual LGU utilization or expenditures
of the LDF to 20% of the IRA for that fiscal year. This ratio indicates if an LGU spends the
mandated amount on local development projects. So, if the ratio is less (more) than 1 that
means the LGU actually utilized or spent less (more) than 20% of their IRA on development
projects.29 These rates are used in the SGLG assessment of LGUs.

Overall, Philippine municipalities utilized 73 percent (of 20% of their IRA) in 2016, 30 which
seems to suggest that they did not spend the minimum mandated amount on development
projects. The regions with the highest utilization rates are Regions I and XIII, which utilized
90% of twenty percent of their IRA for development projects (Figure 2). On the other hand,
Region IV-B utilized slightly more than 50% of the mandated amount for the LDF.

Figure 2. LDF Utilization rate of Philippine municipalities by region, 2016

CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (CAR)
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR)
REGION I
REGION II
REGION III
REGION IV-A
REGION IV-B
REGION V
REGION VI
REGION VII
REGION VIII
REGION IX
REGION X
REGION XI
REGION XII
REGION XIII (CARAGA)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source of basic data: BLGF

Another interesting way to examine the LDF utilization rate of municipalities is by grouping
them by LGU income class.31 The richest LGUs in the 1st and 2nd income classes utilize a larger

28
The DBM also defines a “(D)isbursement BUR measured by the ratio of total disbursements (cash and non-cash, excluding
Personnel services) to total obligations for Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) and Capital Outlays (CO) in
current year [CY 2017]. (DBM 2017)”
29
One caveat is that actual utilization figures do not include continuing appropriations which might result in an underestimation
of the LDF utilization rate. However, at present, this is the best indicator available for utilization rates.
30
There are 31 municipalities with incomplete data on either the LDF utilization or IRA (Annex A)
31
The Local Government Code of 1991 provided for the income classification of LGUs as a basis for the allocation of national or
other financial grants, in drafting LGU appropriations and estimating expenditures, particularly for personal services. The
Department of Finance (DOF) is responsible for assessing the income. There are six (6) LGU income classes, i.e. 1 being the
highest and 6 the lowest, defined for specified income brackets for each of the three (3) levels of LGUs: provinces, cities and
municipalities. The prescribed LGU income class brackets were revised in 2008 and are computed based on the average annual

32
proportion of their IRA for the LDF while the poorest 6th income class municipalities utilize
the least. What is peculiar is that the poorer 5th class municipalities utilize more of their IRA
for the PDF than the richer Third-class municipalities. This could be perhaps because 5th class
municipalities feel a stronger need to catch-up in terms of development (demand-driven).
However, without more detailed examination it would be difficult to ascertain.

Figure 3. LDF Utilization rate of Philippine municipalities by LGU income class, 2016

6th

5th

4th

3rd

2nd

1st

58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78%

An important thing to note is that, for FY 2016, there is evidence that some LGUs utilized LDF
funds for purposes other than those defined for local development and that of the appropriated
amounts, some LGUs were unable to implement or had only partially implemented proposed
development programs and projects (Commission on Audit 2017). Though the COA report
covers all LGUs compared to the limited coverage of this LGSF-AM baseline study, there are
insights to be gained especially considering that municipalities are 86% of all LGUs (provinces,
cities and municipalities).

There were 92 LGUs that utilized funds totaling PhP 402.873 million (or 0.6 percent of the
required 20% of IRA for the LDF)32 for programs and projects that were neither among the
priority development projects nor could be classified as investment or capital expenditures. In
addition, there were 141 LGUs that utilized funds amounting to PhP 1,166.813 million (or 1.7
percent of the required 20% of IRA for the LDF) for expenditures not related to or connected
with the implementation of development programs and projects such as salaries, travel
expenses and other operating and administrative expenses. Furthermore, the COA report
attributes the unimplemented or partially implemented appropriations totaling PhP 5,919.479
million (or 8.6 percent of the required 20% of IRA for the LDF) for 392 LGUs to poor planning,
monitoring and non-prioritization in the implementation of the development projects. Finally,
another 152 LGUs revealed an accumulated unspent balance of PhP 3,528.382 million (or 5

income of the LGU realized during the last four (4) calendar years immediately preceding the year of classification (Sec. 3, DOF
Dept. Order No. 23-08). Average annual income is the sum of the annual income, i.e. revenues and receipts realized by LGUs
from the regular sources of the Local General Fund, inclusive of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and other shares provided
in the LGC of 1991, exclusive of non-recurring receipts such as national aids, grants, financial assistance, loan proceed, sales of
assets and others, divided by the required number of consecutive calendar years (Sec. 1, DOF Dept. Order No. 23-08)
classification of all LGUs
32
For calendar year (CY) 2016, the COA report estimated the required amount to be appropriated for the 20% Development Fund
to be PhP 68.838 billion.

33
percent of the required 20% of IRA for the LDF) from the development fund (Commission on
Audit 2017, 616).

What these seem to suggest is that, in 2016, LGUs did not utilize the mandated amount for
development projects and, based on the COA report, it could be that a proportion of the utilized
LDF was spent for purposes other than development projects. Also, underutilization of the
appropriated LDF was possibly because of poor planning, monitoring and prioritization. Thus,
it was no surprise that COA recommended improved: (1) planning, prioritization of
development projects and securing the support of the local Sanggunian (local legislative body)
in the AIP; and, (2) monitoring and evaluation the implementation of development projects
(Commission on Audit 2017, 617).

4.1.3. Current state of resource mobilization: Local revenue effort and asset
management

In the Philippines, LGUs are classified by their income, which includes both internal or locally
sourced revenues, and external sources such as intergovernmental fiscal grants, shares from
national wealth and other governmental transfers.33 Since increased revenue raising powers
were given to LGUs by the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic of the Philippines 1991,
Sec. 2), and data shows that LGUs are heavily dependent on the IRA, policy reform has
consistently focused on how to improve local revenue effort of LGUs (Diokno 2012, Llanto
2009, Manasan 2005).

There are two general sources of local revenues for LGUs, tax and non-tax. Tax revenues are
relatively stable sources of revenues while non-tax are more variable. The main source of tax
revenues of Philippine LGUs is real property and business taxes while non-tax revenues are
from economic enterprises and user fees. LGU assets can contribute to non-tax collections if
properly managed. This is why this section looks at the current state of local resource
mobilization and LGU asset management.

4.1.3.1. Local Revenue Effort.34 Local revenue effort is defined in this study as the
proportion of local revenues to total income while local tax effort is defined as the proportion
of local taxes raised to total LGU income. For 2016, overall revenue effort of Philippine
municipalities was 17.9%. Figure 4 shows that NCR, Regions III and IV-A municipalities had
the highest local tax effort averaging 22percent. Similarly, local revenue effort was highest for
the same regions. CAR, Regions VIII and IX had the lowest tax as well as revenue effort.

33
See Footnote 7 above for the definition of Philippine LGU Income Class.
34
Please note that though the traditional definition of tax and revenue effort would be the proportion of actual taxes and revenues
as a proportion of tax capacity, these are defined unconventionally in this study for lack of a better term and purposes of brevity.

34
Figure 4. Local revenue and local tax effort of municipalities by region, 2016
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (CAR)
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR)
REGION I
REGION II
REGION III
REGION IV-A
REGION IV-B
REGION V
REGION VI
REGION VII
REGION VIII
REGION IX
REGION X
REGION XI
REGION XII
REGION XIII (CARAGA)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Local Tax Effort Local Revenue Effort

Source of basic data: Bureau of Local Government Finance

As expected, richer municipalities have higher revenue effort with local tax effort for the richest
1st class municipalities being almost 50% more than the rest. Despite this being the case, local
revenue effort is just above 25% meaning that the even the richest municipalities, in 2016, were
still heavily dependent on external sources of income.

Figure 5. Local revenue and local tax effort of municipalities by LGU income class, 2016
30

25

20

15

10

0
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

Local Tax Effort Local Revenue Effort

Source of basic data: Bureau of Local Government Finance

4.1.3.2. Asset management. Asset management is a systematic approach to increase

the effective use of real property, owned or operated by a local government (Mikelsons 2017).
LGUs in the Philippines have been empowered with asset management functions by virtue of
the LGC with accounting and auditing guidelines issued by the Commission on Audit but have
considered this to simply be an accounting, bookkeeping and recording of assets rather than
the use of assets as an investment tool that can be leveraged against private sector financing
(Tan 2017).

35
One of the initial intentions of the LGSF-AM baseline study was to evaluate asset management
in the Philippines particularly by looking at how much local revenues are earned and how much
the LGU spends on the maintenance of their assets. Improved asset management would
increase the ability of LGUs to finance development projects whether from additional revenues
collected from assets or its use in alternative financing schemes such as borrowing. In addition,
the value of assets depends also on the amount invested in its maintenance, which would both
enhance the financial position of the LGU as well as reduce the pressure on national
government to give assistance for maintenance purposes of local assets.

In field work conducted by the DILG-PIDS LGSF-AM team in the municipalities of Liliw and
Kalayaan in the Province of Laguna last June 18-19, 2018, it was learned that these figures are
available in their financial statements. Thus, the PIDS Study Team decided that the data on
asset management be gathered directly from the municipalities and coursed through the DILG
Regional and Provincial Offices.

With respect to assets however, the BLGF does monitor the current value of assets of LGUs
(Figure 6). The regions were ranked from highest to lowest with respect to the sum of the value
of total assets of municipalities. For 2016, NCR has the lowest total value of assets because
there is only one municipality in the region, which is Pateros. Regions IV-A, III and I are the
top three regions with the highest value of total assets.

Figure 6. Total assets of municipalities for FY 2016 by region, in million PhP

REGION IV-A
REGION I
REGION III
REGION VII
REGION VI
REGION VIII
REGION V
REGION II
REGION IV-B
REGION X
REGION IX
REGION XIII (CARAGA)
REGION XII
REGION XI
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (CAR)
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR)

0 20,000 40,000 60,000

Source of basic data: Bureau of Local Government Finance

4.2. Governance Gaps: Results of the Baseline Study nationwide survey of

municipalities on LGU Development Planning

The following sections are the highlights of the primary data collection results consisting of
summaries of information provided by the respondents, following the order of items in the
survey instruments.

36
 4.2.1. Availability of the CLUP, CDP and LDIP

As mandated, the CLUP, which has a validity of nine years, can be regarded as the plan for the
long-term management of the LGU. The CLUP identifies areas where development can and
cannot be located and directs public and private investments accordingly. As provided by
Sections 447, 458 and 468 of the 1991 Local Government Code, the CLUP is the responsibility
of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB), considering that most, if not all of the instruments for
implementing the CLUP involve regulating the use of lands that are mainly privately held and
this requires the exercise of the political powers of the LGU through legislative action by the
Sanggunian.

On the other hand, the CDP is the action plan utilized by every local administration to develop
and implement priority sectoral and cross-sectoral programs and projects in the proper
locations. The CDP is the responsibility of the LDC as provided under Sections 106 and 109
of the Code. The LDIP is the principal instrument for implementing the CDP by translating it
into programs and projects. The list of programs, projects and activities (PPAs) in the LDIP
are selected and picked-up by the LGU for funding in the annual general fund budget or through
special fund generation schemes. The LDIP has a time frame of three years.

From the survey, 91.3% of the total number of municipalities indicated the availability of their
LGU’s CLUP (Table 23). However, in terms of the correct coverage, which is nine years, only
64 (5.10%) of the LGUs were found to be within this range. Most of these LGUs have CLUPs
covering the years 2018 – 2026 (31.3%). Some other LGUs have CLUPs covering the years
2017-2025 (25.0%) and 2015-2023 (15.6%).

The CDP, which covers a range of six years, was available for 1,339 of the municipalities
surveyed. However, similar to the results for the CLUP, in terms of the correct coverage, only
490 out of the 1,373 LGUs were found to have the correct range. Half of the LGUs with CDPs
with the correct range have CDPs covering the years 2017-2022 (52.2%) while 16.5% have
CDPs covering the years 2018-2023. In terms of the availability of the LDIP, 97.5% of the
LGUs indicated its availability (Table 23). However, only one third of the total number of
LGUs were found to have LDIPs falling within the correct ranges. Out of these LGUs, 77.5%
have LDIPs covering the years 2017 – 2019, while 14.3% cover the years 2018-2020.

Table 23. Number of LGUs with correct/valid CLUP, CDP and LDIP (in terms of coverage or
period of validity), as of 2017
Number of Number of
Number of CDP Range of LDIP Range of
CLUP Range of Validity LGUs LGUs
LGUs (N=64) Validity Validity
(N=490) (N=414)
2009-2017 0 2012-2017 8 2015-2017 1
2010-2018 1 2013-2018 16 2016-2018 10
2011-2019 2 2014-2019 47 2017-2019 321
2012-2020 1 2015-2020 20 2018-2020 59
2013-2021 1 2016-2021 39 2019-2021 23
2014-2022 5 2017-2022 256
2015-2023 10 2018-2023 81
2016-2024 6 2019-2024 23
2017-2025 16
2018-2026 20
2019-2027 2

37
 4.2.2. Organization and Mobilization of the Municipal Planning Team (MPT)

The preparation and updating of the CDP are initiated through the establishment of the MPT
(DILG 2017). The primary role of the MPT is to: (1) serve as the overall committee responsible
for coordinating all technical and administrative activities of the CLUP, including stakeholder
consultations and meetings; and, (2) facilitate the presentation of the draft CLUP/CDP to the
LDC for endorsement to the SB. The establishment of the MPT is initiated with the issuance
of an Executive Order for creating and mobilizing the MPT for the preparation of the CDP.
The issued must have a corresponding workplan which lays down the required tasks of each of
the members. Among the 1,373 LGUs interviewed for the study, 1,267 (92.3%) reported that
an Executive Order was issued for the formulation of their LGU’s MPT.

The composition of the MPT must encourage the inclusiveness, comprehensiveness and
ownership of the CDP. The basis of identifying members of the core planning team of the MPT
is the five development sectors (i.e., economic, social, environment, infrastructure and
institutional development) since the programs, projects and activities (PPAs) that should be
formulated based on the need of the LGU in each of these sectors. In the DILG Guidelines for
Local Planning, it is emphasized that it is not necessary for LGU Department Heads to be
members of the MPT but only that these offices be represented. As shown in Figure 7, aside
from the MPDC the predominant members of the MPT are the Municipal Engineers (95.2%),
Municipal Budget Officers (92.6%), and the representatives of the civil society organizations
(87.5%). Although the Local Chief Executives (LCEs) are not mandatory to be a member,
80.7% of the LGUs surveyed reported that their current LCEs are members of their MPT.

Figure 7. Members of the municipal planning team for the CDP

Local Chief Executive 80.7%
MPDC 97.2%
Municipal Engineer 95.2%
Municipal Budget Officer 92.6%
MLGOO 74.7%
President of Liga ng mga Barangay 74.4%
Chairman of the Sanguniang Bayan 72.0%
NGAs 68.5%
Local Special Body 44.9%
CSOs/Pos 87.5%
ICCs/Ips 24.8%
Others 20.6%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

It should also be noted that the Municipal Local Government Operations Officer (MLGOO),
the President of Liga ng mga Barangay, and the Chairman of the Sanggunian Bayan, has
significant shares of membership in the MPT, with 74.7%, 74.4% and 72.0% of the total
number of LGUs, respectively (Figure 7).

National government agency (NGA) membership in the planning team for CDP is quite diverse
and probably reflects the varied priorities of the LGUs. As shown in Table 24, identified
members of the MPT consisted mostly of representatives from the Department of Education
(80.2%) with the same proportion for members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Following closely are members from the Department

38
of Social Welfare and Development (48.8%), Department of Agriculture (47.2%), and the
Department of Health (44.9%).

Table 24. NGAs that are members of the municipal planning team for the CDP
National Government Agencies Percentage Share
Department of Education (DepEd) 80.2%
Philippine National Police (PNP)/Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) 80.2%
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) 48.8%
Department of Agriculture (DA) 47.2%
Department of Health (DOH) 44.9%
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) 39.2%
Others 27.9%
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) 18.4%
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) 18.0%
Technical Skills and Development Authority (TESDA) 15.1%
State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) 13.8%
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) 10.9%
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) 8.8%
National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) 7.0%
National Housing Authority (NHA) 6.6%
N = 868
The DILG recognizes the significance of developing collaborative relationships between the
government and the civil society organizations in building long-term foundation of good
governance (DILG 2018). As such, it has opened spaces for CSOs to participate in the planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of initiated programs and projects. For the LGSF-
AM Program in particular, CSOs can participate in the feedback mechanisms established by
the DILG and can also directly give feedback to project implementers on the project status of
various nationally funded projects. The CSOs may also participate in consultations for the
formulation of plans, policies, guidelines and issuances.

In the preparation and updating of the CDP, it is mandatory that the MPT include in an advocate
for specific thematic concerns in the planning structure of sectoral committees to ensure their
concerns are properly represented. Such advocates are represented by the participation of
CSOs in local development planning. Data from the PIDS survey reflect that across all regions,
CSOs representing the urban poor and the farmers and landless workers get the largest
proportion of representation in the MPT, with shares of 84.2% and 83.2%, respectively (Figure
8). Further, organizations representing persons with disabilities, artisanal fisherfolks, and
women also showed large proportions of participation in the MPT with shares of 58.8%, 52.8%,
and 47.9%, respectively.

39
Figure 8. Sectors represented by the CSOs that are members of the municipal planning team
Artisanal Fisherfolk 52.8%
Children 22.8%
Farmers and landless rural workers 83.2%
Formal labor and migrant workers 19.8%
Indigenous people/community 27.4%
Persons with disabilities 58.8%
Elderly/Senior Citizen 9.2%
Urban Poor 84.2%
Victims of disasters/calamities 31.8%
Women 47.9%
Workers in the informal sector 20.7%
Youth and students 0.2%
Others 22.6%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

4.2.3. LGU Respondent Information

For this survey, most of the respondents were Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinators (MPDC). The next most common position of the respondents is municipal
engineer, followed by municipal budget officer. Among the Other positions of the respondents,
the most common is Staff (MEO), followed by Staff (MPDO), and OIC (MEO).

4.2.4. Review of Existing Plans and LGU Vision

The second step in the preparation of the CDP is the revisiting of existing plans and vision of
the LGU in order to assess its responsiveness to recent mandates and prevailing LGU situations.
Revisiting the LGU’s existing plans and vision will aid the MPT in limiting or expanding the
scope of the Ecological Profile (EP). In particular, the existing sectoral and thematic plans that
are still responsive to the prevailing situation can be incorporated in the CDP while those that
are obsolete need to be updated. As indicated in the DILG CDP Preparation Guide (2008), the
MPDC has the major role of checking the responsiveness of the Vision of the LGU to current
mandates and prevailing situations.

40
Figure 9. Official/s who initiated the updating of the LGU's latest CLUP and CDP/LDIP/AIP

Local Chief Executive 23.7%

Minucipal Planning and Development Coordinator 41.2%

CLUP

Planning Team 22.7%

Other 12.2%

Local Chief Executive 22.9%

CDP/LDIP/AIP

Minucipal Planning and Development Coordinator 42.2%

Planning Team 24.1%

Other 10.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Referring to Figure 9, most of the LGU respondents indicated that their MPDC initiated the
updating both their LGU’s latest CLUP and CDP/LDIP/AIP, with shares of 41.2% and 42.2%,
respectively. These were followed by Local Chief Executive and by the LGUs Planning Team.
Almost half (47.6%) of the total number of LGUs indicated that the Vision of the LGU is
identified by the LDC (Figure 10). This was followed by the MPT (21.8%), the collective
stakeholders (8.7%) and the Executive Legislative Agenda (ELA) Committee (7.9%).
Figure 10. Official/entities that identify the vision of the municipality

Local Decelopment Council 47.6%

Municipal Planning Team 21.8%

Collective stakeholders 8.7%

ELA Committee 7.9%

Municipal Entities 5.4%

Sectorals 3.9%

Local Chief Executive Only 3.9%

NGA counterparts 0.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

4.2.5. Preparation of the Ecological Profile and Structured List of PPAs

The Ecological Profiling is the step in the preparation and updating of the CDP that determines
the current realities facing the LGU (DILG 2017). The EP is a more comprehensive alternative
for the usual socio-ecological profile which gives equal coverage to the physical, biological,

41
socio-economic, cultural and built environments. Ecological profiling is deemed important in
an LGU’s planning purposes it aids in the determination of: 1) the current level of services to
its constituents; 2) available resources; and 3) environment factors which will affect policy and
to which policy is expected to bring changes. As the LGU’s Ecological Profile identifies the
issues, concerns and probable interventions for these issues, more than half of the workplan for
the preparation of the CDP is dedicated primarily to Ecological Profiling. Accurately
determining the current reality faced by the LGU require gathering of scrupulous data and
information. The gathered data must then be validated through consultations and comparisons
with the data from higher or lower-level LGUs.

The Local Development Indicator System (LDIS) is the set of data or list of indicators utilized
for identifying issues based on an LGU’s vision. The existing LDIS is perceived as a long and
rigid list of 156 indicators that the LGUs must able to gather as part of their CDP. However,
the inability of the LGUs to complete the data requirements necessary to complete the LDIS
oftentimes become the reason for the delays, or in worst cases, discontinue the process of the
LGU’s CDP formulation. Misinterpretation of results resulting to waste of government
resources and gathering data just for compliance were also found to put the LDIS at a
disadvantage. This difficulty in complying with the LDIS data requirements gave way to the
development of the Rationalized Planning Indicator and Data Set (RaPIDS)35. RaPIDS is a tool
that aims to guide local planners in identifying development indicators that specifically applies
to their LGU’s needs and characteristics. RaPIDS prescribes a minimum data set applicable to
all LGU types and prescribes additional data set unique to specific LGUs. If an LGU does not
have the capacity or resources to complete the data requirements in the LDIS list, they may opt
to use the RaPIDS as their starter data set instead. However, since the RaPIDS does not provide
an analysis as comprehensive as the LDIS if LGUs will not opt to add additional indicators to
the basic minimum data set.

Meanwhile, the Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) “is a local government level
data collection designed to methodically organize and process data collected for local planning,
program implementation and impact monitoring” (DILG 2017). Among the other dataset
development tool/s utilized by their LGU as the primary source for the preparation/updating of
their LGU’s Ecological Profile, the most commonly identified by the respondents is PSA Data,
followed by Sectoral Data.

From the results, majority of respondents (57.0%) indicated that their municipalities utilized
CBMS as the primary dataset development tool in gathering data for the preparation/updating
of their LGU’s Ecological Profile. The LDIS and RaPIDS are still used by some municipalities,
while others formulate their own tools in gathering LGU data for the preparation of the CDP.
For instance, there were municipalities that claimed utilizing a mix of RaPIDS and CBMS,
which was coined as the RaPIDS-CBMS. This type of tool accounted for 4.7% of the total
number of municipalities. It should also be noted that some LGUs that do not use any tool in
gathering data in formulating their EP for their CDP preparation (7.8%). Others, on the other
hand, refer to data from the PSA or available sectoral data.

35
The Rationalized Planning Indicator and Data Set (RaPIDS) is a tool developed by the DILG with the assistance of the European
Union thru the LGU PFM 2 Project. The RaPIDS still follow the principles of LDIS which is based on the LGU’s Vision and success
indicators. RaPIDS updated the LDIS indicators to make them consistent with those required and accepted by NGAs and
international institutions.

42
Table 25. Dataset development tool/s utilized by LGUs as the primary source for the
preparation/updating of your ecological profile
Dataset Development Tools Percentage Share
Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) 57.0%
Local Development Indicator System (LDIS) 7.1%
Rationalized Planning Indicator and Data Set (RaPIDS) 5.8%
Rapid Community-Based Monitoring System (RCBMS) 4.7%
None 7.8%
Others 17.6%
N= 1,373

Even before local governments were mandated to prepare the CDP, as early as 1985, some
municipalities already utilized data collection tools in aid of planning. In terms of the frequency
of data collection, more than one third of the total number of municipalities stated that they
collect data every three years, while others, every year (24.6%) or every five years (9.2%).
About a third (27.3%) of the total respondents, on the other hand, indicated that they have not
yet established any regular frequency of collection of data.

Most of the respondents (81.2%) also claimed that their municipality allocated a budget for the
conduct of data collection for the formulation of their ecological profile. However, survey
results indicate the declining share of municipalities allocating budget for data collection. In
particular, 92.8% of the LGU respondents allocated budget for data collection once, 45.3%
twice, 24.3% thrice and 11.9% four times.

In terms of sources of budget for data collection, IRA was identified as the top source of funds,
irrespective of the number of years of its inclusion in the LGU budget. This was followed by
funding from locally generated revenues, LDRRM funds, and 20% LDF. It should be noted
that the number of years that the LGUs allocate budget and conduct data collection are not
necessarily in consecutive years.

A portion of that allocated budget is spent on hired enumerators that collect the data. From the
survey, 80.9% of the total number of respondents indicated hiring paid enumerators to gather
data, while others utilize the services of their staff (43.2.1%) and barangays officials or staff
(28.5%). The MPDC was identified by majority of the respondents (82.2%) as the focal person
responsible for the conduct of data gathering in the LGU. Meanwhile, the staff of the Municipal
Planning and Development Office (MPDO) was identified by majority of the respondents to
do the processing (62.8%) and analysis (61.2%) of the collected data. This was followed by
head of Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) with shares of 34.7% and 44.1%
for processing and analysis, respectively. It is worth noting that one-third of the total number
of respondents claimed that they neither process (16.5%) nor analyze (17.0%) the data that is
collected from their municipalities.

In terms of data requirements for the preparation of the Ecological Profile, various data needs
are important in order to come up with sound assessment of the situation of their LGUs. Such
are data on demography (95.7%), education (94.9%), and literacy and water and sanitation
(94.2%), among others (Figure 11). Some LGUs also related that other data items important to
them include data on religion, skills inventory, tourism, and environment.

43
Figure 11. Data items utilized by LGUs in preparing/updating their ecological profile and in
decision-making or policy-making process (N= 1,265)

Demography 95.7%
Education and Literacy 94.9%
Water and Sanitation 94.2%
Health and Other Characteristics of Household… 92.4%
Agriculture -Farming 92.2%
Economic Activity 91.9%
Nutrition 91.9%
Household Characteristics 89.6%
Housing Characteristics 89.2%
Sources of Income 88.3%
Waste Management 87.4%
Agriculture -Livestock Raising 87.4%
Housing Characteristics 82.5%
Crime 81.1%
Agriculture-Fishing 81.0%
Climate Change 75.0%
Access to Programs 74.7%
Hunger 71.4%
Household Member who died 66.4%
Political Participation 54.5%
Other 5.5%
0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%

Majority (88.7%) of the respondents also claimed that utilizing the data collected enabled them
to identify priority sectors in their LGUs. Such sectors include: persons with disabilities
(78.5%); urban poor (78.5%); farmers and landless rural workers (76.7%); children (61.4%)
and women (60.6%).

In preparing a “readily usable” Ecological Profile, the data collected must be processed,
analyzed and interpreted to derive the value of the identified rationalized planning indicators.
As prescribed by the DILG Guide (2017)the data is proposed to be categorized as: 1) Basic
Minimum Data Set – introduces the demographics of the locality and the institutional capacity
of the LGU; 2) Ecosystem Data Set – provide planners and decision makers with the
appropriate assessment of environmental context; 3) Area Characteristics Data Set – data on
other physical characteristics ; and 4) Development Priorities Data Set – data related to
development concerns or thematic priorities that a local government wants to address or pursue
in the future. A “readily usable” EP must aid the MPT in determining policy options, setting
goals and objective and structuring solutions for the issues and challenges faced by the LGU.
The solutions identified to these issues and challenges must come be in the form of the
Structured List of PPAs. From the survey, almost all respondents (92.3%) indicated that they
were able to develop the Structured List of PPAs after the preparation of the “readily usable”
EP. Only a minority indicated otherwise. Further, almost all respondents indicated that all the
PPAs in the structured list of PPAs were included in the LDIP. Only a minority of the
respondents indicated otherwise.

44
 4.2.6. Investment Programming

Investment programming is the stage in the preparation/updating of the CDP where the PPAs
are given their corresponding resource requirements such as funding, time and manpower. The
principal instrument for this stage is the Local Development Investment Program (LDIP),
which translates the CDP into programs and projects that are selected by the LGU for funding
in the annual general fund budget or through special generation schemes. (DILG 2008). The
LDIP is a two 3-year investment program (6 years in total) that provides for a long term, more
impactful and sustainable list of PPAs.

It must be noted that projects intended for inclusion in the LDIP should be prepared in the
format of a project brief. These project briefs are collected, screened, prioritized and cost. The
survey results show, however, that the preparation of project briefs for each of the PPAs at this
stage is not always being followed. In fact, only half (54.2%) of the municipalities claimed that
they always prepare project briefs for each PPAs while 35.83% claimed to do them sometimes.
The remaining share of respondents reported that they never prepare project briefs for any of
the PPAs that they include in their LDIP. Most of the municipalities identified their MPDC as
the person responsible for the preparation of the project briefs. They accounted for 43.4% of
all the respondent LGUs. A fifth (19.3%) of the total number of respondents, on the other hand,
specified the Municipal Planning Team as the entity responsible for the preparation of the
project briefs for the PPAs. There was also a small proportion of LGUs which reported that
their LCEs are responsible in the preparation of the project briefs of the PPAs.

The Structured List of PPAs will be subject to screening to come up with the shortlisted or
‘Ranked List of PPAs’. Several screening tools are prescribed to select the ‘Ranked List of
PPAs’ to be included for investment prioritization. These are, the Urgency Test Matrix, the
Resource Impact Matrix, and the Conflict-Compatibility-Complementary Matrix (DILG 2008).
The survey results indicated that these tools are utilized by some municipalities. To be specific,
48.5% used the Urgency Test Matrix while 26.4% utilized Resource Impact Matrix. The survey
findings also revealed that aside from these tools, municipalities utilize other mechanisms that
are available in the process of prioritization of PPAs (Table 26). Workshops and consultations
are popularly practiced by more than half of the LGUs (68.0%). Also, project selection
mechanisms of earlier NGA programs such as the Bottom-up Budgeting (BUB) and the Kapit-
Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services
(KALAHI-CIDSS) were also identified by some municipalities with shares of 37.7% and
29.2%, respectively. Other municipalities, on the other hand, utilize mechanisms from other
plans such as the Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment (CIDDRA) and the water sector plans
(42.0%).

45
Table 26. Tools/mechanisms utilized by municipalities in screening PPAs for prioritization
Tool/Process Percentage Share
DILG Prescribed Tools
Tool 1: Urgency Test Matrix 48.5%
Tool 2: Resource Impact Matrix 26.4%
Tool 3: Conflict-Compatibility-Complementarity Matrix 12.0%
Other Tools/mechanisms
Workshop/Consultations 68.0%
Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment (CIDRA) 42.0%
Adopted BUB Process 37.7%
Adopted KALAHI-CIDSS Process 29.2%
Water sector plans 16.4%
Other 5.7%
N= 1,370

Ideally, after the initial screening of the PPAs, another round of prioritization should be
performed. The screening tool prescribed by the DILG for this second round of prioritization
is the Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) and the list of PPAs that are kept after this screening
is called the Ranked List of PPAs for Investment Programming. These PPAs shall then be
cross-matched with available resources including investible funds36, manpower and period of
implementation. Survey results indicated that out of the 1,371 municipalities, 933 (68.1%)
perform another shortlisting/ranking to come up with the Ranked List of PPAs for Investment
Programming. Among these municipalities, 57.0% claimed that they use the GAM for the
screening process.

In financing the Ranked List of PPAs for Investment Programming, three approaches are
generally considered, namely, the Development Approach, the Conservative Approach and the
Pragmatic Approach. If the Development or Pragmatic Approach is utilized, LGUs find other
sources of funds such as public-private partnerships (PPPs), loans, bond floatation, etc. to
finance all the PPAs that are included for investment programming. On the other hand, if the
LGU decides to take the Conservative Approach, the list of PPAs shall be cut down to work
within the New Investment Financing Potential only. 37 The survey results indicate that almost
half (45.2%) of the municipalities take on the Pragmatic Approach in order to fund their PPAs.
About 39% used the Developmental Approach while 15.7% utilize the conservative approach
in funding their PPAs.

The study also explored the top project types that were included in the past investment
programming of the municipalities (Table 27). Based on the responses, the top five project
types prominent on their list of PPAs for investment programming include: (1) roads
development and maintenance (76.9%); (2) agriculture (62.3%); (3) health (51.1%); (4)
disaster risk reduction management (49.1%); and, (5) water (38.2%).

36
The investible fund is identified by the Local Finance Committee (LFC) through the evaluation of the Revenue Forecasts with
Medium Term Forecasts of Current Operating Expenses
37
The New Investment Financing Potential is the difference between the Net Amount of Revenue Forecast and the Forward
Estimates of Expenditures.

46
Table 27. Project types included in the ranked list of PPAs of LGUs
Sectors of Project Types Percentage Share
Roads development and maintenance 76.9%
Agriculture 62.3%
Health 51.1%
DRRM 49.1%
Water 38.2%
Environment 37.4%
Solid waste 30.0%
Education 21.2%
Market, Slaughterhouse, Cemeteries and other similar establishment 19.1%
Tourism 16.9%
Livelihood and Skills Development 14.4%
Peace and public safety 13.2%
Social Protection 10.2%
General Administrative 8.5%
Irrigation 7.6%
Other 7.2%
Fishery 5.5%
Sanitation 5.4%
Power 3.7%
Parks and open space development 3.3%
Shelter 2.8%
Transportation 2.6%
Credit and Cooperative Development 1.7%
Trade and business development 1.7%
Sports development 1.6%
Information and Communications Technology 1.3%
N = 1,370

The DILG SLGP PMO is considering new indicators to be used by LGUs in the ranking LDIP
projects. These indicators are:1) urgency of the project; 2) project readiness – local counterpart
funding; 3) project readiness – program of work; 4) project readiness – site identification; 5)
project readiness – environmental; 6) community benefits; and 7) community
equity/participation. In order to assess the perception of the LGU regarding these indicators,
the respondents were asked to rank the indicators according to priority consideration when
choosing which projects to include in the LGU’s AIP.

Table 28. Ranking of proposed indicators for PPA prioritization for inclusion in the AIP
% (times the indicator % (times the indicator
Indicators
ranked as Rank 1) ranked as Rank 7)
Urgency of the project 54.5% 1.7%
Community Benefits 26.7% 10.1%
Community Equity/Participation 10.0% 20.6%
Project Readiness - Site identification 5.5% 2.3%
Project Readiness - Local Counterpart Funding 2.6% 26.4%
Project Readiness - Environment 0.8% 7.0%
Project Readiness - Program of work 0.7% 31.0%
N= 1,373

47
As shown in Table 28, the urgency of the project was chosen as the top criteria in deciding
which PPAs to prioritize for inclusion in the AIP by 54.5% of the total number of LGUs. This
was followed by the community benefits with a share of 26.7%. On the other hand, 31.0% of
all the LGUs indicated that the least priority criteria for inclusion of PPAs in the LGU’s AIP is
having a program of work, followed by local counterpart funding.

4.2.7. Local Development Planning Assessment – Annual Investment Program

The Annual Investment Plan, or the slice of the LDIP prepared for annual budgeting serves as
the basis for formulating the annual Executive Budget of LGUs. Once prepared and endorsed
by the Local Development Council for approval to the Sanggunian, the Sanggunian-approved
AIP serves as the signal for the budget officer to proceed with the budget preparation which is
expected to be ready by the 7th of June of every year (DILG 2017). LGUs can take on several
approaches in financing the AIPs.

In 2017, only 44.6% of the 1,373 LGUs claimed they were able to finance all PPAs indicated
in their 2017 AIP using their LGU budget only. A large portion of the remaining 55.4% who
were not able to fund all the PPAs in their AIPs reported that they sought for other sources of
funding (Table 29) such as grant-type funding from NGAs, which was requested directly by
the LGUs (71.6%) and grant-type funding from the National Government (NG) which was
endorsed by the Regional Development Council (14.97%). Further, majority of these LGUs
received additional funds from NGAs/NG (excluding IRA) to finance priority PPAs in their
latest LDIPs. Majority of these LGUs (72.3%) indicated that their LGUs gave priority to the
NGAs and NG funded projects with respect to implementation ahead of funding from the 20%
LDF.

Table 29. Source of financing sought by LGUs

Source % Share
Grant-type Funding from NGAs, requested directly by the LGUs 75.5
Grant-type Funding from NG, endorsed by the Regional Development Council 15.9
Development Partners 3.8
Other LCEs 1.1
Others 4.2
N= 709

The respondents were asked to identify funding sources which they utilized in order to finance
the PPAs AIPs in 2017. From the results of the survey (Table 29), almost all of the respondents
related that the PPAs lined up in their 2017 AIPs were financed using their own revenues which
include those collected from local taxes collections (Figure 12). Similarly, the IRA from the
national government was also utilized by all the LGUs in funding their PPAs. Other LGUs also
identified other external funds such as shares from national tax collections such as Economic
Zones, Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT), National Wealth, Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)/Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), tobacco
excise tax, interlocal transfers, grants, donations and aids. A quarter of the total number of
LGUs (23.6%) stated that they accessed the Municipal Development Fund for additional
funding. Nearly a fifth (18.4%) of the LGUs also availed loans from government financial
institutions such as Landbank, Development Bank of the Philippines, Philippine Veterans Bank
etc. On the other hand, very few LGUs availed additional funds from commercial bank loans,
intergovernmental loans and grant-type funding from international/local organizations.

48
Figure 12. Funding sources of LGUs for their 2017 AIP PPAs
REVENU
Other local revenues (e.g. license), receipts from local… 82.74%
OWN

ES:
Local taxes (e.g. RPT, business tax, other taxes) 93.88%
Financial markets (bonds) 0.80%
Intergovernmental loans 0.80%
Commercial bank loans 1.46%
Other 3.86%
EXTERNAL

Grant type of funding from international/local… 4.15%

Loans from banks related to the sub-national (e.g.… 18.43%
Municipal Development Fund Office 23.60%
Non-IRA/other external funds (i.e., share from… 44.36%
Grant type of funding from NGAs (e.g. BUB, PCF) 51.20%
Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) 95.41%

0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%

In addition to the primary sources of financing the municipalities’ AIP, the respondents were
also asked if their LGUs have used financing schemes. Only a few LGUs (16.39%) explored
and took advantage of securing funds through public-private partnerships. However, half
(51.31%) of the LGUs indicated that they have established local public enterprises as a source
of additional funds to finance their PPAs at least in the last five years, 2012 to 2017.

In terms of allocating funds for insurance, a clear majority of the respondents indicated that
their local government allocated funds for the insurance of the LGUs’ assets. They accounted
for 81.86% of the total number of municipalities. The remaining share of the total respondents
reported that they did not allocate funds for insurance for various reasons.

4.2.8. Local Development Planning Assessment – Preparation of Needed

Implementation Instruments for the CDP

The fifth and the last step in the CDP Preparation, as stated in the DILG CDP Guidelines, is
the preparation of several instruments and authority levers that will aid in the implementation
of the priority PPAs in the LDIP. This step also provides the linkage from planning to budgeting
and completes the cyclical nature of planning thru monitoring and evaluation strategies. The
CDP, to be implemented effectively, requires a set of competencies and institutional
arrangements that should be present in the LGU. Such are the capacity development program,
legislative requirements and the monitoring and evaluation strategies.

The capacity development program: (1) is a guidepost to “rationalize and strategically focus
the capability building efforts of LGUs; (2) outlines the capability building interventions or
programs that need to be undertaken to address an identified capability deficiency; and (3) draw
the capacity development strategies, programs and initiatives that need to be undertaken to
address identified organizational competency gaps, indicating the target groups, specific
approaches that are recommended, resources required and the timeline” (DILG 2008).

Among the surveyed municipalities, majority (82.04%) indicated they have a capacity
development (CapDev) program that is exclusive for the preparation and updating of the CDP.

49
Of those who reported to have such a CapDev program, over 92.43% indicated that their
programs follow DILG’s formulation steps and/or they use the Local Governance Performance
Management System (LGPMS) or System on Competency Assessment for Local Government
(SCALOG). As to who is responsible for the CapDev program, only a fifth (20.8%) indicated
the local chief executive (LCE). Almost 80% identified other officials including Human
Resource Management Officers (HRMOs) (23%), 16% by the MPTs, 27% by MPDCs/MPDO
In terms of implementation, 46.1% of the total number of respondents identified the LCE as
the responsible official. Other personnel identified to be in-charge of the CapDev program
implementation included the HRMO (33.88%), Department Heads (30.41%), and the
MPDC/MPDO (13.72%).

In terms of the monitoring and evaluation strategies, only a little more than one third (38.4%)
of the total number of LGUs claimed that they have this mechanism. These implementation
instruments, as reported, were majorly drafted by the LGU’s MPDC/MPDO (33.6%). Other
officials mentioned to be responsible for drafting Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) strategies
were the LCE (23.3%), the MPT (15%), and the Project team/committees (3%). However, for
the implementation of the M&E strategies, 35.2 percent believe that it is the LCE’s
responsibility. Other officials/entities mentioned included the MPDC (21.7%), the MPT
(10.6%), and the Project monitoring team (6.3%). In sum, the drafting of M&E is mainly tasked
to the MPDC, while the implementation is the responsibility of the LCE. However, in theory,
the drafting and implementation of M&E is the responsibility of the whole Local Development
Council (DILG 2008).

4.3. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: The Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinators (MPDC)

4.3.1. Respondent General Information

On the average, most of the respondents have been in government service for about 20.97 years
while 13.2 years in their current position and essentially dominated by civil engineers.

4.3.2. Municipality Planning Process – Specific Roles/Assignments in the

Preparation/Updating of the CDP

For the specific role as the MPDC and as a member of the Municipal Planning Team in the
preparation/updating LGU’s CDP, almost all respondents believe that they are responsible for
correctly and comprehensively profiling their respective sectors (Figure 13). More than half of
the respondents indicated that they should be completely responsible for correctly and
comprehensively profiling their respective sectors. More than 98% of the respondents believed
that they are responsible for consulting with members of each sector and inform them of the
results of the profile and validate the same. About 98% of the respondents believed that they
are responsible for field-validating the structured list to know if the PPAs have actual
proponents and beneficiaries, participating in all activities as identified in the approved
workplan, and also for ensuring that the prioritization process is diligently and judiciously
done. Lastly, 98.5% believed that they are responsible for participating in the prioritization
activities and ensure that all sectors are properly represented.

50
Figure 13. Specific roles/assignments of the MPDC as a member of MPT in the
preparation/updating of the CDP.
Correctly and Comprehensively profile their respective
sector
Consult with members of each sector and inform them of
the results of the profile and validate the same
Field-validate the structured list to know if the PPAs have
actual proponents and beneficiaries
Participate in all activities as identified in the approved
workplan
Participate in the prioritization activities and ensure that all
sectors are properly represented
Ensure that the prioritization process is diligently and
judiciously done
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not at all responsible Somewhat responsible Mostly responsible Completely responsible

4.3.3. Municipality Planning Process – Vertical Coordination (Between LGU and the
National Government/DILG)

More than 50% of the respondents consider the national goals and priorities prescribed by the
DILG to significantly affect LGU priority setting, and about 90% of the respondents agree that
the municipality is either involved or consulted in the identification of national goals and
priorities either directly or through the DILG (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Perspective of the MPDC to the extent of coordination between LGU and DILG in
PPAs.

Is your LGU involved/consulted

in the identification of national
goals and priorities either
directly or through the DILG?

Do the national goals and

priorities prescribed by the DILG
affect LGU priority setting?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes, to a significant extent Yes, to some extent No Don't Know

The respondents were asked on their perception on the implications of the DILG requirements
attached to grant type of funding (Figure 15). On the average, around 93% of the respondents
agreed on the items that ask about the good implications of these requirements. Moreover, there
are items that asked about the consequences of these requirements such as demanding in terms
of time, impose administrative efforts, and limit the freedom of the LGU to allocate
investments. On the average around 64% of the respondents agreed to these statements. The
MPDCs were also regarding their perception on the top area of concern faced by their

51
municipalities (Table 30). CARAGA and Regions I, II, V, and XI all indicated that in the last
three years, the top area of concern faced by their LGU is Agriculture. Region III was the only
region that indicated environment as their top area concern. CAR and Regions IV-B, IX, VI,
VIII, X, and XII indicated that their LGUs were primarily concerned with roads development
and maintenance. Region IV-A indicated solid waste as the top area of concern faced by their
LGU. Region IV-B also indicated water as a concern with equal weight to roads development.
Region IV-B and VII both indicated water as top priority.

Figure 15. Implications of DILG requirements attached to grant-type of funding

…can be fulfilled by the LGUs
…have improved the quality of public investment …
…are effectively enforced
…do not impose additional administrative efforts
…facilitate rapid design of investment projects
…facilitate coordination between the…
…facilitate coordination within the LGU administration
…are very demanding in terms of time
…limit the freedom of the LGU to allocate investments

0 20 40 60 80 100
strongly disagree somewhat disagree neither agree nor disagree somewhat agree strongly agree

Among all the respondents, roads development and maintenance were considered the top most
concern, followed by agriculture, water, environment, and sports development.

Table 30. Top five areas of concern faced by the LGUs as viewed by the MPDC
Areas Percentage Share
Roads development and Maintenance 20.95
Agriculture 14.41
Water 12.04
Environment 11.81
Sports development 9.44
N= 1,346

4.3.4. Municipality Planning Process – CSO Participation in LGU Development Planning

As presented on Figure 16, most of the respondents (around 80 to 90%) agreed that the CSOs
should participate and contribute to the five steps of CDP preparation.

52
Figure 16. Perception of MPDC of the CSO participation of CSO in the preparation of the CDP

Organizing and mobilizing the planning team

Revisiting of existing plans and reviewing of LGU vision

Preparing ecological profile and structured list of PPAs

Preparing the Local Development Investment Plan

Preparing needs implementation instruments
(CapDev/M&E Plan)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

strongly disagree somewhat disagree neither agree nor disagree somewhat agree strongly agree

Most of the respondents believed that CSOs can best engage in the development and updating
of LGU development plans through face to face consultation of the LGU (Table 31). Among
the overall specifications for the perceived means for CSOs to best engage in the development
and updating of LGU development plans, most indicated active participation and attendance in
meetings, followed by allocation of budget or allowance/honorarium.

Table 31. Perception of MPDC on how CSOs can best engage in the LGU development plans
Areas Number Percentage
Face to face consultation of LGU 502 37.30
Membership of CSOs in multi-stakeholder committees 248 18.42
Submission of inputs by individual CSOs 181 13.45
Not necessary for CSOs to engage 3 0.22
Don’t know 1 0.07
Others38 411 30.53
N= 1,345

4.4. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: The Municipal Budget

Officer/Accountant

4.4.1. Respondent General Information

On average, the respondents have rendered about 22.5 years of government service of which
12.7 years as local budget officers/accountants. This speaks of their dedication and passion in
serving the Filipino people. As regards their educational background, more than three-fourths
(75.4%) of the respondents are college degree holders, 11% have master’s degree units, 10.7%
are master’s degree holders, and the rest are doctorate graduates, doctorate undergraduates and
have vocational education. About forty% (39.3%) of them studied accountancy, 11.1%
business administration, 2.9% public administration, 2.2% civil engineering, 1.1% agriculture,
1% elementary Education, and all other courses have less than 1%.

38
Top 3 answers: Active participation and attendance in meetings (46%), allocation for budget or allowance/honorarium (12%),
training and capacity building (10%).

53
 4.4.2. Municipality Planning Process – Specific Roles/Assignments in the
Preparation/Updating of the CDP

The respondents were asked about their level of responsibility as a member of the Municipal
Planning Team in the process of preparation and updating of the LGU’s CDP. These questions
aim to solicit whether they are completely responsible, mostly responsible, somewhat
responsible, and not at all responsible in the following processes. On the first three questions,
80-90% of the respondents argued that they were responsible for those particular assignments.
These questions include whether they correctly and comprehensively profile their respective
sectors (86% agreed); consult with the members of each sector and inform them of the results
of the profile and validate the same (83% agreed); field-validate the structures list to know if
the PPAs have actual proponents and beneficiaries (82.4% agreed).

On the other hand, in the last three questions that were asked, which were similar to the first
three questions in nature, a higher percentage of respondents agreed that they were indeed
responsible in these roles/assignments as a member of the MPT. These questions were about
whether they participate in all activities as identified in the approved work plan (94.6%);
participate in the prioritization activities and ensure that all sectors are properly represented
(92.6%); and ensure that the prioritization process is diligently and judiciously done (93.4%).

Aside from their role as a member of the MPT, the respondents were also asked about their
level of responsibility in the roles/assignments for the preparation and updating of the CDP as
a budget officer/accountant. Overall, almost all of the respondents agreed that they are
primarily responsible for these roles or assignments. These questions include the respondent’s
role in the preparation of the Medium-Term Forecasts of Current Operating Expenses for
Personal Services (PS), Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), and Capital
(minor) Outlay (CO), collectively the Current Operation Expenses (COE);39 preparation of the
budget document based on the approved AIP and LDIP;40 and providing assistance to the
MPDC in updating the LDIP should there be changes in the AIP .41

4.4.3. Municipality Planning Process – Vertical Coordination (Between LGU and the
National Government/DILG)

As to the vertical coordination between the LGU and the national government (DILG), the
respondents were asked whether their LGU is involved/consulted in the identification of the
national goals and priorities either directly or through the DILG. A huge proportion of the
respondents (91%) shared that they were consulted and 53% of them argued that it was to a
significant extent. These figures were important since 89% of the respondents also indicated
that the national goals and priorities prescribed by the DILG affect their LGU priority setting.

Aside from the effect of the national goals and priorities prescribed by the DILG, the
respondents were also asked about their perception on the implications of the DILG
requirements attached to grant-type of funding. Generally, on the items that ask about the good
implications of these requirements, more than 85% of the respondents agreed on the given
statements. These statements focused about whether the DILG requirements attached to grant-
type of funding from NGAs: can be fulfilled by the LGUs (94.5%); have improved the quality

39
1.6% not at all responsible, 6.9% somewhat responsible, 21.3% mostly responsible, 70.3% completely responsible
40
2.9% not at all responsible, 7.9% somewhat responsible, 15.5% mostly responsible, 73.7% completely responsible
41
4.5% not at all responsible, 17.6% somewhat responsible, 35.5% mostly responsible, 42.4% completely responsible

54
of public investment projects (93.4%); are effectively enforced (94.4%); facilitate rapid design
of investment projects (86.5%); facilitate coordination between the national/
regional/provincial and the LGU administration (94.1%); and facilitate coordination within the
LGU administration (96.4%).

However, there were items that asked about the unintended consequences of these
requirements. These statements also focused on whether the DILG requirements attached to
grant-type of funding from NGAs: impose additional administrative efforts (50.3% agreed);
very demanding in terms of time (84.5% agreed); and limit the freedom of the LGU to allocate
investments (42% agreed).

Aside from these, the respondents were also asked about their perception on what the top area
of concern faced by their LGU in the last three years. For all regions, top answers include roads
development and maintenance at 17.3%, agriculture at 15.1%, water at 12.7%, solid waste at
9.3%, environment at 8.2%, disaster risk reduction and management at 6.5% and the other
concerns constitute less than 5%.

Meanwhile, the responses across the regions indicate varying top concerns. Six regions
indicated roads development and maintenance as their top concern: CAR, Regions VI, VIII,
IX, X, and XI. On the other hand, six regions identified agriculture as their top concern:
Regions I, II, III, V, XII, and Caraga. Regions III and IV-A identified solid waste as their key
concern while Region IV-B indicated water as its priority concern. Region III indicated both
solid waste and agriculture as top priorities. For most regions, particularly Regions I, II, V,
VI, VIII, X, XI, XII, and Caraga, there is only a small difference between their first and second
priorities.

4.4.4. Municipality Planning Process – CSO Participation in LGU Development Planning

As to CSO’s participation in LGU development planning, the respondents were asked about
their perception as to which steps of the CDP preparation should the CSOs participate and
contribute.

Generally, majority of the respondents agreed that CSOs should participate and contribute to
all the steps of the CDP preparation such as: organizing and mobilizing the planning team
(89.6%);42 revisiting of existing plans and reviewing of LGU vision (93.2%);43 preparing
ecological profile and structured list of PPAs (90.6%);44 preparing the LDIP (92.4%);45 and
preparing Needs Implementation Instruments (CapDev Program/M&E Plan) (89.5%).46

42
1.9% Strongly disagree, 4.7% somewhat disagree, 4.9% neither agree nor disagree, 25% somewhat agree, 62.6% strongly
agree
43
0.9% Strongly disagree, 2.4% somewhat disagree, 3.6% neither agree nor disagree, 29.5% somewhat agree, 63.7% strongly
agree
44
1% Strongly disagree, 3.1% somewhat disagree, 5.2% neither agree nor disagree, 33.3% somewhat agree, 57.3% strongly
agree
45
1% Strongly disagree, 2.3% somewhat disagree, 4.3% neither agree nor disagree, 27.8% somewhat agree, 64.6% strongly
agree
46
1.2% Strongly disagree, 3.8% somewhat disagree, 5.5% neither agree nor disagree, 33% somewhat agree, 56.5% strongly
agree

55
Table 32. Perception of Municipal Budget Officer/Accountant on how CSOs can best
engage in the LGU development plans
Type of Engagement Percentage Share
Face to face consultation of LGU 43.2
Membership of CSOs in multi-stakeholder committees 13.3
Submission of inputs by individual CSOs 13.8
Not necessary for CSOs to engage 0.2
Don’t know 0.2
Others47 29.3
N= 1,343

To further delve into CSO participation in LGU development planning, the respondents were
also asked about their perception on how CSOs can best engage in the development/updating
of LGU development plans. As shown in Table 32, 43.2% of the respondents suggested that
the LGU should have a face to face consultation with the CSO, 13.3% ascribed to membership
of CSOs in multi-stakeholder committees, and 13.8% preferred submission of inputs by
individual CSOs. A small proportion (2%) of the respondents argued that CSOs’ participation
was not necessary, and 29% gave other responses. Of the 393 (29.3%) respondents who gave
other answers, 47.9% referred to the CSOs’ active participation and attendance in meetings;
12.5% to LGUs’ allocation of budget/allowance/honorarium to the CSOs; and 10.2% to
providing training and capacity building activities for CSOs.

4.5. Perceptions on the LGU planning process: The municipal engineer

4.5.1. Respondent General Information

On average, the respondents have rendered about over 15 years of government service of which
less than 15 years as municipal engineers. As regards their educational background, around
87% of the respondents are college degree holders, 6.4% have master’s degree units, and five
percent (5%) are master’s degree holders. More than 89% of the respondents studied civil
engineering.

4.5.2. Municipality Planning Process – Specific Roles/Assignments in the

Preparation/Updating of the CDP

The respondents were asked about their level of responsibility as a member of the Municipal
Planning Team in the process of preparation and updating of the LGU’s CDP. These questions
aim to solicit whether they are completely responsible, mostly responsible, somewhat
responsible, and not at all responsible in the following processes (Figure 17). About 61.1% of
the interviewed LGU representatives considered themselves responsible in correctly and
comprehensively profiling their respective sectors for the Preparation and updating of the
Comprehensive Plan (CDP). More than 60% of the respondents affirmed that their
roles/assignment for the Preparation and Updating of the CDP is through consulting with
members of each sector and informing them of the results of the profile and validating the
same. More than three quarters of the respondents (77.2%) indicated responsibility in field-
validation of the structures list to know if the PPAs have actual proponents and beneficiaries.
For the role of participating in all activities as identified in the approved workplan for the

47
Top 3 answers: Active participation and attendance in meetings (47%), allocation for budget or allowance/honorarium (12.47%),
Training and capacity building (10.18%).

56
preparation/updating the CDP, about 41.7% affirmed that they are completely responsible.
Around 72% to 75% of the respondents agreed that they were indeed responsible as a member
of the municipal planning team in participating in the prioritization activities and ensure that
all sectors are properly represented (72.41%) and ensure that the prioritization process is
diligently and judiciously done (75.31%).

Figure 17. Specific roles/assignment of the Municipal Engineer as a member of the MPT in
the preparation/updating of CDP

Correctly and Comprehensively profile their respective

sector
Consult with members of each sector and inform them of
the results of the profile and validate the same
Field-validate the structured list to know if the PPAs have
actual proponents and beneficiaries
Participate in all activities as identified in the approved
workplan
Participate in the prioritization activities and ensure that
all sectors are properly represented
Ensure that the prioritization process is diligently and
judiciously done

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not at all responsible Somewhat responsible Mostly responsible Completely responsible

4.5.3. Municipality Planning Process – Vertical Coordination (Between LGU and the
National Government/DILG)

As to the vertical coordination between the LGU and the national government (DILG), Figure
18 shows that around 85% of the respondents indicated that the prescribed priorities and
national goals of the DILG affect their LGU priority setting. Also, around 96% of the
respondents said that their LGU is involved/consulted in the identification of national goals
and priorities either directly or through the DILG.

57
Figure 18. Perspective of the Municipal Engineer to the extent of coordination between LGU
and DILG in PPAs

Do the national goals and priorities prescribed by the

DILG affect LGU priority setting?

Is your LGU involved/consulted in the identification of

national goals and priorities either directly or through the
DILG?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, to a significant extent Yes, to some extent No Don't Know

The respondents were asked about their perception on the implications of the DILG
requirements attached to grant type of funding. On the average, around 95% of the respondents
agreed on the items that ask about the good implications of these requirements. Moreover, there
are items that asked about the consequences of these requirements such as demanding in terms
of time, impose administrative efforts, and limit the freedom of the LGU to allocate
investments. On the average around 63% of the respondents agreed to these statements (Figure
19).

Figure 19. Implications of DILG requirements attached to grant-type of funding

…can be fulfilled by the LGUs
…have improved the quality of public investment projects
…are effectively enforced
…do not impose additional administrative efforts
…facilitate rapid design of investment projects
…facilitate coordination between the…
…facilitate coordination within the LGU administration
…are very demanding in terms of time
…limit the freedom of the LGU to allocate investments

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
strongly disagree somewhat disagree neither agree nor disagree somewhat agree strongly agree

Among all the respondents, roads development and maintenance was considered the topmost
concern faced by their LGU in the last three years, followed by water, agriculture, solid waste,
and disaster risk reduction and management (Table 33). About one- third of the respondents
interviewed indicated that the top area of concern they faced in the last three year were the
roads development and maintenance. The 31% coming from the following regions: CAR, I, II,
III, IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and CARAGA, while about two percent (2%) are
from Region VII. Meanwhile, only 2.4% of the LGUs interviewed are from Region VII,
considered water as the top area of concern. Ten percent (10%) of the representatives
interviewed identified and considered water as the second priority of area concern. They were
mostly from in Regions IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, and CARAGA.

58
Table 33. Top five areas of concern faced by the LGUs as viewed by the Municipal Engineer
Areas Percentage Share
Roads development and Maintenance 33.3%
Water 15.1%
Agriculture 11.0%
Solid waste 6.7%
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) 6.1%
N= 1,341

4.5.4. Municipality Planning Process – CSO Participation in LGU Development Planning

As presented on Figure 20, most of the respondents (around 88 to 92%) agreed that the CSOs
should participate and contribute to the five steps of CDP preparation.

Figure 20. Perception of Municipal Engineer of the CSO participation of CSO in the
preparation of the CDP

Organizing and mobilizing the planning team

Revisiting of existing plans and reviewing of LGU vision

Preparing ecological profile and structured list of PPAs

Preparing the Local Development Investment Plan

Preparing needs implementation instruments

(CapDev/M&E Plan)

0 20 40 60 80 100
strongly disagree somewhat disagree neither agree nor disagree somewhat agree strongly agree

Most of the respondents believed that CSOs can best engage in the development and updating
of LGU development plans through face to face consultation of the LGU (Table 34). Among
the overall specifications for the perceived means for CSOs to best engage in the development
and updating of LGU development plans, most indicated active participation and attendance in
meetings, followed by empower and encourage CSOs.

Table 34. Perception of Municipal Engineer on how CSOs can best engage in the LGU
development plans
Mechanisms Percentage Share
Face to face consultation of LGU 43.3%
Membership of CSOs in multi-stakeholder committees 13.6%
Submission of inputs by individual CSOs 14.9%
Not necessary for CSOs to engage 0.45%
Don’t know 0.67%
Others48 27.1%
N= 1,341

48
Top 3 answers: Active participation and attendance in meetings (46%), empower and encourage CSOs (9.64%), and allocation
for budget or allowance/honorarium (9.37%)

59
4.6. Perceptions on the LGU Planning process: Civil Society Organizations

4.6.1. Respondent General Information

In all regions, the respondents were mostly presidents or heads of the CSOs. Of the 1,323 CSO
respondents, 74% are presidents/CSO heads/chairpersons and 3.6% are vice-presidents/vice-
chairpersons. The rest are made up of 4.2% secretaries and treasurers and 18% are occupying
in various capacities. Of the 18%, 34 are members, 24 are managers, 18 are focal persons, 14
are members of the Board of Directors, 13 are general managers. Also included as respondents
are various officers of the organizations, religious pastors/chaplains, and a stand-in for a
deceased spouse.

4.6.2. Organizational Profile

Seventy-six percent (76%) of the CSO respondents refer to the organization heads as
Presidents, 15 % are chairpersons, and the rest by other designations, including eight Executive
Directors, seven Office of Senior Citizen Affairs (OSCA) Heads, six managers, five
chairpersons of the Board and several pastors.

Following the PSA typology of organizations, majority of the CSO respondents would fall
under people’s organization (PO) followed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Of the
1,244 organizations, 49% identify themselves as PO, 24.6% as NGOs, 12% as cooperatives,
9.4% as civic organizations and 2% as business groups.

Table 35. Sectors of CSO members of the MPT

Type of Sectors Number Percentage
Farmers and landless rural workers 286 22%
Women 230 17%
Elderly/Senior Citizen 161 12%
Multi-sectoral 135 10%
Fisherfolks 121 9%
Religious sector 74 6%
Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) 61 5%
Workers in the informal sector 46 3%
Formal labor and migrant workers 44 3%
Indigenous people 30 2%
Urban poor 28 2%
Youth and students 25 2%
Children 22 2%
Others (govt. employees, livelihood, workers in transportation
sector, professionals, victims of disaster) 60 5%

Meanwhile, twenty-two percent (22%) CSO respondents classify themselves as organizations

of farmers and landless workers, 17% as women, 12% as elderly/senior citizens, 10 % as multi
sectoral, 9% as fisher folk, 6% as religious sector, 5% as persons with disabilities, and the rest
as workers in informal sectors, formal labor and migrant workers, as indigenous communities,
as urban poor, as youth and students and as children and others.

60
Majority of the CSO respondents’ organizations, i.e., 1,237 or 93% are registered with one of
the authorized government agencies. Only 86 respondents or seven percent (7%) are not
registered at all. Of the 1,237 registered CSOs, 36% of which have obtained their
registration/license from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 23% from their
respective Local Sanggunian, 22% from the DOLE, 12% from the Cooperative Development
Authority (CDA), % from the DSWD and % from other NGAs (DA, DepED, HLURB, etc.).

4.6.3. CSO Participation in the Preparation/Updating of Local Development Plans

Most of the CSOs interviewed indicate awareness of the selection criteria in CSO participation.
However, around 168 CSO representatives or 13% of CSO respondents were not aware of any
criteria for CSOs’ membership in MPT.

Table 36. Awareness of CSO in selection criteria for MPT CSO membership
Principal criteria Percentage Share
Active participation in meetings 29%
Other forms of accreditation 20%
Accreditation by the LGUs 17%
Clueless or do not know 13%
Biggest representation/no. of members 11%
Good track record 9%
Others (beneficiaries of government programs, required by law) 1%
N= 1,324

When CSO respondents were asked relative to the principal criteria on their participation in the
MPT, almost one-third or 29% responded active participation in meetings, 20% other forms of
accreditation, 17% accreditation by their LGUs, 14% do not know, 11% biggest
representation/number of members and 9% good track record (Table 36).

Close to 350 CSOs indicated that they have attended an average of four meetings. Majority of
the CSOs attended from two to six meetings and some even cited attending as high as 10 and
12 meetings.

On average, to complete the MPT, 22.3% of the total number of CSOs attended four meetings,
17% three meetings, 14.1% two meetings, and 9.6% five meetings. Thirty-six (36)
organizations representing 2.7% did not attend any meeting, and on the other extreme one
attended 53 meetings.

4.6.4. Steps of CDP Preparation

For this sub-section’s discussion, Figure 21 presents the level of CSO participation in the five
steps of CDP preparation/updating. Fifty-seven percent 57%) or 695 CSO respondents strongly
agreed to their substantial participation in organizing and mobilizing the planning team, 21%
or 256 CSO respondents somewhat agreed, while five percent or 58 CSO respondents
somewhat disagreed and 16% or 193 CSO respondents strongly disagreed.

On the other hand, 52% of the total CSO respondents strongly agreed to their participation in
revisiting of existing plans and reviewing LGU vision, while 25% or 311 CSO respondents

61
somewhat agreed whereas 5.5% or 68 CSO respondents somewhat disagreed and 14% or
around 176 CSO respondents strongly disagreed.

With respect to participation on preparation of ecological profile and structures list of PPAs,
48% CSO respondent strongly agreed, 27% CSO respondents somewhat agreed, yet 26.6%
CSO respondents somewhat agree and 14% CSO respondents strongly did not agree.

When it comes to CSO participation in preparing the LDIP, about 50% CSO respondents
strongly agreed, 26% somewhat agreed, despite 5.2% CSO respondents somewhat disagreed
as well as 15% CSO respondents strongly disagreed.

As regards to CSO participation, around 49% CSO respondents strongly agreed in their role in
preparing needs implementation instrument (CapDev Program/M&E Plan), 27% CSO
respondents somewhat agreed. Likewise, 8% CSO respondents somewhat disagreed and 16%
CSO respondents did not agree.

Figure 21. Level of CSO participation in the steps of CDP preparation/updating

Preparing needs implementation instruments

Preparing the local development investment plan

Preparing ecological profile and stuctured list of PPAs

Revising existing plans and reviewing LGU vision

Organizing and mobilizing the Planning Team

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

4.6.5. CSO’s level of influence on the outcomes of the following activities in the
preparation/updating of the LGU’s CDP

A total 1,230 CSO respondents assessed their level of influence on the outcomes of activities
in the preparation/updating of the LGU’s CDP (Figure 22).

With respect to the correct and comprehensive profiling of sectors, there are 336 CSO
respondents or 27% who expressed that they were extremely influential; 532 or 43 % expressed
that they were very influential; while 288 or 23% said they were somewhat influential and
some 52 or 4.2% said they were slightly influential.

In terms of consultation and validation of the results of the profiles with the members of their
respective sectors; 344 or 28% said they were extremely influential, 545 or 44% said they were

62
very influential, 236 or 19% said they were somewhat influential, and only 78 or 6% as slightly
influential.

Moreover, around 382 CSO respondents or 31% stated their extremely influential with respect
to field validation of the structured list to know if the PPAs have actual proponents and
beneficiaries; 42% stated that they were very influential, 19% as somewhat influential, and
only 6.1% as slightly influential.

With respect to participation in all activities as identified in the approved MPT workplan, 463
CSO respondents or 38% affirmed that they are extremely influential; 485 CSO respondents or
39% as very influential; 208 CSO respondents or 17% as somewhat influential and a mere 54
CSO respondents or 4.4% as slightly influential.

When it comes to participation in prioritization activities and ensuring that all sectors are
properly represented, 446 CSO respondents or 36% maintain that they are extremely
influential; 519 CSO respondents or 42% as very influential; 184 or 15% as somewhat
influential and around 60 CSO respondents or 5% as slightly influential.

Regarding ensuring that the prioritization process is diligently and judiciously done, 416 CSO
respondents or 34% declare that they are extremely influential; 526 CSO respondents or 43%
as very influential; 208 or 17% as somewhat influential and around 56 CSO respondents or 5%
as slightly influential. Some 153 CSO respondents have not answered this portion of the survey.

Figure 22. Assessing the CSO's level of influence on the outcomes in the preparation/
updating of the LGU's CDP
Ensuring that the prioritization process is diligently and
judiciously done.
Participation in the prioritization activities and ensuring
that all sectors are properly represented
Participation in all activities as identified in the
approved MPT workplan
Field validation of the structured list to know if the PPAs
have actual proponents and beneficiaries
Consultation and validation of the results of the profile
with members of the respective sectors

Correct and comprehensive profiling of sectors

0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%

Not at all influential slightly influential Somewhat influential Very Influential Extremely Influential

4.6.6. General Perceptions on Local Development Plans

When asked whether their relationship with the local government officials improved as a result
of their participation in the preparation/updating of the CDP/LDIP/AIP, 94.4% answered in the
affirmative, 5.1% claimed no changes, and only 0.5% claimed that it worsened.

63
On the other hand, when asked whether their relationship improved with other CSOs as a result
of their participation in the preparation/updating of the CDP/LDIP/AIP, 91% reported
improvement, % said no improvement, and only % reported worsening of the relationship.

In response to the question as to how can the CSOs best engage in the preparation/updating of
LGU development plans, as presented in Figure 23, almost half (47.2%) of the total CSO
respondents indicated that face to face consultation is effective. Other mechanisms include:
membership of CSOs in multi-stakeholder committees (13.1%); submission of inputs by
individual CSOs (12.9%), and; active participation by CSOs in planning and implementation
(9.8%) on by CSOs in planning and implementation; 13.6% by Motivating CSOs and providing
support and assistance (projects, accreditation, medical, benefits, office space at LGU,
technical inputs, budget; 11.6% by inviting CSO to meetings, and planning and other activities
and enjoining CSOs to be more active; 11% by educating CSOs and providing training about
the planning process. The remaining 19.4% suggested by cooperating with LGUs and
supporting its activities; complying with the requirements; by strengthening the CSO though
planning, regular meetings, and secure accreditation; by providing inputs, opinions and
suggestions, by engaging CSOs in project monitoring, by giving equal chance to all CSOs to
become MPT members; expanding CSO representation and areas of participation; listening to
CSOs suggestions and by working together and improving relationship with other CSOs.

Figure 23. Mechanisms on how can CSOs best engage in the preparation/updating of LGU
development plans

Face to face consultation of LGU 47.2%

Membership of CSOs in multi-stakeholder committees 13.1%

Submission of inputs by individual CSOs 12.9%

Active participation by CSOs in planning and… 9.8%

Motivating CSOs and providing support and assistance 3.5%

Inviting CSO to LGU meetings and activties 3.0%

Educating CSOs and providing training about the… 2.8%

Cooperating wih LGUs and supporting its activities 1.6%

Not necessary for CSOs to engage 0.8%

Don't know 0.3%

Others 4.9%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

Respondents were asked on proposed indicators used to rank LDIP projects according to its
weight on which projects should be prioritized – 1 being the highest and 7 being the lowest.

For this question, the categories used are: 1) Urgency of the project; 2) Project Readiness -
Local Counterpart Funding; 3) Project Readiness - Program of Work; 4) Project Readiness -
Site Identification; 5) Project Readiness – Environmental; 6) Community Benefits; 7)
Community Equity/Participation. So, each of the indicators above can be ranked by a
respondent as first (1) or last (7). Nationwide results are tabulated in the table below:

64
Table 37. Ranking of DILG proposed project readiness indicators
Percentage (times the Percentage (times the
Indicators
indicator ranked as Rank 1) indicator ranked as Rank 7)
Urgency of the project 32.0% 11.0%
Community benefits 23.3% 19.7%
Community equity/participation 13.4% 16.9%
Project Readiness- site identification 9.8% 6.0%
Project readiness – local counterpart 7.1% 16.4%
Project readiness – program of work 5.4% 15.1%
Project Readiness- environmental 4.1% 9.9%

Identified at the first priority spot, i.e., which was ranked as “1” is ‘urgency of the project’;
followed by ‘community benefits’ as second; third on the list is ‘community
equity/participation’; fourth is ‘project readiness – site identification’, ‘project readiness- local
counterpart’ as fifth; ‘project readiness-POW’ as sixth; and on the last spot ‘project readiness-
environmental’.

Alternatively, the bottom ranked indicators, or those that were ranked as “7” by the CSO
respondents is ‘community benefits’. Next is ‘community equity/participation’, on the third
spot is ‘project readiness for local counterpart’, followed by ‘project readiness – POW’ as
fourth, ‘urgency of the project’ as fifth, sixth is ‘project readiness-environmental’ and the last
is ‘project readiness – site identification.’

5. Summary and General Findings

5.1. Summary of Components 1, 2, and 3.1

The first two components of this Baseline Study provided important background information
by reviewing current local governance measures used by policymakers to monitor local
government performance. Their combined results showed that there is still room for
improvement in terms of development planning (both within LGUs and aligning with national
government priorities) and delivering mandates (budget utilization report (BUR) for the Local
Development Fund (LDF) and local resource mobilization).

Component 1 laid the groundwork to identify gaps in policy by examining and exploring
existing tools in local planning such as the LDC functionality and the LDIP. It was found that
in 2017, the Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLGS) of the DILG reported that the
regional average score for LDC functionality was estimated at 83%. That is, in terms of the
criteria used to evaluate LDC functionality (secretariat support, presence of an executive
committee, proper composition, regular meetings, formulated plans) an average of 83% of
LGUs, by region. had functional LDCs (Philippine Institute for Development Studies LGSF-
AM Team 2018, DILG-BLGS 2017). As for the criteria the presence of at least one formulated
plan (e.g. CDP/LDIP/AIP), more than 97% of LGUs received a passing score.

For Component 2, the results showed that LGUs had fair utilization rates spending 73% of the
mandated minimum 20% of their IRA (also known as the Local Development Fund), for
development projects49. That is, though local governments are mandated to spend at least 20%

49
There are 31 municipalities with incomplete data on either the LDF utilization or IRA (Annex B)

65
of their IRA, on development purposes, in 2016, LGUs utilized only 73% of the IRA for
development purposes. This insufficient utilization rate was attributed to either poor planning,
monitoring, non-prioritization of development projects or spending on unintended purposes
(Commission on Audit 2017). Consequently, the Commission on Audit (COA) recommended
improved: (1) planning, prioritization of development projects and securing the support of the
local Sanggunian (local legislative body) in the drafting of the AIP; and, (2) monitoring and
evaluation in the implementation of development projects (Commission on Audit 2017, 617).
Furthermore, the Component 2 report showed that LGUs had low local source revenue effort,
averaging only 17.9% of total LGU income in 2016.

Because of data and information limitations met in drafting the Component 1 report, a recourse
to the initial intention to evaluate the quality of LDIPs was to estimate infrastructure and fiscal
gaps in the keys areas of infrastructure and deferred to the Component 3.1 report. Data on
roads, water systems, evacuation centers and RHUs for municipalities as of 2017 was gathered
directly from the municipalities. Though the figures might be under- or over-estimated because
not all LGSF-AM municipalities submitted data, the Component 3.1 report was able to draw
out some minimum requirements or a range of estimates. In the case of roads, almost 87% of
municipalities need at least PhP 133 billion to pave municipal roads existing in 2017. To ensure
that there is at least one primary evacuation center in GIDA areas, based on 84% submission
of municipalities, the (overestimated) fiscal gap to build 488 more primary evacuation centers
(depending on the type needed in the area) ranges from PhP 2 billion to PhP 12.2 billion.

As for Rural Health Units, the DOH prescribed rule-of-thumb of having one RHU per 20,000
population was applied to the 88% of municipal submissions. One challenge was the difference
in population estimates submitted by the local government versus the 2015 Population Census
figures of the Philippines Statistics Authority wherein the former was lower which could result
in an underestimated number of required RHUs if based on municipal submissions. Despite
these caveats, estimates of the fiscal gap for 88% of municipalities based on the 2015 PSA
population figures and RHUs existing in 2017 range from PhP 17.9 billion to PhP 21.4 billion
dependent on whether in a non-GIDA or GIDA area.

For access to potable water, the determination of the proportion of households with access by
level of water systems posed a major challenge. This was because of incomplete submissions,
inaccurate/erroneous entries of the number of population served by each level of access, and
the non-exclusivity of the levels of access available in municipalities (i.e. one municipality may
have all three levels of water as sources of water). What could be estimated though, instead of
the share of waterless households, was the number of municipalities with barangays that still
access water exclusively from Level 1 sources as reported.

Overall, there were 516 barangays found in 34 municipalities in 21 provinces that reported to
access water exclusively from Level 1 sources only in 2017. Among the regions, Region II
(Cagayan Valley) has the highest number of barangays with Level 1 access to water, with 104
barangays. For this region, it was the province of Isabela found to have the greatest number of
barangays, at 51, with exclusive Level 1 access to water. On the other hand, Region III and
Region IVB had the fewest barangays with exclusive Level 1 access to water, with both at 12
barangays.

66
5.2. Component 3.2 results

Because of the richness of the survey results on the comprehensive development planning
process of municipalities, these are presented in the sub-section below by each interview
conducted: (1) the municipal planning team with focus on the DILG prescribed CDP process;
(2) the perceptions regarding the planning process of local government officials that are core
members of the planning team (MPDO, MEO, MBO/Accountant); and, (3) the perceptions
regarding the planning process of civil society organization representatives in the planning
team.

5.2.1. Local Planning Team

Existing LGU Plans and Vision

Overall, 91.3% of the municipalities surveyed had land use plans, but, only a very small share
(64 out of 1,254) had CLUPs with the correct range of 9-year coverage. A third of the total
number of these municipalities had CLUPs covering the years 2018-2016, while some have
coverages of 2017-2025 (25.0%) and 2015-2023 (15.6%).

As for the CDPs of the surveyed municipalities, these were found to be more current than the
CLUPs. Furthermore, a larger proportion of these CDPs (490 out of 1,190) were within the
mandated coverage of six years, with 52.2% and 16.53% of these CDPs ranging from 2017-
2022 and 2018-2023, respectively. In terms of the LDIP, almost all (97.5%) LGUs claimed to
have LDIPs but only one third of the total were found to be within the correct coverage of three
years. The LDIPs covered mostly the years 2017-2019.

Most respondents, at 41.2%, identified the MPDC as the one who initiated the CLUP. About
23.7% said it was the LCE and 22.7% the MPT. As for the updating of the CDP/LDIP/AIP,
almost the same distribution at 42.2% said the MPDC as the initiator, 22.9% said it was the
LCE and 24.1%, the MPT.

Almost half (47.6%) of the respondents said that it is the LDC which identifies the vision of
the municipality and 45.0% referred the MPT. On the other hand, only 3.9% of the responses
pointed to LCEs. Most respondents, at 38%, identified the MPT as the one ensuring that the
vision of the municipality is responsive to the updated CDP, while a significant 29.4% said it
was the LCE.

Most respondents, at 76.6%, affirmed that CLUP plans are reflected in CDP. A marginal 14%
answered “sometimes.” An even smaller number said “never” of which 35% said they had no
CDP and 30% said they had no CLUP.

Over half (56.89%) of the respondents said they met between two and five times to prepare the
latest CDP. Of this total, 18.9% said it took just four MPT meetings, 14.6% said three meetings
and 12.1% said five meetings.

Preparation of Ecological Profile and Structured List of PPAs

Over half (57.0%) of respondents used CBMS as primary dataset source for the preparation
and updating of the ecological profile. However, 7.8% did not use any data set. Most, at 32.2%,

67
collect data every 3 years, 24.6% said they collect every year and a significant 27.3% do not
have regular data collection. Significantly, 81.20% said their LGUs allocate budget for the
conduct of development tools.

MPDCs were identified by 82.2% of the total number of respondents as the focal persons for
LGU’s development tools. Most respondents, at 80.9%, said hired enumerators collected the
data, 43.2% said LGU staff and 28.5% said Barangay staff. Over 60% of the respondents said
MPDO staff/s processed and analyzed the data. However, 35% said it was the MPDO Head
who processed the data and 44% said he was also the one who analyzed it.

The data items used by LGUs in preparing/updating the CDP and in policy making, in the order
of the number of times they are mentioned are demography, education and literacy, water and
sanitation, health, nutrition, farming, economic activity, household characteristics, housing
characteristics, sources of income, waste management, livestock, housing, crime, fishing, and
climate change. Also mentioned are access to programs, hunger, death of a household member
and political participation. Others mentioned are poverty, Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs)
concerns, environment, DRR and tourism.

Most respondents, at 88.7%, said the data were used to identify priority sectors. Respondents
identified these sectors in the order of their priority: Persons with Disabilities, Urban Poor,
Farmers and Landless Workers, Children, Women, Artisanal Fisherfolk, Victims of Disasters,
Elderly/Senior Citizens, Formal Labor and Migrant Workers, Indigenous People/Community,
Workers in the Informal Sector and Youth and Students.

Almost all respondents affirmed that the “readily usable” ecological profile was utilized in the
identification of a structured list of PPAs, and almost all confirmed that all the PPAs in the
structured list were included in the LDIP.

Local Development Investment Programming

When asked if project briefs are prepared for each Program/Project/Activity in the LDIP,
majority of the municipalities (54.19% of 744) said “always,” 35.8% answered “sometimes,”
while 10% admitted never having never done it. Of the 1236 LGUs that prepared briefs, 43.35%
indicated that their MPDCs do it, 19.29% their Municipal Planning Teams (MPTs) while
28.12% indicated “other persons.”

As for the basis of ranking or shortlisting PPAs to produce the Ranked List of PPAs for the
LDIP, workshops/consultations were used primarily by 68.0% of the respondents, followed by
the Urgency Test Matrix at 48.5%, and Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment (CIDRA) at
42.0%.

As to the financing approach, 45.23% of the 1,373 LGUs took the pragmatic approach in
crossmatching the ranked list of PPAs for investment programming with the available
resources of the LGU while 38.82% took the developmental approach. Only 15.66% of the
respondents shared that they chose the conservative approach.

68
Local Development Investment Programming – The Annual Investment Program and
the 2017 LGU Budget in 2017

As to whether the municipalities were able to finance all the 2017 AIP PPAs using LGU budget
only, 44.57% said “yes.” For the 55.43% of the municipalities that said “no,” 93.17% of these
looked for other sources of financing. The most common source of complementary funding
was grant-type of funding from NGAs requested directly by the municipalities at 75.5%.

In 2017, 90.13% of the municipalities received additional funds from NGAs/NG (not IRA) to
finance priority PPAs in their latest LDIP. Over 70% of the respondent LGUs indicated that
the NGAs/NG funded projects were given priority in implementation ahead of funding from
20% LDF. Close to 80% of the municipalities reported that NGA/NG funded projects are not
included in the computation of the 20% LDF.

As to funding sources of the AIP PPAs included in the 2017 LGU budget, on average, 93.5%
of the total number of municipalities utilized their IRAs and own revenues such as local taxes
(95.4%) and other local revenues such as license fees, receipts from local economic enterprises
and other receipts (82.7%). The grant-type of funding from NGAs such as PCF and BUB,
accounted for an average of 51.2%.

In the last five years of implementing the LGU AIP (2012-2017), only 16.39% of the 1,373
respondents answered “yes” to using public-private partnerships (PPP) while 51.31% indicated
creating local public enterprises. As to the reasons for non-use, over a couple of hundred
different reasons were given without any dominant reason.

On the LGUs allocating funds for insurance, 81.86% of the 1373 respondents said “yes.” The
overall average payment was Php 4.5M. For the 18.0% which did not allocate for insurance,
the most common reason appears to be lack of funds or simply no budget.

Preparation of Needed Implementation Instruments for the CDP

On average, 82.0% of the municipalities claim to have some CapDev programs for
implementing the LDIP while less than a fifth shared that they have none. Of those who
reported to have such, over 92.43% indicated that their programs follow DILG’s formulation
steps and/or they use the LGPMS or SCALOG. As for who is responsible for the CapDev
Program, only a fifth (20.8%) indicated the LCE. Almost 80% identified other officials which
include HRMOs (23%), 16% by the MPTs, and 27% by MPDCs/MPDOs

However, for implementation, the LCE was identified by 46.1% of the respondents. Among
the respondents who answered “others,” 33.88% indicated HRMOs; 15.1%, “all department
heads;” 30.41%, MPDCs/MPDOs; 13.72% by whoever is “concerned;” and 5.79%, MPT.

In terms of having an exclusive CDP M&E strategy, only 38.4% of the LGUs respondents
answered in the affirmative. As for who is responsible for drafting the M&E strategy, 23.19%
indicated LCEs. Of the “other” answers, 50.0% of respondents identified MPDCs and 20.79%,
MPTs. For M&E strategy implementation, 35.17% of group respondents indicated that the
LCEs are responsible while the rest reported 39.9% MPDCs,8.21% MEs, and 9.68%
Monitoring Teams.

69
 5.2.2. Perception of Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators

Level of responsibility in preparation and updating of CDP as a member of MPT

Of the six identified roles in the preparation and updating of CDP, more than a majority of the
MPDCs as members of MPT, acknowledge complete responsibility for five, i.e., (1) correctly
and comprehensively profiling their respective sectors (2) consulting with members of each
sector, informing them of the results of the profile, and validating them (3) participating in all
activities of the approved workplan (4) participating in the prioritization activities and ensuring
that proper representation of all sectors and (5) ensuring diligent and judicious prioritization
process. Over a third of respondents admit substantial responsibility (mostly responsible) in all
the roles. Less than 8% consider themselves only somewhat responsible in these five roles.

However, as to their role of field-validating of structured list if the PPAs have actual proponents
and beneficiaries, close to half of the respondents indicated they are mostly responsible, while
only over a third admit to complete responsibility. Also, more respondents (13.5%) consider
themselves somewhat responsible.

In sum, the MPDCs, as members of MPT, acknowledge fairly high degree of responsibility in
the preparation and updating of CDP.

Level of responsibility in preparation and updating of CDP as a MPDC

Of their 10 roles in the preparation and updating of the CDP, MPDC, a great majority
acknowledges complete responsibility in insuring that the approved AIP is derived from the
LDIP. Less than a third indicate mostly responsible only. About half own responsibility in (1)
orienting the members of the planning team of their responsibilities (2) taking inventory of
existing plans and leading in identifying plans which are relevant and which need to be updated
based on LGU Vision (3) coordinating with department heads and sectoral committees in
checking for the consistency of plans with LGU Vision and responsiveness to prevailing
situation (4) coordinating with the Sanggunian in the identification of legislative requirements
and (5) preparing the annual Accomplishment Report. A slightly lower number reported being
mostly responsible in these five roles.

Less than half of respondents report mostly responsible in (1) identification of members of the
core planning team based on the five development sectors (2) checking if the Vision of the
LGU is still responsive of current mandates and prevailing situation and (3) preparation of the
M&E Strategies. Only about a third recognize complete responsibility in these three
roles. However, as to the responsibility of preparing the Executive Order and Workplan for
the approval of the LCE, only 37% indicate complete responsibility, 35% report being mostly
responsible and a significant 20% consider themselves only somewhat responsible.

Generally, most MPDCs assume complete responsibility in the preparation and updating of the
CDP, although they constitute just a little over a majority.

70
Vertical Coordination Between LGU and National Government/DILG

As to vertical coordination, LGU involvement in the identification of national goals is strongly

acknowledged but only about a half believe that the national goals significantly affect LGU
priority setting.

Majority of the respondents strongly agreed that the national government (DILG) requirements
attached to grant-type of funding from NGAs facilitate coordination within the LGU
administration and between the national/regional/provincial and the LGU
administration. They also say that these requirements are effectively enforced, can be fulfilled
by the LGUs and have improved the quality of public investment projects, but very demanding
in terms of time. Only about a third somewhat agreed to these statements.

A greater majority agree, in varying degrees, that the NGA requirements facilitate rapid design
of investment projects.

Most, although less than half, of the respondents agree that these national government
requirements do not impose additional administrative efforts, but limit the freedom of the LGU
to allocate investments. A slightly lower number of them disagreed.

In sum, respondents agree that these requirements are helpful and doable although they are
time demanding and limit LGU's prerogatives.

Top area of concerns in the last three years

On the top current concerns of the LGUs, the MPDCs indicate basic road infrastructure,
agriculture and water, which may relate to accessibility (e.g., to markets and public facilities)
and food production. Strong secondary concerns are on the environment, solid waste and
disaster risk reduction reflecting relatively high awareness on the importance of taking care of
the environment. Livelihood and business matters take the back seat.

CSO Participation in LGU Development Planning

About two thirds of the respondents strongly agree on CSOs’ participation and contribution in
all the steps of the CDP preparation. Only less than a third indicated somewhat agree. Thus,
the MPDCs largely expect the CSOs participation and contribution in CDP preparation.

How CSOs can best engage in the development/updating of LGU development plans

The preferred modes largely differ across regions. Respondents from most of the Luzon regions
essentially prefer face to face consultation of LGUs. Visayas regions appear to prefer means
other than face to face or membership in committees or submission of inputs by CSOs.
Mindanao regions prefer both membership in committees and face to face consultation. Among
the other means of best engaging CSOs are active participation and attendance in meetings
(46% of other answers), allocation of budget/allowance/honorarium, 12%, and training and
capacity building (10%).

71
 5.2.3. Perceptions of Municipal Budget Officers/Accountants

Level of responsibility in preparation and updating of CDP as a member of MPT

For these first three roles, (1) correctly and comprehensively profiling sectors, (2) consulting
with members of each sector and informing them of the results of the profile and validate the
same, and (3) field-validate the structures list to know if the PPAs have actual proponents and
beneficiaries, the MBOs/Accountants were divided between somewhat and mostly responsible
at 32 to 35%. Only 16-18% of the respondents indicated completely responsible. At the other
extreme, 14-18% indicated not at all responsible. The next three roles on (4) participating in
all activities as identified in the approved workplan, (5) participating in the prioritization
activities and ensure that all sectors are properly represented, and (6) ensuring that the
prioritization process is diligently and judiciously done, with the larger majority indicating
mostly to completely responsible. The somewhat responsible however appear to be higher at
21-23%.

In sum, the municipal budget officers/accountants report moderate degrees of responsibility in

the tasks as members of MPT involved in the preparation and updating of CDP.

Level of responsibility in preparation and updating of CDP as a Budget

Officer/Accountant

In terms of the two roles on (1) preparation of the medium-term forecasts of current operating
expenses for PS, MOOE, and CO, collectively the COE, and (2) preparation of the budget
document based on the approved AIP and LDIP, 89-92% of the MBOs/Accountants clearly
know what are expected of them as evidenced by their responses of mostly and completely
responsible.

Vertical coordination between LGU and National Government/DILG

There is a clear consensus among the respondents on the effects of the national goals and
priorities prescribed by the DILG on their respective LGUs. The following effects where the
respondents mostly agree with are: that the effect on their priority setting is significant, and
that their LGUs were involved or consulted in the identification of these national goals and
priorities both directly or through the DILG. More than half considered these effects, and the
participation of the LGUs to be significant.

Regarding the national government requirements attached to grant type funding from NGAs,
almost all respondents agreed that they can be fulfilled by the LGUs and they are effectively
enforced. They also agreed that the requirements imposed have improved the quality of public
investment projects; facilitated the rapid design of investment projects; facilitated coordination
both between the national, regional, provincial and the LGU administration as well as within
the LGU administration. More than half indicated that they strongly agreed.

However, only about half of the respondents agreed that these requirements do not impose
additional administrative efforts on the LGU, while a large number agreed that the
requirements are very demanding in terms of time. Additionally, less than half, but more than
the respondents that agreed, of the LGU representatives disagreed that the requirements limited
the freedom of the LGU to allocate investments.

72
Overall, most respondents agreed that their respective LGUs benefitted from the national
government requirements attached to grant type funding from NGAs, despite some division on
the additional administrative efforts required, additional time demanded, and limited freedom
in allocating investments.

Top area of concerns in the last three years

The top areas of concern faced by LGU’s in the last three years are roads development and
maintenance at 17.3%, agriculture at 15.1%, water at 12.7%, solid waste at 9.3%, the
environment at 8.2%, disaster risk reduction and management at 6.5%.

The responses across the regions indicate the varying top concerns. Six regions indicated roads
development and maintenance as a top concern. Also, six regions identified agriculture as their
top concern. Regions and identified solid waste as their key concern while Region 4b indicated
water as its priority concern. Region indicated both solid waste and agriculture as top priorities.

CSO Participation in LGU Development Planning

An overwhelming majority of the respondents agree, in varying degrees (25% somewhat agree,
62.6% strongly agree), that CSOs should participate and contribute in the CDP preparation by
organizing and mobilizing the Planning Team. Only 6.6% disagree.

Almost all agreed that the participation of CSOs should include: (1) the revisiting of existing
plans and in reviewing the vision of their respective LGUs, (2) preparing the ecological profile
and structured list of PPAs, (3) preparing the LDIP, and (4) preparing the needs implementation
instruments (program, or the M&E Plan).

How CSOs can best engage in the development/updating of LGU development plans

In terms of how best to engage the CSO, the face-to-face consultation of LGU was the most
(43%) cited by the municipal budget officers/accountants. Membership of CSOs in multi-
stakeholder committees only got 13%. Among the other options, active participation and
attendance in meetings was identified by 47% of the respondents (who indicated “other
options”).

5.2.4. Perceptions of Municipal Engineers

Level of responsibility in preparation and updating of CDP as a member of the MPT

In all regions, majority of the respondents indicated that, as members of the MPT and as the
municipal engineer in the preparation/updating of the LGU’s CDP, they were responsible (1)
for correctly and comprehensively profiling their respective sectors for the reparation and
updating of the Comprehensive Plan (CDP), (2) for consulting with members of each sector
and informing them of the results of the profile and validating the same, (3) for field-validation
of the structured list to know if the PPAs have actual proponents and beneficiaries, (4) for
participating in the prioritization activities and ensure that all sectors are properly represented,
and (5) for ensuring the prioritization process is diligently and judiciously done.

73
Less than a tenth of the respondents indicated they are not at all responsible for any of the
above activities.

Overall, a good part of the municipal engineers acknowledged all these activities as part of
their responsibilities in the preparation/updating of the LGU’s CDP.

Vertical coordination between LGU and National Government/DILG

On the effect of the national goals and priorities prescribed by the DILG, most (46%) of the
respondents indicated that their LGUs’ priority setting was affected to a significant extent while
15% indicated no effect at all. On the other hand, majority (59%) reported that their LGUs
were involved or consulted to a significant extent either directly or through the DILG in the
identification of these goals and priorities and only 2.8% indicated no effect.

As to the effect of the requirements attached to the grant type funding from NGAs implemented
by the national government through the DILG, majority of respondents reported that: (1) their
LGUs were capable of fulfilling them; (2) these requirements improved the quality of public
investment projects; (3) they are effectively enforced; (4) they facilitated rapid design of
investment projects; (5) they facilitated coordination between the national, regional, provincial
and the LGU administration and within the LGU administration itself; (6) but they were very
demanding in terms of time; and (7) they did not impose additional administrative efforts on
the LGUs. Apart from the imposed additional administrative efforts, in all other aspects of the
requirements, more than half strongly agreed to their effects.

However, the respondents were split on whether the requirements attached limited the freedom
of the LGUs to allocate investments, with slightly more agreeing (44.8%) than disagreeing
(38%).

Overall, most of the municipal engineers agreed that almost all of the effects of the
requirements attached to the grant type funding from NGAs were positive.

Top area of concerns in the last three years

About one third of the respondents interviewed indicated that the top area of concern they faced
in the last three years was the roads development and maintenance. Only 2.4% of the municipal
engineers interviewed considered water as the top area of concern but 10% identified and
considered water as the second priority of area concern.

Among municipal engineers, agriculture was identified as the top three concern. Solid waste,
disaster risk reduction, other issues, and environment were fourth to seventh. Among the other
issues, economic development account for close to half of the other answers provided.

CSO participation in LGU Development Planning

On the participation and contribution of CSOs in the LGU development planning, most of the
municipal engineers agreed that they should participate in: (1) the organization and
mobilization of the planning team, (2) the revisiting of existing plans and reviewing of the
LGU’s vision, (3) the preparation of the Ecological Profile and structured list of PPAs, (4)
preparation of the LDIP, and (5) preparation of the needs implementation instruments

74
(program/M&E Plan). More than half strongly agreed to the participation of the CSOs in these
five activities.

How CSOs can best engage in the development/updating of LGU development plans

For 43% of the respondents, the best engagement of the CSOs in development/updating of
LGU development plans is through face to face consultation of LGU. For 15% and 14% of the
respondents, the best means of engagement were the submission of inputs by individual CSOs
and membership of CSOs in multi-stakeholder committees, respectively. Over 27% indicated
other forms of engagement for the development/updating of LGU development plans.

Among the other ways to best engage in the development/updating of LGU development plans,
active participation and attendance in meetings has been cited by many respondents. Far second
and third are empowering and encouraging CSOs and allocation of
budget/allowance/honorarium. Next to these options are for CSOs to provide data and inputs
to plan preparation, training and capacity building, and engaging CSOs in project monitoring.

5.2.5. Perceptions of Civil Society Organizations

CSO participation as member of the MPT in the preparation/updating of the LGUs

LDPs

About one in ten CSO member of the MPT is aware that the LGU sets the criteria in selecting
which CSO shall participate in and become a member of the MPT. The top two criteria they
identified are LGU accreditation and active participation of the organization. Almost all CSOs
have focal persons in the MPT and participated in the preparation and updating of
CDP/LDIP/AIP but a lesser number participated in CLUP preparation and updating. The
average numbers of meetings attended by them is four.

CSO substantial participation in every stop of preparation/updating of CDP

Half of respondents strongly agreed that their CSO participation in every step of
preparation/updating of CDP is substantial; about a fourth somewhat agreed, but about 15%
strongly disagreed.

Level of CSO influence on the outcomes of activities in preparation and updating of

LGU CDP based on experience

Less than half considered themselves very influential in deciding the outcome in the
preparation/updating of the LGU’s CDP and only a third say they were extremely influential.

Perceptions on local development plans

Almost all said their participation resulted in improved relationship with the LGU and other
CSOs. In sum, CSOs take active participation in the preparation of CDPs. They believe that
their participation is substantial and they bear very strong influence in its outcome. It also
improved their relations with the LGU and other CSOs.

75
On best engaging of CSOs in the development/updating of LGU development plans, the face
to face consultation is cited by over half of the respondents in nine regions. For all regions,
nearly half believe that face-to-face consultation is the best way to engage.

When asked for criteria or indicators for LGU AIP project prioritization, more than a third of
the respondents ranked the “urgency of the project” first. “Community benefits” was also
ranked first and second by 24% and 23% of the respondents, respectively. Project readiness in
terms of availability of program of works and meeting environmental requirement were both
ranked 5th by 18.5 -21% of the respondents. “Community participation” and project readiness-
local counterpart funding were ranked 6th by 18-19% of the CSO respondents.

The combined results of the Component reports of this Baseline Study highlight the impact that
planning and budgeting have on the delivery of public goods and services and how governance
plays a critical role in the exercise of all of these local government functions. The next section
attempts to organize these findings under common areas/themes that could serve as a guide for
policymakers.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

By evaluating the process and analyzing these in the context of the combined results of all the
component reports of the Baseline Study, several important elements needed for the strategic
and efficient use of public funds to address policy gaps arise. The elements include: (1)
defining the objective of the program and the data available to plan, as well as monitor and
evaluate progress in the implementation of the program; and, (2) anchoring of fragmented
efforts to address these gaps on development plans.

1. The objective of a program must be clearly identified at the onset because this
paves the way for successful estimation of the financial requirements and
monitoring and evaluation strategies for the program.

The LGSF-AM was designed as an equalization grant to help LGUs catch up in capital
investment in specific areas of infrastructure. In the conduct of Component 1 of this baseline
study, however, there was a challenge in the identification of the ideal targets as well as
gathering data on existing infrastructure to be able to estimate the infrastructure gap. For health
facilities and, to a certain extent, evacuation centers, the target was easier to identify. For
example, the HFEP aims to provide one BHS per barangay and one RHU per 10,000
population. In the case of the DOH, their success in being able to estimate and capture the
infrastructure gap resulted in their ability to secure budgetary funding such as in the case of the
HFEP.

For roads and potable water systems, defining the target was not as clear cut. Should national
policymakers be concerned with the number of kilometer of roads or the quality of roads or the
connectivity of roads of local governments? As for water, should policymakers be concerned
with only making sure that there are no waterless municipalities or should they be concerned
with the level of water systems? Not having a clearly defined target or a moving one takes its’
toll on limited public resources and would hinder services from evolving or leveling up.

76
 2. Data availability and consistency must be considered in the design of a program.

The ability to plan, implement and monitor programs depends on the quality and availability
of data. Incomplete or unavailable quality would lead to incorrect estimations of needs, poor
planning and waste of money and efforts.

There are notable efforts in providing data and information such as in the case of revenue
mobilization and LDF utilization rates of the Department of Finance – Bureau of Local
Government Finance (DOF-BLGF). There is also standard costing of the key infrastructure
areas at the DOH and DILG-OPDS. Furthermore, continuous efforts to improve data and
information such as the BLGF’s efforts in asset management and the DILG’s BLGS effort to
enhance the Local Development Council Functionality measure should be encouraged.

Component 1 results, however, highlighted the challenge in evaluating the quality of LDIPs
primarily because of the lack of readily available consolidated data on the four key
infrastructure areas. In the process of looking for data to estimate infrastructure gaps, it was
found that data was incomplete, inconsistently reported or not organized. Take the example of
local roads, the lack of consistently reported and updated data on local roads has been
documented and highlighted in the literature since 2005. Poor data and incomplete information
gives policymakers a weak handle to design program interventions to improve services.

For water and health facilities, estimation of the gaps was more challenging. For water, it was
being able to identify household access to water given the different levels of water systems that
overlap in coverage that was problematic. For RHUs, the challenge was the incomplete and
inconsistent data.

One of the root causes of the data issues is that the key infrastructure areas are devolved
functions. This echoes the results of decade-old reports on infrastructure and the water sector
on the lack of data especially in the case of LGUs. These results highlighted the need for
readily available, complete, updated and consistently reported data to plan and improve service
delivery, especially in the case of these devolved functions. Hopefully, current efforts of the
national government, such as the establishment of Local Road Network Database as well as
the Water Sector and Sanitation Sector Plan will help address data gaps in these sectors.

3. Fragmented efforts in local public investment and should continue to be made

coherent with an anchor in local development plans.

Current efforts of both the national and local governments to strengthen local development
planning should be continued and enhanced to ensure the strategic and efficient use of limited
public resources. For local governments, the DILG conducted several exercises in recent years
to update local development plans (DILG 2016); institutionalize the assessment of the local
development council (LDC), which is responsible for the drafting of local plans, in the SGLG
(DILG 2017); and, ensure its alignment with national and cross-sectoral plans (DILG 2017).
At the project level, the DILG Water Supply and Sanitation Office, focused efforts on LGU

77
personnel capacity development in the pre-implementation50 and implementation phases51.
Having said this, being anchored in local development plans assumes not just the presence of
plans but also its usefulness in ensuring the implementation of prioritized projects that are
implementable and impactful on local development.

At the national level, and in preparation of the FY2019 national budget, the DBM, the NEDA
Regional Development Councils (RDCs) and the DILG conducted an exercise to ensure the
alignment of national and local plans (DBM 2018). The survey results showed that with regard
to vertical integration and consultation with and by the national government, the core MPT
members all felt vertically integrated and consulted by national government agencies. These
also saw both the benefits of the requirements for grants given by national government agencies
such as improved quality of projects but at the same time the additional administrative burden
of such. Furthermore, about half of each of the core members of the MPT felt that municipal
priority setting is affected by national government integration.

Because the key areas of infrastructure in this baseline study are devolved functions, delivery
of these services are the responsibility of local governments by design. LGUs, however, may
lack the financial capacity to deliver these basic services, particularly for capital outlays such
as infrastructure, so they also ask for support from the national government through different
programs and agencies. These fragmented efforts can be made coherent if these are based on
local development plans.

In terms of the presence of plans, more than 97% of LGUs in 2017, except for those in the
Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), received a passing score indicating the
presence of at least one of any three local government plans (Comprehensive Development
Plan (CDP), Local Development Investment or Annual Investment Program (AIP)). Only
about 60% of ARMM municipalities received a passing score for the criterion. However, a
passing score just means that a municipality has at least one of the plans though the existence
of the AIP or the LDIP is systematically dependent on the CDP.

The survey results in Component 3.2 examined the availability of plans. It appears that recent
efforts of the DILG to require LGUs to update local plans seem to have manifested in a larger
proportion of municipal CDPs and LDIPs with correct years of coverage starting in 2017
(DILG 2016). However, there is still much room for improvement since the proportion of
municipalities with CDPs and LDIPs that have the correct time coverage are 41% (490 of
1,190) and 31% (414 of 1,339), respectively. The numbers are even lower for the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan at just about 5% (64 of 1,254). Interestingly though,
considering that the CDP should be anchored on the CLUP, about 77% of the respondents
claim that their CLUPs are reflected in their CDP. Furthermore, though a marginal 14% say
that the CDPs are sometimes anchored on the CLUP there is still about 9% (approximately 124
municipalities) of which 58.9% (73 municipalities) said they had no CDP and 48.4% (60
municipalities) said they had no CLUP.

50
As was learned in an interview with the DILG WSS-PMO, the pre-implementation phase includes: (1) program orientation and
feasibility study (FS) preparation; (2) municipal water supply, sewerage and sanitation sector plan (MW4SP) preparation; and,
(3) detailed engineering design (DED) preparation and procurement.
51
The DILG WSS-PMO capacity development on the implementation phase includes the following training activities: (1)
construction supervision and fund management; (2) human rights-based local WATSAN governance; and, (3) community
organizing and skills enhancement using rights-based approach.

78
With these results, there is clearly a need to further efforts in not just enforcing Sec. 190 of the
1991 Local Government Code of the Philippines that mandates local governments, through
their local development councils, to formulate socioeconomic development plans and public
investment programs, but also to ensure compliance with prescribed systematic and
institutional frameworks.

Admittedly, these results do not say anything about the quality of the plans, nor can the survey
address this. However, these numbers go beyond just the presence or absence of the plans with
the value-added time element.

4. Improved public resource management with clearly defined programs, baseline

information and estimable results to ensure proper utilization of funds and allow
monitoring and evaluation of the programs

The preceding observations of clear objectives, available data and priorities aligned and
anchored in development plans would give policymakers a better handle in justifying the merits
of a program, estimating the extent of assistance and monitoring and evaluating progress and
success.

Furthermore, such would allow better utilization of allocated resources. With respect to the
utilization rate of the LDF, more can be done to improve its execution starting with the
planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation and ensuring its use for the intended
purpose of development. Such gaps/shortcomings represent a large opportunity cost and may
be the cause of delayed development and economic growth.

For monitoring and evaluation (M&E), the results seem to suggest that M&E receives the least
priority in terms of the DILG prescribed procedural steps covered by the survey in this Baseline
Study. It was reported that only 38.4% of the respondents claimed that their municipality had
an M&E program. Of these, the responsibility of drafting such was attributed primarily to the
MPDC/MPDO and the LCE. As for the M&E strategy implementation, almost 23.19% of the
group respondents said it was the responsibility of the LCE.

5. Continue efforts in enhancing local development planning

Overall, for the first step of the DILG-prescribed Comprehensive Development Planning
process, namely, the forming of a municipal planning team via an Executive Order the survey
results showed that municipalities generally complied. Furthermore, members of the
Municipal Planning Team (MPT) mostly knew their responsibilities and recognized their
importance as a member of the MPT.

• CDP Steps 1 and 2: Organization and Mobilization of the MPT and the Review of
Existing Plans and LGU Vision: There is a need to enforce strict compliance with
the Local Government Code mandate requiring local government units to
draft/update their multi-sectoral development and land use plans. The DILG
Memorandum Circular 2019-172 is a move in the right direction that will hopefully
pave the way for the continuity of compliance. As mandated, the survey results display
the crucial role of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) in
the entire development planning process. More than 41% (and 42.2%) of the
respondents indicated that the MPDC initiated the updating of their latest CLUPs (and

79
 CDPs). At the same time more than 50% of the MPDCs interviewed for their
perceptions on the planning process, felt “completely responsible” for the updating of
the CDP.

The drafting or updating the CDP, however, requires the support of the local chief
executive through the issuance of an Executive Order of which the respondents claim
that 92.3% (1,267 of 1,373) of the municipalities interviewed reported that an Executive
Order was issued to form the Municipal Planning Team (MPT) for the most recent
plans. The most frequent members of the MPT are (i.e. those that were identified as
member by more than 60% of the municipalities): (1) the MPDC (97.2%); (2)
Municipal Engineer (95.2%); (3) Municipal Budget Officer (92.6%); (4) CSOs/POs
(87.5%); (5) LCE (80.7%); (6) MLGOO (74.7%); (7) President of the Liga ng mga
Barangay (74.4%); (8) Chairman of the Sanggunian Bayan (72.0%); and, (9)
representatives from national government agencies (NGAs, 68.5%). Of the NGAs,
about half of the respondents identified representatives of the Philippine National
Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Department of
Education (DepEd) as members of their respective MPTs. It is interesting to note that
most MPT’s include those responsible for peace and order and, at the same time, a
representative for a centrally provided services, education.

Updating or drafting of development plans requires a common vision which almost half
of the respondents indicated was identified by their Local Development Council (LDC).
However, the one’s responsible for ensuring that the vision and the CDP are aligned
was the MPT followed by the LCE for almost 38% and 30% of the respondents,
respectively

Individual interviews of the core members of the MPT (MPDC, Municipal Engineer
and Budget Officer/Accountant) as well as a Civil Society Organization (CSO)
representative in the MPT were conducted. Generally, the core members of the MPT
knew their responsibilities in the planning process and, for the last planning exercise of
their respective municipalities, they identified priority areas such as roads and
agriculture consistent with each other.

With respect to the CSO role in development planning, the core MPT member
respondents and the CSO MPT representative recognized the importance of the
presence of CSOs in the planning process and that the best manner of CSO participation
would be through face-to-face consultations.

There were, however, areas in the succeeding steps of the CDP process that surfaced as
candidates for improvements.

• CDP Step 3 Preparation of the Ecological Profile and Structured List of PPAs:
There is a need to revisit the dataset tools currently used , e.g. RaPIDS and the
CBMS, and reorienting local governments on its application to ecological profiling
profiling. For the development of the Ecological Profile, it was good to learn that
municipalities allocated resources in their most recent effort to develop an Ecological
Profile that would help identify the list of PPAs. However, the manner by which data
is collected varies across municipalities despite the presence of the prescribed RaPIDS.

80
 The MPDC is also identified as the focal person for LGU development tools that
provide important information and data necessary to create a correct ecological profile
(EP) on which to base needs-responsive investment programs. Eighty-one percent
(81%) of LGUs claim to have allocated a budget for the conduct of development tools.
Interestingly enough, the DILG prescribed dataset to determine current reality is the
Rationalized Planning Indicator and Data Set (RaPIDS) which is reported to be used by
only about 6% of municipalities. Even the RaPIDS predecessor/mother dataset called
the Local Development Indicator System (LDIS) and hybrid RaPIDS-Community-
Based Monitoring System (CBMS) is used by only 7.1% and 4.7% of the
municipalities, respectively. The CBMS is the most commonly used dataset
development tool at 57% perhaps because of the DILG’s provision of capacity building
support to municipalities in terms of series of trainings and seminar-workshops in
recent years (DILG 2017).

In terms of frequency of data collection, the largest number of municipalities (32%)

report they do so every 3 years. Of the almost 81.2% of municipalities that allocate a
budget about 80.9% hired enumerators while the rest used municipal or barangay staff
to gather data. The processing and analysis of data collected was still identified by the
majority of the respondents to be the responsibility of the MPDO/MPDC.

Finally, almost all respondents affirmed that the “readily usable” ecological profile was
utilized in the identification of a Structured List of PPAs, and almost all confirmed that
all the PPAs in the Structured List were included in the LDIP.

• CDP Step 4 Investment Programming for the Local Development Investment Plan
/Annual Investment Plan: As for the development of the LDIP/AIP, two areas for
improvement would be in: (1) the preparation of project briefs; and, (2) reminding
local governments to have two rounds of and use the prescribed criteria for
shortlisting.

For majority of the cases it is the planning officer that is tasked to draft the project
briefs, perhaps the task can be distributed to the different sector representatives within
the municipal planning team.

The next step to the ecological profile-identified structured list of PPAs is to prioritize
these PPAs for investment financing in what the DILG calls the Ranked List of PPAs.
Crucial to the success of implementation is the preparedness of a project to be
implemented which necessitates the need for project briefs. More than half of the 1,373
municipalities that responded indicated that they always prepare projects briefs for
PPAs and that the MPDC is the one that does it 43.4% of the time.

The prescribed tools by which to come up with a ‘Ranked List of PPAs’ from the
Structured List of PPAs are, for the first round of shortlisting, the Urgency Test Matrix,
Resource Impact Matrix, Conflict-Compatibility Matrix and, for the second round of
shortlisting to get the ‘Ranked List of PPAs for Investment Programming’, the Goal
Achievement Matrix (GAM). The survey results show that for the first round of
prioritizing the Ranked List of PPAs consultations/workshops is the primary (almost
68%) method of prioritizing PPAs. This is followed by the Urgency Test (48.5%) and
the Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment (CIDRA) (42.0%). Other project selection

81
mechanisms of earlier NGA programs such as the Bottom-up Budgeting (BUB) and the
Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social
Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) were also identified by some municipalities with shares of
37.7% and 29.2%, respectively. Other municipalities, on the other hand, utilize
mechanisms from other plans such as the water sector plans (16.4%).

For the second round of screening to get the Ranked List of PPAs for Investment
Programming, the survey results indicated that out of the 1,373 municipalities, 933
(68.05%) performed another shortlisting/ranking. Among these municipalities, 57%
claimed that they use the GAM for the screening process.

These results imply that only about half of the respondent municipalities always prepare
project briefs for the identified PPAs. Further, there are about 438 municipalities that
identified priority projects primarily through workshops/consultations and did not do
another round of prioritizing projects that were. What these results show is that the
resultant planning process for some number of municipalities do not exactly follow the
DILG-prescribed procedural guidelines.

As for investment programming, majority of municipalities reported to seek sources of

financing outside of their regular sources of income. The most common sources are
grant-type funding from the national government which would come with specific
requirements that municipalities believe add to the quality of their projects but also add
to their administrative work. This recognition of the value of the requirements, and the
ability of the municipalities to comply, might be a way to improve the quality of by
adding such requirements to their regular LDIP/AIP process.

The next step is to examine financing options for the Ranked List of PPAs in their Local
Development Investment Program (LDIP) and the Annual Investment Program (AIP).
The results show that almost 84.1% of respondent municipalities adopt either the
Development or Pragmatic Approach by looking for sources of financing outside of
regular LGU income. Very few opt for Public-Private Partnerships (16.39%) financing
schemes while more than half of the municipalities establish local public enterprises for
additional sources of financing.

In 2017, about 51.6% of respondent municipalities sought other sources of financing

for their AIPs. Of these, they received grants from national government agencies either
by directly approaching these (almost 76%) or through the Regional Development
Council (15.9%). These NG grants typically come with requirements and about 93%
of the MPDC respondents agreed that these requirements improved the quality of public
investment programs but at the same time an average of 64% of these felt the
requirements were administratively taxing and limited the freedom of LGUs to allocate
investments. Finally, 90% of the respondents that received complementary funding for
their AIPs from national government agencies said these are typically implemented
ahead of projects under the 20% LDF (which could possibly be part of the explanation
of the fair level of utilization of the LDF).

These results seem to show the dependency of municipalities on the national

government for funds to implement their investment programs above and beyond the
IRA given to them. This seems to suggest insufficient funds to provide some devolved

82
 functions which must be balanced with the relatively inconsistent/nonobservance of
prescribed guidelines approaches to planning and prioritizing PPAs.

• CDP Step 5 Implementation Instruments: Strengthen the CApDev programs of

municipalities, particularly in the monitoring and evaluation of projects. For the final
step, i.e. the implementing tools for the CDP were present for about 82% of the
municipalities but low, at 38.4% for M&E. As highlighted above, improving M&E
would allow flexibility in the redesign of a program to ensure its benefits are felt
immediately by the intended beneficiaries also allowing for timely utilization of the
budget.

According to the Local Planning Illustrative Guide (2017), “(A)a very good plan
remains to be just another document if it is not implemented (DILG 2016, 30).” The
survey results show that 82% of municipalities claim to have CapDev programs for the
implementation of the CDP, of which varied local government officials, primarily the
LCE, are identified as responsible. The same applies to the responsibility of the
implementation of these programs.

For monitoring and evaluation strategies, however, only 38.4% of the respondents
answered in the affirmative. Of these, the responsibility of drafting such was attributed
primarily to the MPDC/MPDO and the LCE. As for the M&E strategy implementation,
almost 23.19% of the group respondents said it was the responsibility of the LCE.

These results seem to suggest that M&E receives the least priority in terms of the DILG
prescribed procedural steps covered by this study and should be an area for
improvement.

6. Local assets as a potential source of revenues

Improved asset management is important as both a potential source of revenue as well as a

means of financing expenditures for development projects. Aside from estimating for the
infrastructure and fiscal gaps of the four key areas of infrastructure (local roads, potable water
supply, evacuation centers and health facilities), the study also aimed to identify how
municipalities manage their assets. In order to assess this, information about the three aspects
of asset management were solicited including their Income Generating Enterprises (IGEs),
Real Property Assets, as well loans they availed as of 2017 (See Annex D - Form 6 Asset
Management (as of 2017)).

Of the 1248 municipalities that submitted data on asset management for 2017, only 92.6% had
entries. For almost 42% of these municipalities, the largest amount of income from IGEs
totaled to almost PhP 3.5 billion but did not specify the type of IGE. The following top sources
of IGE income are public markets (23%) which amounted to PhP 1.9 billion, water utilities
(10.4%), multiple economic enterprise (4.5%) and cultural/sports/recreational center (3.6%).

Aside from IGEs, municipalities were also asked to report their Real Property Assets of which
the top three were Land (54.4%), Buildings (12.4%), and Others (11.1%).

Finally, loans availed by the municipalities in the year 2017 were also reported. Only 1002 (or
80% of the 1248 municipalities) of the municipalities had loans. Reasons why municipalities

83
availed of loans were for: (1) conducting various construction works (30%); (2) the
acquisition/purchase of heavy equipment (19.4%); and, (3) for the construction/improvement
of public market (14.6%).

With regard to the maintenance of assets, municipalities were asked to report if and how much
they allocated for insurance in 2017. About 82% of the 1,373 respondents indicated they spent
but the rest did not commonly because of lack of funds/no budget.

What these results show is that there are grounds to focus attention in improving asset
management. From the initial step of creating and properly recording these assets, to using
and/or investing in the maintenance of real property assets, to tapping income generating assets
for alternative sources of income.

7. Capitalize on the awareness and responsibility of the MPT members

The Municipal Planning Team members in their individual perception interviews commonly
recognized their role in the team and the importance of the role of others in the team. At the
same time, the members, when asked on their perceived top priority project areas, they
identified the same, namely roads, bridges, agriculture and water. This shows that efforts of
the DILG has created this awareness of the members and that this should be capitalized in
pushing forward reforms.

Though there is still much more that can be studied, as was intended by this baseline study,
these results provide crucial information that can provide policymakers information needed to
direct policy and reforms. At the same time, the information gathered by this study would
serve as measures for monitoring progress or regress of these local governments.

7. References

ABS-CBN News. 2016. "ABS-CBN News." ABS-CBN News Web site. August 25. Accessed
February 10, 2018. http://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/08/25/16/philippines-among-
countries-with-highest-disaster-risk-study.
Banluta, Fe Crisilla, interview by Miro D. Capili and Justine Diokno-Sicat. 2018. DILG OPDS-
WSSPMO (March 20).
BLGF. 2015. Local Treasury Operations Manual. Manual, Manila: Department of Finance-
BLGF.
—. 2012. The Statement of Receipts and Expenditures: Systems, Concepts, Input Preparation
and Reporting. Manila.
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft. 2016. World Risk Report 2016. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and
United Nations University.
Commission on Audit. 2017. "2016 Annual Finanacial Report." Local Government Volume II.
Quezon: COA.
—. 2014. "Philippine Commission on Audit." Philippine Commission on Audit Website.
Accessed August 23, 2018.

84
 https://www.coa.gov.ph/phocadownloadpap/userupload/annual_audit_report/LGUs/2
014/Region-IV-A/Cities/SanPabloCity_Laguna_ES2014.pdf.
DBM. 2018. "Circular Letter No. 2018-5." Procedural Guidelines on the Conduct of Regional
Development Council (RDC) Dialogues on Proposed Programs/Projects for FY 2019.
Manila, February 20.
—.2016. "LBC No. 112." Budget Operations Manual for Local Government Units (BOM for
LGUs), 2016 Edition. Manila.
—. 2017. "Internal guidelines on the grant of the CY 2017 performance-based bonus (PBB)
including the process and criteria on ranking of eligible DBM-OSEC delivery units
(DUs)." Office Order No. 516, s. 2017. Manila: DBM, July 18.
—. 2018. "National Budget Memorandum No. 129." National Budget Call for FY 2019.
Manila: DBM, January 3.
DILG. 2019. Clarificatory Guidelines on the Formulation of the Executive-Legislative Agenda
(ELA). Quezon City, July 18.
—. 2016. DILG Concise Illustrative Guide for the Preparation, Review, Monitoring and
Updating of the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) and Local Development
Investment Plan (LDIP. Quezon City, Metro Manila.
—. 2018. "DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2018-61." Policy Guidelines and Procedures in
the Implementation of the FY 2018 Local Government Support FUnd - Assistance to
Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program. Quezon City: DILG, May 3.
—. 2016. Local Planning Illustrative Guide: Preparing and Updating the Comprehensive
Development Plan (CDP). Quezon City: DILG.
—. 2017. "MC No. 2017-53." 2017 Seal of Good Local Governance: Pagkilala sa Katapatan
at Kahusayan ng Pamahalaang Lokal. Quezon City, March 22.
—. 2008. "Memorandum Circular No. 2008-156." Guide to Comprehensive Development Plan
(CDP) Preparation for Local Government Unit. Quezon City: DILG, October 22.
—. 2011. "Memorandum Circular No. 2011-08A." Strict Adherence to Full Disclosure of Local
Budget and Fianances, and Bids and Public Offering. Quezon: DILG, August 22.
—. 2012. Memorandum Circular No. 2012-141. Quezon City, August 9.
—. 2014. "Memorandum Circular No. 2014-39." 2014 Seal of Good Local Governance:
Pagkilala sa Katapatan at Kahusayan ng Pamahalaang Lokal. Quezon City: DILG,
March 24.
—. 2016. "Memorandum Circular No. 2016-102." Guidelines in the Preparation or Updating
of Local Plans. Quezon City, Metro Manila: DILG, August 8.
—. 2017. "Memorandum Circular No. 2017-159." Guidelines on the Development of the Local
Roads Network Development Plan (LRNDP). Quezon City, Metro Manila: DILG,
November 21.

85
—. 2017. "Memorandum Circular No. 2017-160." Operational Guidelines on the
Implementation of 2017 Performance Challenge Fund (PCF). Quezon City: DILG,
November 29.
—. 2017. "Memorandum Circular No. 2017-53." 2017 Seal of Good Local Governance:
Pagkilala sa Katapatan at Kahusayan ng Pamahalaang Lokal. Quezon City: DILG,
March 22.
—. 2017. "Memorandum Circular No. 2017-84." Guidelines for Strengthening Linkage of
National/Regional/Provincial Development Strategies, Programs, Projects and
Activities (PPAs) with the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). Quezon City,
Metro Manila: DILG, June 29.
—. 2018. "Memorandum Circular No. 2018-47." Guidelines for the Implementation of the
Provision of Potable Water Supply Local Government Support Fund - Sagana at Ligtas
na Tubig sa Lahat (LGSF-SALINTUBIG) Program for FY 2018. Quezon City: DILG,
April 5.
—. 2018. "Memorandum Circular No. 2018-61." Policy Guidelines and Procedures in the
Implementation of the F.Y. 2018 Local Government Support Fund-Assistance to
Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program. Quezon: DILG, May 3.
—. 2018. "Memorandum Circular No. 2018-89." Guidelines on Engagements with Civil
Society Organizations. Quezon City: DILG, June 11.
—. 2018. "Memorandum Circular No.: 2018-49." Seal of Good Local Governance: Pagkilala
sa Katapatan at Kahusayan ng Pamahalaang Lokal. Quezon City: DILG, April 6.
—. 2017. "Over 25,000 LGUs benefit from DILG-CBMS project nationwide." Department of
the Interior and Local Government. July 5. Accessed July 29, 2019.
https://www.dilg.gov.ph/news/Over-25000-LGUs-benefit-from-DILG-CBMS-
project-nationwide/NC-2017-1146.
—. 2017. Over 90 percent of LGUs are good financial housekeepers. Quezon City, December
4.
DILG-BLGS. 2017. Profile of Local Development Functionality in the Philippines. October.
—. 2017. Profile of Local Development Functionality in the Philippines. October.
DILG-DBM. 2017. "Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2017-03." Policy Guidelines and
Procedures in the Implementation of the FY 2017 Local Government Support Fund-
Assistance to Disadvantaged Municipalities (LGSF-ADM) Program. DILG, May 23.
DILG-NEDA-DBM-DOF. 2007. "Joint Memorandum Circular No.1 Series of 2007."
Guidelines on the Harmonization of Local Planning, Investment Programming,
Revenue Administration, Budgeting and Expenditure Management. Quezon City:
DILG-NEDA-DBM-DOF, March 8.
DILG-OPDS-PMO, interview by Charlotte Justine Diokno-Sicat. 2018. Paz, Mario (October
30).

86
Diokno, Benjamin. 2012. "Fiscal decentralization after 20 years: What have we learned? Where
do we go from here?" Philippine Review of Economics 49(1) 9-26.
DPWH. 2016. "Department of Public Works and Highways." Department of Public Works and
Highways website. Accessed February 10, 2018.
http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/2016%20DPWH%20ATLAS/Road%20WriteUp%20
2016.pdf.
DSWD. 2014. "Memorandum Circular No. 19." Guidelines for the Pilot Implementation of the
Modified Conditional Cash Transfer for Indigenous Peoples in Geographically
Isolated Disadvantaged Areas. Quezon City: DSWD.
DTI. 2016. "Department of Trade and Industry." Department of Trade and Industry Web site.
November 29. https://www.dti.gov.ph/27-main-content/emb-news/9932-dti-dpwh-
convergence-program-on-road-connectivity.
Llanto, Gilbert. 2009. "Fiscal Decentralization and Local Finance Reforms in the Philippines."
Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper No. 2009-10.
Manasan, Rosario. 2005. "Local Public Finance in the Philippines: Lessons in Autonomy and
Accountability." Philippine Journal of Development 32(2) 31-102.
Mankiw, N. Gregory. 2010. Intermediate Macroeconomics Abridged 7th Ed. NY: Worth
Publishers Palgrave Macmillan.
Mikelsons, Maris. 2017. "United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE)." SRUGE Web site.
February 8-9. Accessed August 20, 2018.
https://surge.org.ph/landconference2017/asset-management-for-local-government-
units/.
National Anti-Poverty Commission. n.d. "National Anti-Poverty Commission." National Anti-
Poverty Commission Web site. Accessed February 10, 2018.
http://napc.gov.ph/projects/sagana-ligtas-na-tubig-para-sa-lahat-salintubig.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies LGSF-AM Team. 2018. PRELIMINARY
REPORT (Component 1) Baseline Study on Policy and Governance Gaps for the Local
Government Support Fund Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-AM) Program. Quezon:
PIDS.
—. 2018. Baseline Study on Policy and Governance Gaps for the Local Government Support
Fund Assistance to Municipalities Program (Component 1). Quezon City: PIDS-DILG.
Porciuncula, Alma D, Doreen Carla E Erfe, and Adoracion M Navarro. May 2016. Results of
the Process and Impact Evaluation for Selected Government Water Supply and
Sanitation Programs . Discussion Paper, Quezon City: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies .
Republic of the Philippines. 2017. "Republic Act No. 10964." General Appropriations Act of
Fiscal Year 2018. Manila, Metro Manila: Offical Gazette, December 29.

87
—. 1991. "Republic Act No. 7160." Local Government Code of 1991. Republic of the
Philippines.
Stiglitz, Joseph, and Jay Rosengard. 2015. Economics of the Public Sector (Fourth Edition).
New York: W.W.Norton & Company, Inc.
Tan, Jose Arnold. 2017. "United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth with Equity (SURGE) Conference on
Sustainable Land Governance." SURGE Web site. February 8-9. Accessed August 20,
2018. https://surge.org.ph/landconference2017/asset-management-for-local-
government-units/.
World Bank . 2011. "Philippines: Public Expenditure Review." Strengthening Public Finance
for More Inclusive Growth. June.
—. 2018. Making Growth Work for the Poor: A Poverty Assessment for the Philippines.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

8. Annexes

Annex A Summary of LGU Scores for LDC Functionality (overall) and Plans, by
Region (in number of LGUs)
Annex B. Summary of LGUs/Municipalities with missing data on LDF and IRA
Annex C. Advisory: Data on Infrastructure Needs of the Municipal LGUs in Key
Areas of Infrastructure
Annex D. PIDS LGSF-AM Data Inventory Forms
Annex E. PIDS LGSF-AM Data Inventory Template Manual
Annex F. Data Dictionary for Asset Management (Forms 6A, 6B and 6C)
Annex G. DILG OPDS Comments on the Preliminary Report for Component 3 of
the Conduct of Baseline Study on Policy Governance Gaps for the
Local Government Support Fund Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-
AM)
Annex H. PIDS Study Team Response to the DILG OPDS Comments on the
Preliminary Report for Component 3 of the Conduct of Baseline Study
on Policy Governance Gaps for the Local Government Support Fund
Assistance to Municipalities (LGSF-AM)

88
Annex A.

Annex Table 1. Summary of LGU scores for LDC Functionality (overall) and Plans, by region
(in number of LGUs)
Region Total number of Score for LDC Functionality Score for Plans
LGUs per region High Medium Low High Medium Low
Region 1 129 80 41 8 112 17 0
Region 2 98 33 52 13 42 54 2
Region 3 137 35 81 21 67 70 0
Region 4- 147 22 99 26 56 91 0
A
Region 4- 78 27 38 13 42 35 1
B
Region 5 120 41 58 21 70 46 4
Region 6 106 40 51 15 56 49 1
Region 7 110 18 61 31 40 69 1
Region 8 149 67 60 22 114 34 1
Region 9 75 0 63 12 32 43 0
Region 10 98 43 42 13 75 20 3
Region 11 54 25 26 3 37 17 0
Region 12 54 18 27 9 39 15 0
Region 13 78 37 32 9 51 26 1
NCR 17 5 9 3 13 4 0
CAR 83 19 58 6 39 43 1
ARMM 123 7 36 80 56 17 50
NIR* 59 20 34 5 32 27 0

89
Annex B.
Annex Table 2. Summary of LGUs/Municipalities with missing data on LDF and IRA
Municipality Missing Data
BARLIG 20% LDF
BURGOS 20% LDF
ITBAYAT IRA
CAMALIGAN 20% lDF
SAN FERNANDO 20% LDF
TINGLAYAN 20% LDF
PAMPLONA 20% LDF
SAMAL 20% LDF
MATAASNAKAHOY 20% LDF
SAN LUIS 20% LDF
SANTA MARIA 20% LDF
BURDEOS 20% LDF
MALILIPOT 20% LDF
BABATNGON 20% LDF
CAPOOCAN 20% LDF
BACO 20% LDF
VINZONS 20% LDF
MINALABAC 20% LDF
PONTEVEDRA 20% LDF
PULUPANDAN 20% LDF
DAGAMI 20% LDF
SAN NICOLAS 20% LDF
AMULUNG 20% LDF
BANSUD 20% LDF
BACACAY 20% LDF
BAUNGON 20% LDF
BOLINAO 20% LDF
SAN RAFAEL 20% LDF
PAGBILAO 20% LDF
CAMALIG 20% LDF
CAUAYAN 20% LDF

90
Annex C. Advisory: Data on Infrastructure Needs of the Municipal LGUs in Key Areas of
Infrastructure

91
 Form 1. Population Distribution

Total Population
Name of Barangay Number of
Households Total Total Total
Number of Number of
Male Female
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

92
Annex D. PIDS LGSF-AM Data Inventory Forms
Annex Table 3. Form for the population distribution

TOTAL
 Form 2. Inventory of Existing Municipal and Barangay Roads (as of 2017)

A. Inventory of Existing Municipal Roads (as of 2017)

Location/Site Surface type and length per type (in m)*

Name of Average road condition TOTAL
Municipal
LENGTH
Road Paved Unpaved
From To
Concrete Asphalt Gravel Earthfill Bad Poor Fair Good

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

93
Annex Table 4. Inventory form of existing municipal roads

TOTAL LENGTH
 Form 2. Inventory of Existing Municipal and Barangay Roads (as of 2017)

B. Inventory of Existing Barangay Roads (as of 2017)

Location/Site Surface type and length per type (in m)*

Name of Average road condition TOTAL
Barangay
LENGTH
Road Paved Unpaved
From To
Concrete Asphalt Gravel Earthfill Bad Poor Fair Good

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

94
Annex Table 5. Inventory form of existing barangay roads

TOTAL LENGTH
 Form 3. Inventory of Major Sources of Water by Water System Level (as of 2017)

A. Level 1: Water supply by type and number of household population served

Shallow well Deep well Improved spring

Name of Barangay Household Household population Household population

population served served
Number Number Number
served
No. % No. % No. %

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

95
Annex Table 6. Inventory form of major sources of water by water system level

TOTAL
 B. Level 2: Water supply system by type and number of household population served

Type of Source Elevation from the Number of Number of Number of

Location of water a. Ground Number of
service area (in communal Barangays household
source b. Spring pumps
meters) faucets served population served

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

96
Annex Table 7. Inventory form for water supply system

TOTAL
 C. Level 3: Local waterworks system by type and number of consumers

Number of Connection by Type of Consumer

Number of Total Number Total
Name of Local
Barangays of Barangays Number of
Water System
Serviced in the LGU Connections
Domestic Commercial Industrial Others

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

97
Annex Table 8. Inventory form for local waterworks system
 Form 4. Inventory of Evacuation Centers (as of 2017)

A. Inventory of Evacuation Centers at Municipal Level (as of 2017)

Space Capacity
Does the
evacuation
Infrastructure center have a
GIDA
Geo Name of usage type:' designated
Region Province Municipality classification*
ID infrastructure a. Primary private space Land Floor
(if applicable)
b. Secondary for women and Area Area
children? (Yes
or No)

98
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Annex Table 9. Inventory form for evacuation centers at municipal level

Note: * If your municipality is not classified as GIDA, please leave blank. Please use the official GIDA classification of the
Department of Health for your municipality. GIDA classification can be one of the following: Upland, Lowland, Landlocked,
Island, or affected by Armed Conflict.

Note: ' Primary – constructed as evacuation center ; Secondary – constructed as other infra but used as evacuation when in
need
 Form 4. Inventory of Evacuation Centers (as of 2017)

B. Inventory of Evacuation Centers at Barangay Level (as of 2017)

Space Capacity
Does the
evacuation
Infrastructure center have a
GIDA
Geo Name of usage type: designated
Region Province Municipality classification*
ID infrastructure a. Primary private space Land Floor
(if applicable)
b. Secondary for women and Area Area
children? (Yes
or No)

99
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Annex Table 10. Inventory form for evacuation centers at barangay level

Note: * If your municipality is not classified as GIDA, please leave blank. Please use the official GIDA classification of the
Department of Health for your municipality. GIDA classification can be one of the following: Upland, Lowland, Landlocked,
Island, or affected by Armed Conflict.

Note: ' Primary – constructed as evacuation center ; Secondary – constructed as other infra but used as evacuation when in
need
 Form 5. Inventory of Health Facilities

A. Inventory of rural health units/RHUs (as of 2017)

Existing facilities (as of 2017) Existing number of personnel (as of 2017)

Total Number Target Number Capacity

of RHUs of RHUs (number of
Name of Name of beds)
Region Province
Total

municipality RHU
Others

Nurses
Doctors
Sanitary

Midwives
inspectors

Actual Target

100
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Annex Table 11. Inventory form for health facilities (Rural Health Units)
 B. Inventory of barangay health stations/BHS (as of 2017)

Existing facilities (as of 2017) Existing number of personnel (as of 2017)

Total Number Target Number Capacity

of RHUs of RHUs (number of
Name of Name of beds)
Region Province
Total

municipality RHU
Others

Nurses
Doctors
Sanitary

Midwives
inspectors

Actual Target

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

101
Annex Table 12. Inventory form for health facilities (Barangay Health Stations)
 C. Projected Requirements for Health Facilities (as of 2017)

Number of projected facilities for 2018-2022

Facility

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

RHU

102
BHS
Annex Table 13. Inventory form for projected requirements for health facilities
 Form 6. Asset Management

Annual Income from Annual Expenditures on

Indicators Total
Enterprise/Asset in 2017 Enterprise/Asset in 2017

(1) (2) (3) (4)

A. Income Generating Enterprises

103
Annex Table 14. Asset management form for income generating enterprises

Total
 Indicators
Annual Expenditures
Assessed Value of on Enterprise/Asset
Asset in 2017 in 2017 Total

(1) (2) (3) (4)

B. Real Property Assets (Idle/ Non-Income Generating)

104
Annex Table 15. Asset management form for real property assets

Total
 C. Does the LGU have existing loan/s? ___YES, ____NO (If YES, Fill out the table below)

Institutioned
Existing Loans borrowed from Date of Loan Amount of Loan Purpose of Loan Terms of Loan*

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

105
Annex Table 16. Asset Management form for existing loans

*How many years and interest rate

 Form 7. Selected Indicators on Gender and Development (as of 2017)

Number of private day care centers* Number of public Does your municipality have a Violence Against
day care centers* Women and Children (VAWC) help desk? (Yes/No)

(1) (2) (3)

106
Annex Table 17. Gender and development form

Note:

* Please indicate 0 if none.

Annex E.
Baseline Study on Policy and Governance Gaps for the Local Government Support
Fund Assistance to Municipalities Program

Template Manual

July 2018

107
Form 1. Population Distribution
Definition of Terms
▪ (1) Name of Barangay
▪ (2) Total Number of Households – number of households located at the Barangay
indicated in the Municipality.
• Household – consists of one or more people who leave together in the
same dwelling or house.
▪ (3) Total number of Male – number of male residents in the said Barangay
▪ (4) Total Number of Female – number of female residents in the indicated Barangay

Form 2. Inventory of Existing Municipal and Barangay Roads (as of 2017)

Definition of Terms
▪ (1) Municipal Road
- Roads within the Poblacion; Roads that connect to Provincial and National
Roads; Roads that provide Inter-Barangay connections to Major Municipal
Infrastructure without traversing Provincial Roads
▪ Location - The names of the barangay/sitio/purok where the existing roads traverse
e.g. From Barangay A to Barangay B
(2) From – the name of barangay/sitio/purok of the starting point of the
corresponding road
(3) To – the name of barangay/sitio/purok of the ending point of the
corresponding road
▪ Surface type – Surface type is classified into two major types, paved and unpaved
▪ Length per type (in m) – the length in meters of the corresponding road
• Paved - Surface type of the existing roads it can be (4) Concrete or (5) Asphalt
• Unpaved - Surface type of the existing roads it can be (6) Gravel or (7) Earthfill

108
 ▪ (8) Average road condition – the condition of the existing road whether if it is in
good, fair, poor, or bad condition.
▪ (9) Total Length – Aggregate length of the corresponding road. Sum of columns 4,5,6
and 7
▪ (10) Total Length – Aggregate length of the corresponding surface type

▪ (1) Barangay Road52

- Other Public Roads (officially turned over) within the Barangay and not
covered in the definition of Municipal Roads.
▪ (2) Location - The names of the barangay/sitio/purok where the existing roads
traverse
e.g. From Barangay A to Barangay A
▪ Surface type – Surface type is classified into two major types, paved and unpaved
▪ Length per type (in m) – the length in meters of the corresponding road
• Paved - Surface type of the existing roads it can be (4) Concrete or (5) Asphalt
• Unpaved - Surface type of the existing roads it can be (6) Gravel or (7) Earthfill
▪ (8) Average road condition – the condition of the existing road whether if it is in
good, fair, poor, or bad condition.
▪ (9) Total Length – Aggregate length of the corresponding road. Sum of columns 4,5,
6, and 7
▪ (10) Total Length – Aggregate length of the corresponding surface type

Illustration:
Municipal Roads
Four municipal roads are identified in Municipal A, namely, Juan Pedro Highway, Maria
Espina Road, Bulak Road and Balete Road. Juan Pedro Highway traverses from Barangay A
to Barangay B, with a total of 10,000 meters of concrete road. Maria Espina Road traverses

52
https://psa.gov.ph/content/road-classification

109
from Barangay B to Barangay D with a total distance of 5,000 meters of asphalt road.
Moreover, if the entire road is made of concrete, indicate the length of the entire road in the
column marked ‘concrete’ and leave the other columns for surface type blank.

Barangay Roads
Two barangay roads are identified in Municipal A, namely, Bulak Road and Balete Road.
Balete Road traverses only within the Barangay AB with a total of 8,000 meters of earthfill
road. Also, the Bulak road traverses only within the Barangay Mapayapa with a total of 2,000
meters of concrete, 500 meters of asphalt, and 500 meters of earthfill for a total length of
3,000 meters. As above, if the entire road is made of concrete, indicate the length of the entire
road in the column marked ‘concrete’ and leave the other columns for surface type blank.

Form 3. Inventory of Major Sources of Water by Water System Level (as of 2017)
Definition of Terms
▪ Level I water supply
- A protected well or a developed spring with an outlet but without a distribution
system, generally adaptable for rural areas where the houses are thinly scattered
- Point source
▪ Level II water supply
- Composed of a source, a reservoir, a piped distribution network with adequate
treatment facility, and communal faucets

110
 - Communal water system or standposts
▪ Level III water supply
- A water supply facility with a source, a reservoir, a piped distribution network
with adequate treatment facility and household taps
For Form3.A (Level 1 water system)
(1) Name of Barangay –
(2) Number – Number of shallow wells located in the corresponding barangay
(3) Household population serviced (No.) – Number of household population serviced by
the shallow well/s in the corresponding barangay
(4) Household population serviced (%) – percent share of the number of household
serviced by the corresponding shallow well to the total number of household
population serviced by shallow wells
(5) Number – Number of deep well/s located in the corresponding barangay
(6) Household population serviced (No.) – Number of household population serviced by
the deep well/s in the corresponding barangay
(7) Household population served (%) – percent share of the number of household served
by the deep well/s to the total number of household population in the corresponding
barangay
(8) Number – Number of improved spring/s located in the corresponding barangay
(9) Household population served (No.) – Number of household population serviced by
the improved spring/s in the corresponding barangay
(10) Household population served (%) – percent share of the number of household
serviced by the corresponding improved spring to the total number of household
population serviced by improve springs

Percent of household population served %= n/N

111
For Form 3.B (Level 2 water system)
(1) Location of water source – Area within the barangay where the water system is
located
(2) Type of Source – the type of water source, it can be from ground or spring
(4) Number of pumps - Number of pumps located in the corresponding area identified in
(1)
(5) Number of communal faucets – Number of communal faucets located in the
corresponding area identified in (1)
(6) Barangays Served – Names of barangays serviced by the corresponding area
identified in (1)
(7) Number of household population served – number of household population serviced
by the corresponding water source

For Form 3.C (Level 3 water system)

Type of Consumer - the type of consumer for local waterworks system are classified
into four categories namely, Domestic, Commercial, Industrial, and Others

(1) Name of Local Water System – area within the municipality where the local water
system is located

112
 (2) Number of Barangays serviced – Number of barang ays serviced by the corresponding
local water system
(3) Total Number of Barangays in the LGUs – the total number of Barangays consisting
the LGU
Number of Connections – the type of connection serviced by the corresponding local
water system
(4) Domestic – Number of domestic connections serviced by the corresponding local
water system
(5) Commercial – Number of commercial connections serviced by the corresponding
local water system
(6) Industrial – Number of industrial connections serviced by the corresponding local
water system
(7) Others – Number of connections serviced by the corresponding local water system
other than domestic, commercial and industrial
(8) Total Number of Connections – Aggregate number of connections serviced by the
corresponding local water system
Illustration:

Form 4. Inventory of Evacuation Centers (as of 2017)

Definition of Terms
(3) Municipality/Barangay – Name of municipality/barangay where the
corresponding evacuation center is located
(4) Geo ID – the GPS coordinates of the corresponding evacuation center
(5) Name of evacuation center - Name of evacuation center (Usually the name of
Barangay/Municipality where it is located)
(6) Infrastructure usage type – it can be
a. primary - it is constructed as evacuation center or
b. secondary - it is constructed as other infrastructure but used as evacuation when
in need.
(7) GIDA classification – the classification of the evacuation center determined using
the GIDA Classification. The GIDA (Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged
Areas) …. GIDA classification from the Department of Health can be one of the
following: Upland, Lowland, Landlocked, Island, or affected by Armed Conflict.
Note: For Forms 4.A and 4.B, if the municipality is not classified as GIDA, leave the column
of GIDA blank.

113
Illustration:

Form 5. Inventory of Health Facilities (as of 2017)

Definition of Terms
▪ BHS
- Barangay Health Center
- The Philippine Health Facilities Development Plan (PHFDP) identifies the
national target of one BHS per barangay
▪ RHU
- Rural Health Unit
- The Philippine Health Facilities Development Plan (PHFDP) identifies the
national target of one RHU per 20,000 population
Form 5A
(1) Total Number of RHUs – The total number of RHUs existing in the LGU as of
December 2017
(2) Target Number of RHUs – The ideal/target number of RHUs proposed by the LGU as
of December 2017
Existing facilities (as of December 2017)
(5) Name of Municipality – name of municipality served by the corresponding RHU
(6) Name of RHU – area within the municipality where the corresponding RHU is
located
(7) Capacity (number of beds) Actual – The actual number of beds existing in the
corresponding RHU as of December 2017
(8) Capacity (number of beds) Target – the target number of beds in the corresponding
RHU as proposed by the LGU as of December 2017
Existing number of personnel (as of December 2017)
(9) Doctors – number of doctors serving in the corresponding RHU as of December 2017
(10) Nurses – number of nurses serving in the corresponding RHU as of December 2017

114
 (11) Midwives – number of midwives serving in the corresponding RHU as of December
2017
(12) Sanitary inspectors – number of sanitary inspectors serving in the corresponding RHU
as of December 2017
(13) Others – Number of personnel not elsewhere classified serving in the corresponding
RHU as of December 2017
(14) Total – Aggregate number of existing number of personnel serving in the
corresponding RHU as of December 2017
Illustration
Form 5.A is the form for the inventory of Rural Health Units (RHUs). For this form, indicate
the total number of RHUs in the Municipality and the target number of RHUs. In this form,
indicate also the capacity of the facility such as the actual and target number of beds. Below
is an example of form 5.A

Form 5.B is the form for the inventory of Barangay Health Stations (BHS). For this form,
indicate the total number of BHS in the Municipality and the target number of BHS. In this
form, indicate also the capacity of the facility such as the actual and target number of beds.
Below is an example of form 5.B

115
Form 6. Asset Management (as of 2017)
Definition of Terms
▪ Annual Expenditure on Income Generating Enterprises
- The total spending of the Municipality on Income Generating Enterprises (e.g.
expenditures on LGU waterworks, toll roads) in a year
▪ Annual Income of Income Generating Enterprises
- The total earnings of the Municipality from Income Generating Enterprises (e.g.
income from LGU waterworks, toll roads) in a year
▪ Income Generating Enterprises
- represents impositions for the operations of economic exercise of its propriety
functions (BLGF 2012).
▪ Real Property Assets
- Includes land, building, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to
the real property owned by the Municipality (BLGF 2012).
- Assessed value of real property assets is the market value of the property
multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. Other
definition: LGC Section 199 – h (BLGF 2012).

116
The table for Form 6.C can be filled up if and only if the municipality has an existing loan/s.
in this table, indicate the name of the existing loans as well as the date and the source.
Indicate also the purpose of the loan and terms of the loan wherein how many years and the
interest rate.
Form 7. Selected Indicators on Gender and Development (as of 2017)
Definition of Terms
(1) Number of Private Day Care Center – Number of private facilities in the LGU that
provides care for infants/toddlers/preschoolers as of December 2017
(2) Number of public day care centers – Number of public facilities in the LGU that
provides care for infants/toddlers/preschoolers as of December 2017
Note: If there is no existing private/public day care centers indicate 0.

117
Annex F. Data Dictionary for Asset Management (Forms 6A, 6B and 6C)
Annex Table 18. Classification of Income Generating Enterprises
Form 6A
Classification LGU entries
Cold Storage Facilities Ice plant operation
Commercial retail and office space Lease/rental of facilities; pasalubong center,
stalls
Cultural/sports/recreational center Tourism, parks, auditorium, chairs and
tables, participation fees, entrance fees
Fish Landing/Ports Wharf, fishport operation, ferry boat, fish
pond
Health Services RHUs/ BHS, Health Centers, lying ins,
pharmacy, birthing facility, dental
laboratory, infirmary, clinic
Hospitals Hospitals
Hotels Room accommodation, resorts, hotel
Livestock Trading Sale of compost
Multiple Econ Enterprise Entries of 2 or more economic enterprise
Not specified - Income Generating Entries containing ‘A. Income Generating
Enterprise Enterprise’
Parking lots Parking fees, parking lots, open parking area
Post-Harvest Facilities Corn dryer, ricemill, dryer, farm tractor,
vermi cast, processing plants, eco
processing center
Power Utilities Local Electric facility
Public Cemeteries Public cemeteries
Public Market Public markets, bagsakan centers, shopping
center
Public Transport Terminal Parking and terminal fees, bus terminals
Sanitation Pay toilet, restroom service fees
School Buildings School buildings, college buildings
Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse
Solid Waste Disposal System Sanitary landfill, garbage fees
Telecommunications Cable, telephone, CATV, communication
facilities
Transport Equipment Heavy equipment, motor vehicles
Water Utilities Waterworks systems

Annex Table 19. Classification of Real Property Assets

Form 6B
Classification LGU entries
Agricultural and Forestry Equipment Agricultural and forestry equipment
Agricultural Machineries Includes demo farm, dairy processing, cacao
processing center, vermi shed, organic goat
house, rice mill, nursery plant, breeding
center

118
Aquacultural Structures Community fish lending center, fishpond,
mangrove, swamps
Books Books
Buildings Municipal buildings, barangay halls,
centers, SK Building, post office,
COMELEC, Commercial buildings, training
centers, evacuation center
CIP - Building and Other Structures CIP - Buildings and Other Structures
CIP - Infrastructure Assets CIP - Infrastructure Assets
Communication Networks Communication Networks
Communications Equipment Telecommunications, communication
equipment
Computer Software Computer Software
Construction and Heavy Equipment Heavy equipment for road construction
(grader, garbage compactor, tractor,
bulldozer, dump truck, garbage truck,
loader, payloader, hydraulic excavator,
backhoe, farm tractor, jack hammer)
Disaster Response and Rescue Equipment Ambulance, rescue vehicle
Disposal Facility Dumpsite, disposal facility, material
recovery facility, sanitary landfill, solid
waste disposal site
Flood Control Systems Flood Control Systems
Furniture and Fixtures Furniture and Fixtures
Hospitals and Health Centers Dental clinics, RHUs, Hospitals, Health
Centers, birthing centers, MHOs, Lying ins,
TB DOTS,
Hostels and Dormitories Accommodation, canteen, beach resort
Information and Communication ICT equipment
Technology Equipment
Land Lot, sites, agricultural land, residential land,
resettlement project, road lot, foreshoreland,
municipal or barangay name
Land Improvements Real Property assets
Lease Asset Improvements, Land Lease Asset Improvements, Land
Machineries and Equipment Machineries
Markets Public Markets, pasalubong centers, trading
post, market stalls, fruit stands, souvenir
shops
Medical Equipment Medical equipment, laboratory, x ray, etc.
Military, Police and Security Equipment Military, Police and Security Equipment
Motor Vehicles Motor vehicles, county bus, multicab, patrol
cars, motorized banca, motorpool
Office Equipment Office equipment, furniture and fixture,
cabinets, four bans, concrete chairs
Other Infrastructure Assets Auditorium, combination of buildings,
parking building, agricultural industrial
center, theater, evacuation center, sports

119
 complex, gymnasium, tennis court, motor
shops, cemeteries

Other Land Improvements Other Land Improvements

Other Machinery and Equipment Other Machinery and Equipment
Other Property, Plant and Equipment Other Property, Plant and Equipment
Other Structures Cemetery, cemetery fence, grandstand,
kiosk, shed, DSWD classroom, restroom,
watch tower, coast guard quarters, PNP
checkpoints, warehouse, motor shop,
packaging house, steel grill, safety locker
Other Transportation Equipment Other Transportation Equipment
Others Unclassified, blanks, no clue, religious
Parks, Plazas and Monuments Public plazas, Parks and monuments,
shrines,
Power Supply Systems Power supply system, electrification,
generator set
Printing Equipment Printing Equipment
Road Networks Road network, Road lot, junction, street,
barangay road
School Buildings School building, day care center
Seaport System Municipal wharf, water crafts
Service Concession Assets COOP bank, local water district, Econ
business enterprise
Sewer Systems Binusuan creek, swamp, sewer system
Slaughterhouses Slaughterhouse, abattoir
Sports Equipment Sports Equipment
Technical and Scientific Equipment Technical and Scientific Equipment
Transport Terminals Bus, jeep terminal, airports
Water Supply Systems Water supply system, artesian wells, water
reservoir, water shed
Work /Zoo Animals Work /Zoo Animals

Annex Table 20. Classification of Loans Availed by the LGUs

Form 6C
Classification LGU entries
Acquisition of various equipment Purchase of various equipment (includes LED
lights, CCTV camera, traffic lights, street signs,
equipment for hemodialysis, hospital
equipment, dental chair, autoclave, amusement
facility, surveying equipment, installation of
GIS, slaughterhouse equipment, sounds and
lighting, portable basketball goal and
scoreboard, sports equipment, farming
equipment, rice mill equipment)

120
Acquisition/purchase of heavy Purchase of heavy equipment for road
equipment construction (grader, tractor, bulldozer, dump
truck, garbage truck, loader, payloader,
hydraulic excavator, backhoe, farm tractor)
Computerization Project Upgrading of Office
Systems/Computerization/Information
System/Tax Information
Construction of Health Construction of hospital/RHU/BHS/birthing
Centers/RHUs/BHS center/lying in/health center/infirmary
Construction of School Building Construction of classrooms and school buildings
Construction/Improvement of Public Construction/improvement/rehabilitation of
Markets public markets
Construction/Improvement of Water Construction/Development/Rehabilitation/Expa
Supply System nsion of water Systems
Construction/Rehabilitation of FMR Construction of farm to market roads
Disaster Management Disaster management, disaster preparedness
Disposal Facility Construction of sanitary landfill, material
recovery facility, solid waste management with
landfill
Flood Control Repair River protection, drainage project, wave
breaker, erosion control, shoreline protection,
grouted riprap flood control
LGU Counterpart fund LGU counterpart fund for other loans such as
for LOGOFIND, ARP, ARCP, SFF, PRDP
Loan Refinancing Refinancing / restructuring of loans
Lot Acquisition Purchase of lot for sports complex, market,
cemetery, socialized housing, transport terminal,
grain facility center, evacuation center, schools
Others Seed capital, lending for small scale enterprises,
consulting services, housing assistance, tourism
development, livelihood development,
reforestation, procurement of seedlings
Purchase of Motor Vehicles Purchase of passenger vessel, motorbikes,
service vehicles, firetrucks, bus, school bus,
meat van, multicab
Various construction works Multi-purpose buildings, commercial buildings,
infrastructure projects, river protection,
slaughterhouse, cemetery, barangay roads,
covered courts, boundary arcs, gymnasium,
sports complex, transport terminals, evacuation
center

121
Annex G.
COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR COMPONENT 3 OF THE
CONDUCT OF BASELINE STUDY ON POLICY GOVERNANCE GAPS FOR THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FUND ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES
(LGSF-AM)

LINE ITEM COMMENTS

Title of
Study

CONDUCT OF BASELINE STUDY ON The word “Program” should be added to THE

POLICY GOVERNANCE GAPS FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FUND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FUND ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPAMTIES (LGSF-
ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES (LGSF- AM). LGSF-AM is a Program, there being three
AM) (3) sectoral sub-projects being implemented
under the Program. (Ref. : DILG MC No. 2018-
61)

Page 6 (Section 1. Introduction)

Page 6 (Paragraph 1 )
(1) Despite more than two decades of We suggest to use the word " Local
Philippine Government Units
decentralization, Philippine Local Government (LGUs)"
(LGUs)…
(2) The LGSF-AM, implemented by the "Department of the Interior and Local
Department of Interior and Local Government" is the more accurate word.
Government (DILG )...

Page 6 (Paragraph 2)
The LGSF-AM Program menu covers
eight (8) project types. There is a need to
indicate the rationality for focusing only
(3) … To do so, this study will scope, with the four (4) infrastructure facilities in
review and systematically analyze the assessment.
existing LGU performance indicator The menu of projects under the program are as
systems with focus on the following folIows:
key infrastructure areas: (i) Local 1. Local Access Roads
Roads, (ii) Potable Water systems, (iii) 2. Local Bridges
Evacuation Centers , and (iv) Rural 3. Provision of Potable Water Supply
Health Units (RHUs)/ Barangay Health 4. Sanitory Toilets and Health Facilities
Stations (BHS) 5. Small water Impounding Project/s (SW1Ps)
6. Evacuation Centers
7. DRR Rescue Equipment
8. Rainwater Catchment Facility
9. Municipal Drug Rehabilitation Centers

122
 Page 6 (Paragraph 3)
(4) ....commitment such as the United Nations’ The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is
SDG ... a global commitment by all UN Members
nations to end poverty, protect the planet and
ensure that all people enjoy peace and
prosperity. Thus, we suggest to eliminate the
word "United Nation’s” and simply replace it
with "Sustainable Development Goals".
We would like to correct the fallacy that the
DILG LGSF-AM PMO is the SLGP PMO.

The LGSF-AM PMO and the SLGP PMO are

two (2) distinct entities and Offices,
(5) ... Consequently, the PIDS team, with the established to perform different functions and
help of the DILG LGSF-AM Project tasks.
Management Office (PMO) also called the
gathered data directly from the LGUs. The LGSF-PMO is lodged under the Office of
Project Development Services (OPDS) and is
responsible for the administration of project
implementation of all projects funder under the
AM Program. On the other hand the SLGP
PMO is tasked with ensuring the functionality
of the local development councils (LDCs). It Is
not Involved in the management and
supervision of sub-project implementation by
the LGUs.

Page 6 (Paragraph 4)
(6) ... Component 1 laid the groundwork to Were the DBM Public Financial Management
identify gaps in policy by examining (PFM) Assessment Tool (PFMAT) and Public
current public financial management Financial Management Improvement Plan
(PFM) instruments... (PFMIP) among those considered in the study.
(7) ...tools such as the LDC functionality and We believe the appropriate term is "LGU fund
LGU utilization rates. utilization rate".
Page 7 (Paragraph 2)
(8) ....Municipalities had fair utilization rates, There is need to indicate and specify the basis
spending only 73% of the mandated in getting the 73% figure, and statistical details
minimum of 20% of their Internal and explanation in arriving with the figure.
Revenue Allotment (IRA) for development
projects or the Local Development Fund in
2016.
Page 7 (Last Paragraph)
There is need to specify the data is crucial to
(9) ...However, challenges in data availability estimating the infrastructure gaps. The scope
and in estimating infrastructure gaps and level of the data collection should also be
caused a revision in the coverage... indicated.
Page 8 (Paragraph 2)

123
 There is need for further clarification on the
data that the study considered and how they
were obtained and the analogy used that
(10) The logical next step would be to resulted with the findings therein stated.
validate these findings by conducting a We believe that there are data available at the
survey… local and national government offices.
Similarly, there are published studies or
documentaries that contain data and can also
be used as references.
Page 8 (Section 2. Estimation of Policy (Infrastructure Gaps)
Page 8 (2.1 Definition of Infrastructure Gaps)
There are national and international standards
that researchers utilized in coming up with
(11) To estimate the infrastructure gaps specific findings under the different
in these key areas, the initial intention was fields/sectors of study. We opine that master
to identify the ideal number or standard of plans and road maps are not the appropriate
quality of local infrastructure within a documents for securing data on local
municipality and compare the same with infrastructure standard as stated in the study.
the existing ... We suggest that further research be done as
various government offices and international
organizations do have standards that they used
in establishing performances of specific
indicators.
Page 8 (Paragraph 1 under Local Roads)

(12) The LRNDP will be used for the OPDS thru CMGP PMO is currently building
Conditional Matching Grant to Provinces up the database of all local roads under the
(CNGP) under the LGSF, which aims to Road and Bridges Information System (RBIS).
address underinvestment in local roads and City roads inventory are in the process of
improve national-local roads connectivity validation by the LGUs unlike municipal and
by building the capacity of provincial barangay roads are being inventoried and
LGUs... mapped by PLGUs as part of the CNGP
Reform Target in 2019.
Page 9 (last paragraph under Local Roads)
We would like to clarify on the statement of
the lack of available data on local roads.

The LRNDP data is available, and the OPDS

has an inventory of provincial, city and
municipal roads in the country. OPDS's Road
(13) Combined with the lack of readily and Bridges Inventory System (RBIS) contains
available administrative data on the comprehensive and up-to-date road and bridge
length of local roads, as well as the information data. Likewise there is a road
absence of a road network master plan network map. As a matter of fact, at the
within national government agencies, provincial level, Local Road Network
another alternative is to define the Development Plans have been prepared by
infrastructure... PLGUs in 2018 using their Provincial Road
Inventory and maps.

124
 In the second semester of 2019, the LRNDP
will be updated with the resiliency lens and
incorporation of all local roads within the
province. A 100% paved local roads requires
huge investment, hence, the LRNDP uses a
prioritization process that identifies CORE
roads as priority in the investment program of
the LGU.

(14) There is also the need to further clarify on the

term "ideal" (100°/a paved municipal roads) as
basis for estimating infrastructure gaps under
this sector. May we point out that new roads
are continuously being opened every year.
Thus, the ideal mark of "100% paved road" as
an indicator is not realistic or appropriate
basis. We suggest to consider the attribute
"road condition" in Its place. Be clarified that
not all unpaved roads should be paved. The
objective should be to pave all municipal and
barangay roads that are identified to be
strategic in terms of providing access to
communities without access (increase
accessibility / road network connectivity) and
are identified to be economic drivers of the
LGU (increase mobility), to boost economic
activities in the locality, which may help in
addressing the low local source effort of LGUs
as mentioned in page 7, second paragraph.
Further, paved roads that are in poor to bad
condition also need fiscal space for their
rehabilitation, same case for unpaved roads
with poor to bad condition. Earmarking
maintenance budget for good to fair roads,
whether paved or unpaved should also be
considered.

We suggest conduct of a more

comprehensive research and to consider all
possible data sources, to ensure realistic
results and findings.
Page 9 (1st Paragraph)

(15) Potable Water Systems Change the title from Potable Water
Systems to Potable Water Supply, which is
the official eligible project.

125
 Page 9 (Paragraph 1 under Potable Water Systems)
(16) The UNDP SDG No. 6 is a To remove the word UNDP hence SDG
commitment to " Ensure availability and No. 6 is a global commitment
sustainable...” The issues In the water supply contained In the
Philippine Water and sanitation sector are both
(17) The Philippine Water Sector Supply Roadmap (2010) and the Philippine
Supply Roadmap (2010) highlighted the Sanitation Roadmap, which is currently now
following issues in water and sanitation... being integrated as one Roadmap, the
Philippine Water Supply and Sanitation
Master Plan (2018) spearheaded by NEDA.
Page 9 (Paragraph 2 under Potable Water Systems)
The SAGANA AT MGTAS NA TUBIG
(18) ... the SALINTUBIG program (SALINTUBIG) Program is implemented and
through the National Anti- Poverty managed by the Department of the Interior and
Commission (NAPC), and (ii) funding for Local Government through the OPDS. The
potable water systems... funding support Is through the Local
Government Support Fund (LGSF).

The statement should be restated as

"SALINTUBIG is a convergence program
(19) The SALINTUBIG program is a with the following agencies: NAPC, DOH,
convergence program between NAPC LWUA and DILG where the DILG is the
and the DSWD. Lead Executing Agency of the Program."

(20) The DILG WSS PMO also We suggest the following revision to the
provides funding for eligible statement: ”LGUs who are compliant to the
municipalities that satisfy the criteria of requirements of the Seal of Good Financial
the Seal of Good Financial Housekeeping Housekeeping (SGFH), PFM, and LDC... are
(SGFH), PFM, and LDC... eligible to access the funds under the
SALINTUBIG Program and LGSF-AM for
their water supply projects.”

126
 Page 10 (Paragraph 1)

(21) ....there is no integrated database We suggest the following revision to the

of information on the infrastructure gap statement: "There is a need to establish an
of potable water systems at municipal integrated database of all potable water systems
level... in the country.” This information gap is not
limited to the municipal level only.

It mentioned on the infrastructure gaps in the

(22) ... The gold standards would be to water supply. The SALINTUBIG was designed
have 100% of households with access to to address those waterless municipalities that
safe water supply with the primary focus has below 50% water access. This was in line
on the NAPC-defined waterless with the targets in the MDG where, “halving the
municipalities. However, recognizing population without access to water supply”.
that municipalities are different levels of Since there is now a new target under the
access to water and to be able to cater to Sustainable Development Goal No. 6 where by
all municipalities, the aim of this baseline end of 2030, 100% should have access to water
study would be to estimate the supply.
infrastructure...
What is the basis of the consultant to come
up with the 50% and/or 75% infrastructure
requirement in attaining three level of
access?

Point of clarification, there are 3 PMO

managing the LGSF- AM Program, WSSPMO
for Water Supply & Sanitation, DROII for
Evacuation and Other DRR related projects
and LAR-PMO for Local Roads and Bridges.
Which DILG-PMO is the Study referring to?

General Comment: The Study mainly focuses

on the SALINTUBIG Program addressing
access to water in the waterless communities
when in fact in the study mentioned of the 4
core projects under the LGSF-AM Program.
Need to be clarified on this.
Page 10 (Paragraph 2 under Evacuation Centers)
(23) Municipal-level data from the
DILG-Central Office Disaster
Information Coordinating Center Source of data of the existing evacuation center
(CODIX) will be used to determine the should also consider the list under DSWD and
existing number of evacuation centers. the LGU 201 of the DILG.
The infrastructure gap will then be
estimated by tagging LGUs in disaster-
prone areas…

127
 Page 10 (Paragraph 1 under Rural Health Units)
(24) The Philippine Health Facilities
Development Plan (PHFDP) 2017-2022
of the Department of Health (DOH) RHUs and BHS are not included in the
serves as a roadmap for planning and LGSF-AM Menu which the DILG is
programming government investments currently implementing and managing the
in health facilities. The PHFDP aims to said Program.
promote rational allocation of
government investments and ensure
equitable access to health facilities.
2.2 Methodology for Estimation of Infrastructure and Fiscal Gaps (Page 11)
Page 11 (Paragraph 1 under Challenges in the estimation methodology)
We would like to clarify that the
SALINTUBIG is being
administered/managed by DILG not NAPC.

(25) ...Similarly, no integrated database

There are on-going initiatives being
of information on the infrastructure gap undertaken by the different sector agencies
for potable water system at the municipal like the Listahang Tubig currently being
level was available... managed by NWRB, as basis for
determining water access. Similarly, DILG,
as part of the Capacity Development
interventions under the LGSF-AM Water, is
currently providing Technical Assistance to
LGUs in the preparation of their Municipal
Water Supply, Sewerage and Sanitation
Sector Plans (MW4SPs) to help LGUs in
deterring current access to water supply and
sanitation as well as determining investment
gaps in the sector.
Page 11 (Paragraph 1 under Infrastructure Inventory from the LGUs)

Clarification on non-availability of
administrative data on local roads and no
(26) An advisory to DILG regional plan to integrate the data. There is an
offices was sent by the then DILG existing data for local roads, specifically
Undersecretary for Local Government municipal and barangay roads, lodged at the
Austere Panadero requesting LGUs to DILG-OPDS AM-PMO. Such data (excel
provide data to PIDS on their current spreadsheet-based) was mentioned to exist
inventory... during PIDS interview with the said office.
It was also mentioned that these data is
currently being updated, incorporating GIS-
based technology.

128
 Page 13

The 62. 8% submission rate for local roads

is lesser than the submission rate of the road
(27) Table 1. LGU Submission Rates inventory in excel spreadsheet lodged at the
for LGSF-AM Infrastructure Data DILG-OPDS AM-PMO which registered
Inventory, as of November 26, 2018, by 73.12% (1,004 NLGUs out of 1,373) for
Region; Form 2 municipal roads and 19.30% (3,833
Barangays out of 36,458) for barangay
roads. PIDs could have capitalized on the
existing excel spreadsheet-based data and let
the LGUs update them during field data
gathering conducted by the PIDS, and
focused their efforts on the MLGUs without
submission at all.
Infrastructure and Fiscal Gaps (Page 13)
Page 13 (Paragraph 1 under 3. 1 Local Roads)

Correction: Office of Project Development

(28) The infrastructure gap was Services
estimated by computing the total length of The consultant should indicate what type of road
unpaved roads (i.e., gravel and earth fill) (i.e. core roads, farms to market roads, tourism
reported while the fiscal gap was computed roads, etc.) must be paved road because not all
by multiplying the length of unpaved roads unpaved roads are advised to change the state.
per municipality to the cost of concerning The need to pave roads depend on the
local roads. functionality and conditions of existing road
According to the DILG Office of the Project network. There is need to consider additional
Development Services (OPDS), a rough estimate factors in determining the rationality that all
of cost... roads need to be paved.

LGSF-AM funds rehabilitation/repair of

existing roads and construction of new roads.
Page 14 (Paragraph 1 under 3.2 Potable Water Systems)
We suggest to change "Potable Water Systems"
(29) 3.2 Potable Water Systems to "Potable Water Supply", which is the eligible
project under the LGSF-AM Program menu.

The discussion under this paragraph should

(30) focus on the AM Water which is the focus area
of this study.
SALINTUBIG Program basically addresses the
lack of access in the 455 waterless
municipalities, 1,353 waterless barangays and
resettlement sites based on the targets of the
program. LGSF-AM water supply projects was
based on the result of the LDC deliberation and
reflected in their LDIPs based on LGUs priority.

129
 Targets in the water supply is now geared
towards the achievement of the PDP, 95% by
end of 2022 and 100% by end of 2020 (SDG).

Page 15

(30) Table 3. Definition of Water Under the heading, Table 3. Definition of Water
Systems Systems, it is suggested to change it into Level
of Service.

The basis in getting the 65% of the 1,373

(31) For Level 1, of the 65% of the municipalities must be discussed further in this
1,373 municipalities that submitted, part.
20.9% (16.3% using the PSA CPH data)
of households are served (Table 4). (Last
paragraph, first sentence)
Page 16-17

(32) (Table 4, 5 and 6. Inventory of Table 4, Table 5 and 6, Inventory of Major

Major Sources of Water Systems) Sources by Water Systems, it should be changed
into: Inventory by Level of Service (Level 1,
Level 2 and Level 3).
Page 16

There is need to improve the information/data

(33) Table 4. Inventory of Major presented in the table. It is also suggested that an
Sources of Water System: Level 1 by explanation be provided indicating the
Region methodologies used in the collection and
conduct of the survey and analytics employed to
come up with the results.
Page 17 (Table 6. Inventory of Major Sources of Water Systems: Level 3 by Region)
Under Table 6, Level 3, Commercial and
(34) Level 3 Type Industrial use should not be included to avoid
double counting. The count for water access
should limit to Domestic use only.
Page 18 (Paragraph 1 under 3.3 Evacuation Centers)
The study should not only focus on the GIDA,
(35) In the absence of a national but also highly vulnerable areas (e.g. eastern
standard for the ideal number of seaboard, major river basin)
evacuation centers per LGU,
barangay/municipalities classified as In the estimation of infrastructure gap for
GIDA due to physical factors will be evacuation centers, the population that are highly
used as proxy to identify priority vulnerable to disasters should be used as data for
disaster. The municipal-level data from estimation of the ideal requirement as compared
the OILG-CODIX was used to to the capacity of the existing evacuation center.
determine...

130
 Page 20 (Table 8. Inventory and Costing of Evacuation Centers by Region)
(36) The study assumed that 1 evacuation center is
required for every municipality, which may not
be true to actual need.
Page 20-21 (3.4 Health Facilities)
(37) RHUs are not among the eligible projects in the
LGSF-AM Menu.
Page 22 (Paragraph 3.5 Summary of the Results (page 22)
(38) The PIDS Consultants may want to coordinate
with NEDA Infrastructure Staff to get a copy of
the Sanitation Master Plan, which may be useful
in establishing the gaps in the water sector.

131
Annex H.
PIDS STUDY TEAM RESPONSE TO THE DILG COMMENTS ON THE
PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR COMPONENT 3 OF THE CONDUCT OF BASELINE
STUDY ON POLICY GOVERNANCE GAPS FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SUPPORT FUND ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES (LGSF-AM)
DILG COMMENTS (COMMENT PIDS STUDY TEAM RESPONSE
NUMBER)
Revisions on the use of words and grammar
For comments # 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, The following suggestions regarding the revisions of
20, 21, 25, 29, 31, 33 the wordings used in the write-up and some other
recommendations were considered and were well
noted. Necessary revisions were undertaken in
accordance to the comments if deemed necessary.

LGSF-AM general write-up

Comments # 3, 24 and 38 The DILG referred to the DBM Circular no. 2018-05
to decide infrastructure areas to be included in the
study.

Comment # 6 Not included because the indicators in current study

are similar to and have the same source as those used
in the PFMAT/PFMIP.

Comments # 8, 9, and 32 The discussions concerning these comments are

included in previous reports and also discussed in
other parts of this current report.

Comment # 10 The data and methodology are discussed in detail in

the Components 1 and 2 reports and will be so in the
highlights which is perhaps why there is query
regarding these things. All of the data and cited
results are from government sources and questioning
the methodologies would be more appropriately
addressed to the sources of the information such as
the COA, BLGF and DILG-BLGS. This study just
combined and consolidated these results.

This study did a review of literature and

comprehensive interviews for the NGAs/GOCCs
that might have the needed data (for the key
infrastructure areas) though none such as extensive
for the baseline study was available in the first half
of 2018 when the study was being conducted.
Delaying or waiting for the promise of data that
might be available in the latter part of 2018/first
quarter of 2019 would have caused considerable
delay in the project.

132
 At the same time, the best source of data is the local
government unit themselves. This would not only
provide information on estimating the fiscal gaps but
would also provide insights on the asset
management practices of these municipalities.

Comment # 11 The comment on master plans and road maps not

being the appropriate document for securing data
and standards is moot since we were not able to find
such to use as source of data.

The objective of this part of the baseline study is to,

based on the LGU submissions, compute the fiscal
gap for these key infrastructure areas under certain
caveats that are identified in specific discussions.
With regard to the comment on government office
and international standards, and as in the case of
data, we made it a point to use the costing standards
developed by the DILG-OPDS in the case of roads
and evacuation centers as well as the DOH HFEP
costing estimates.

Comment # 12 We acknowledged this effort but could not afford an

almost 2-year delay in the project. At the same time,
there were a couple of email exchanges with the
OPDS in 2018 that indicated that the database was
not yet ready for sharing.

From a policy-making perspective, the good thing

about going directly to the municipal government for
data is that it reveals asset management practices of
municipalities. This has huge implications on the
ability of local governments to plan and direct
investments in needed infrastructure. In addition,
this could provide a comparison for the vetted
database to be finalized in 2019.

Roads
Comment # 13 We already acknowledged LRNDP efforts under the
CMGP program but have repeatedly said that in
2018, when this 1st part of this Baseline Study was
being conducted, a MUNICIPAL ROAD database
was not available. As commented by the DILG,
local roads within the province will be available only
in the second semester of 2019.

Comments # 14 and 28 Noted, this will be added as a caveat. Furthermore,

we just considered municipal roads as recorded by

133
 the LGU. In all of these we take the information
given to us by the LGU as correct.

Comments # 26 and 27 The PIDS study team asked for this data in the first
half of 2018.
Water Supply
Comment # 17 Updating efforts by NEDA in 2018 was already
included in footnote 4. But again, such information
was not yet available at the time of data gathering
for this report.

Comment # 22 We interviewed WSSPMO as the one in charge of

water at the DILG.

Comment # 30 Please refer to page 16, paragraph 3 of Component

3.1 report

Comment # 34 The table has been replaced, and the methodology

of our estimations has been discussed in the text

Comment # 35 No longer applicable because the table has been

removed.

Comment # 39 We already did in the first half of 2018.

Evacuation Centers
Comment # 23 Since we got data directly from the municipal
government so this was perhaps where the data came
from.

Comment # 36 The team used GIDA as a clear-cut government

defined basis for the estimation. It has been
repeatedly said that the estimates here are
conservative.

Comment # 37 Which is why many caveats have been repeatedly

stated that the estimates are conservative and based
on incomplete submissions as well as the possible
implications for asset management/reporting of the
LGUs.

134